Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJirangrat, Wen_US
dc.contributor.authorOrdonez, Ken_US
dc.contributor.authorWang, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorCorredor, JAHen_US
dc.contributor.authorSriwattana, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorPrinyawiwatkul, Wen_US
dc.coverage.spatialLas Vegas, United States of Americaen_US
dc.date.available2012-06-26en_US
dc.date.issued2012-06-26en_US
dc.identifierhttp://www.ift.org/Meetings-and-Events/Past-Meeting-Resources/Technical%20Abstract%20Search%20Details.aspx?id=54504en_US
dc.identifier.citation2012en_US
dc.description.abstractThe negative side of the 9-point hedonic scale is not fully understood. When used to evaluate negative attributes (for example, bitterness), this hedonic scale may yield poor results. We evaluated hedonic ratings as affected by scale types [9-point-categorical (CAT), line (LIN) and labeled-affective-magnitude (LAM)] and polarity (uni- compared to bi-polar), and attributes (positive compared to negative). We compared sensitivity and confounding effects [contrast+panelist effects=CP] of positive- and negative-attribute ratings among 3 scales, and compared effects of uni- (negative-side only) compared to bi-polar scales on negative-attribute ratings. Grape juices (classified as A=Liked, B=Moderate, C=Disliked) arranged in 4 sets (AB-AC, BA-CA, AC-AB, or CA-BA; the left sample served first) were evaluated (N=60 consumers) for overall-liking using 3 scales. Low-sodium chicken broths (classified as M=Mild- and S=Strong-bitterness) arranged in 2 sets (MS or SM) were evaluated (N=216) for bitterness using 3 scales. Balanced/randomized presentation was practiced. With bi-polar scales: 1) consumers better differentiated negative-attribute ratings; 2) CP was higher for positive- than negative-attribute ratings [5.47 compared to 0.11, 12.41 compared to 0.09, and 82.66 compared to 0.23, respectively, for CAT, LIN, and LAM; 3) LAM was more affected by CP. With negative-attribute ratings, CP of LAM was higher for uni- than for bi-polar scales. CP was more pronounced for liked- than disliked-samples, resulting in higher score fluctuation. CAT was more affected by contrast effects whereas LIN and LAM were more affected by panelist effects. Polarity effects were obvious for the mild-bitterness sample, showing significantly different results between uni- compared to bi-polar scales [3.91 compared to 6.39, 4.28 compared to 6.49, and 41.05 compared to 63.24, respectively, for CAT, LIN, and LAM]; all ratings from bi-polar scales were not on the negative-side. For the strong-bitterness sample, uni- and bi-polar ratings were on the negative side, with LAM having more consistent pattern. This study revealed some drawbacks of hedonic scales induced by scale polarity/types and attributes.en_US
dc.sourceIFT annual meetingen_US
dc.titleVariations in heading ratings characterized by scale polarity scale types and attributesen_US
dc.typePoster
dc.date.finish-date2012-06-28en_US
dc.date.start-date2012-06-25en_US
dc.identifier.elements-id232451
pubs.organisational-group/Massey University
pubs.organisational-group/Massey University/College of Sciences
dc.identifier.harvestedMassey_Dark
pubs.notesNot knownen_US


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record