PAIRED PREFERENCE TESTS: USE OF PLACEBO STIMULI WITH LIKING AND BUYING PREFERENCES

Besides responses to the target pair of stimuli being tested in a paired preference test, comparison with responses to a putatively identical “placebo” pair can be used for a test of significance, to determine whether the response frequencies elicited by the target pair are different from those that would be obtained had there been no preference. Yet, preference responses elicited by the placebo pair can also be used as a way of identifying consumers who bias avoided the “No preference” option and thus generated biased response. Such consumers can then be eliminated. Yet, using this approach greatly reduces the sample size. However, using some response options associated with purchase intent rather than liking can reduce the number of consumers that are eliminated. This was confirmed for potato chip, milk and orange juice stimuli. From psychology, the concepts of operational preference and types of response bias appropriate to preference testing were introduced and discussed. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS The measurement of preference and acceptance of foods is important for product development and decisions regarding the launching of new products into the market. The paired preference test has some issues associated with its design and analysis, and these must be considered if preference tests are to give valid and reliable data. One of the problems is that the majority of consumers tend to report preferences even when the stimuli are putatively identical; here, a “No preference” response would seem more appropriate. Such consumers would seem to be reacting to the extraneous conditions of the preference test rather than the sensory characteristics of the putatively identical stimuli under consideration. Such responses could be termed “biased response.” Yet, the consumers' responses to the target (different) stimuli under consideration could be trusted more if the consumers had shown that they did not have this tendency to give “biased responses.” They would show this by selecting a “No preference” response to putatively identical stimuli. This paper shows that the tendency to give “biased response” can be reduced by manipulating the wording of the preference question. This does not furnish a complete solution to the problem but it indicates one possible step toward solution and adds valuable information to the body of knowledge that is being built with a view avoiding the difficulties associated with preference testing.

[1]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Comparison of d′ values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power , 1998 .

[2]  Hye-Seong Lee,et al.  Sensory Difference Testing , 2004 .

[3]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Discrimination testing: a few ideas, old and new , 2003 .

[4]  H. S. Lee Sensory Difference Testing: Thurstonian Models , 2004 .

[5]  A. E. Maxwell Comparing the Classification of Subjects by Two Independent Judges , 1970, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[6]  A. Bowker,et al.  A test for symmetry in contingency tables. , 1948, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[7]  Daniel M. Ennis,et al.  THE POWER OF SENSORY DISCRIMINATION METHODS , 1993 .

[8]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Be your own placebo: A double paired preference test approach for establishing expected frequencies , 2007 .

[9]  Kwang-Ok Kim,et al.  THURSTONIAN MODELS AND VARIANCE I: EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF COGNITIVE STRATEGIES FOR DIFFERENCE TESTS AND EFFECTS OF PERCEPTUAL VARIANCE , 2006 .

[10]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  PAIRED PREFERENCE PLACEBO TESTS WITH IDENTICAL STIMULI : DOES INTRODUCING GRADED PREFERENCE RESPONSES AFFECT THE FREQUENCY OF NO PREFERENCE RESPONSES? , 2008 .

[11]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  HOW WELL DOES THE 9‐POINT HEDONIC SCALE PREDICT PURCHASE FREQUENCY? , 2005 .

[12]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  PAIRED PREFERENCE TESTS: “50:50” AND “ALTERNATING” NO PREFERENCES , 2008 .

[13]  A. Stuart A TEST FOR HOMOGENEITY OF THE MARGINAL DISTRIBUTIONS IN A TWO-WAY CLASSIFICATION , 1955 .

[14]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  The paired preference test and the 'No Preference' option : Was odesky correct? , 2005 .

[15]  D. Ennis,et al.  Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Effectiveness of Sensory Difference Tests: Sequential Sensitivity Analysis for Liquid Food Stimuli , 1986 .

[17]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Mustard discrimination by same–different and triangle tests: aspects of irritation, memory and τ criteria , 1999 .

[18]  J. Frijters,et al.  The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved , 1979 .

[19]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  A THEORETICAL NOTE ON DIFFERENCE TESTS: MODELS, PARADOXES AND COGNITIVE STRATEGIES , 1994 .

[20]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  A Comparison of Sensory Difference Testing Procedures: Sequential Sensitivity Analysis and Aspects of Taste Adaptation , 1985 .

[21]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  USE OF PURCHASE PREFERENCE OPTIONS TO INCREASE “NO PREFERENCE” FREQUENCIES IN PLACEBO PREFERENCE TESTS , 2009 .

[22]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing , 2007 .

[23]  Daniel M. Ennis,et al.  Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation , 1990 .

[24]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  SEQUENTIAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR SAME-DIFFERENT TESTS : SOME FURTHER INSIGHTS , 2008 .

[25]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  CONSUMERS REPORT PREFERENCES WHEN THEY SHOULD NOT: A CROSS‐CULTURAL STUDY , 2003 .

[26]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  SOURCES OF ERROR AND THE NO-PREFERENCE OPTION IN DAIRY PRODUCT TESTING , 2005 .

[27]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination , 2004, Perception & Psychophysics.

[28]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Tasting successive salt and water stimuli: the roles of adaptation, variability in physical signal strength, learning, supra- and subadapting signal detectability , 1987 .

[29]  K. Chapman,et al.  EXPECTATIONS AND STABILITY OF PREFERENCE CHOICE , 2006 .

[30]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  PAIRED PREFERENCE TESTS USING PLACEBO PAIRS AND DIFFERENT RESPONSE OPTIONS FOR CHIPS, ORANGE JUICES AND COOKIES , 2008 .

[31]  Edgar Chambers,et al.  MULTIPLE PREFERENCE TESTS CAN PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON CONSUMER PREFERENCES , 2006 .

[32]  Q. Mcnemar Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages , 1947, Psychometrika.