CONSUMERS REPORT PREFERENCES WHEN THEY SHOULD NOT: A CROSS‐CULTURAL STUDY

If a chi-squared analysis were to be performed to determine whether preferences were significant in a paired preference test, the appropriate expected frequencies in the analysis would represent those that would occur should the consumers have no preference. One way of determining these ‘no preference’frequencies, for a particular test situation, would be to note the preference responses obtained when the stimuli were putatively identical. Over 2000 consumers were given paired preference tests in which the stimuli were putatively identical. Response conditions and consumer groups were varied and the proportions of preference and no preference responses were noted. In a preliminary experiment, further research was seen to be justified when for putatively identical stimuli, judges did not exclusively express lack of preference; many expressed a preference for one or other of the stimuli. Further experiments were conducted using a written response condition and putatively identical potato chips (potato crisps) as stimuli. Using a single ‘no preference’option, variation in the placement of this option at either first, second or third place on the response sheet had no significant effect on the response frequencies. The proportion of ‘no preference’responses was approximately 30% in all cases. A previously reported 40-20-40 distribution was not always confirmed. The experiment was repeated with Korean consumers; these had fewer ‘no preference’responses. Deriving preferences from hedonic scales, rather than having judges respond to preference options, increased the proportion of ‘no preference’responses, with American judges still having more than Korean judges. Yet there are logical objections to extracting preference data from hedonic scales. Increasing the number of ‘no preference’options to two or three, had the effect of increasing the number of ‘no preference’responses up to as much as approximately 60%. Extending the results to Koreans, using two ‘no preference’options, it was seen that only the judges in an anonymous response condition had significantly fewer ‘no preference’responses than Americans. The use of these response frequencies as expected frequencies in chi squared analyses was illustrated, after adjustments for counterbalancing.

[1]  D. Ennis,et al.  THE BETA‐BINOMIAL MODEL: ACCOUNTING FOR INTER‐TRIAL VARIATION IN REPLICATED DIFFERENCE AND PREFERENCE TESTS , 1998 .

[2]  Stanford H. Odesky Handling the Neutral Vote in Paired Comparison Product Testing , 1967 .

[3]  William G. Hunter,et al.  Which Product Is Better , 1969 .

[4]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED 9‐POINT HEDONIC SCALES: A CROSS CULTURAL STUDY WITH AMERICAN, JAPANESE AND KOREAN CONSUMERS , 2003 .

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

[6]  Kwang-Ok Kim,et al.  Comparison in Use of the 9-Point Hedonic Scale between Americans, Chinese, Koreans, and Thai , 1998 .

[7]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  MODIFICATIONS TO SENSORY DIFFERENCE TEST PROTOCOLS: THE WARMED UP PAIRED COMPARISON, THE SINGLE STANDARD DUO‐TRIO AND THE A‐NOT A TEST MODIFIED FOR RESPONSE BIAS , 1990 .

[8]  P. V. Rao,et al.  Ties in Paired-Comparison Experiments: A Generalization of the Bradley-Terry Model , 1967 .

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

[10]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons , 1952 .

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

[12]  R. Dhar Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option , 1997 .

[13]  Noel Schwartz,et al.  SIMULTANEOUS VS. SUCCESSIVE PRESENTATION IN A PAIRED COMPARISON SITUATION , 1956 .

[14]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  UNDERSTANDING DISCRIMINATION TESTS: A USER-FRIENDLY TREATMENT OF RESPONSE BIAS, RATING AND RANKING R-INDEX TESTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SIGNAL DETECTION , 1992 .

[15]  Jian Bi,et al.  THE POWER OF SENSORY DISCRIMINATION METHODS USED IN REPLICATED DIFFERENCE AND PREFERENCE TESTS , 1999 .

[16]  John M. Ennis,et al.  Replicated difference and preference tests: how to account for inter-trial variation , 2000 .

[17]  N. T. Gridgeman Pair Comparison, with and without Ties , 1959 .

[18]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Who told you the triangle test was simple , 1995 .

[19]  D. Ennis,et al.  A THURSTONIAN VARIANT OF THE BETA‐BINOMIAL MODEL FOR REPLICATED DIFFERENCE TESTS , 1998 .