PAIRED PREFERENCE TESTS USING PLACEBO PAIRS AND DIFFERENT RESPONSE OPTIONS FOR CHIPS, ORANGE JUICES AND COOKIES

Preference tests were performed for varieties of potato chips, orange juices and chocolate chip cookies using three response protocols: the traditional paired preference test with the “no preference” option, a 9-point hedonic scale and a 6-point hybrid hedonic/purchase intent scale. The different stimuli to be assessed were presented in pairs, but putatively identical stimuli were also presented as a “placebo” pair. Performance on the placebo pair with identical stimuli provided a measure of the hidden demand characteristics of the test protocol. The presentation of the different pairs provided a measure of preference accompanied by such hidden demand effects. Comparison between the two allowed a better measure of preference per se. The order of presentation of the identical and different pairs did show occasional slight evidence of contrast effects. For the placebo “identical” pairs, a majority of consumers reported false preferences. Liking questions with the hedonic and hybrid scales elicited fewer false preferences than preference questions with the paired preference protocol. Yet, the effects tended to be slight. The 6-point hedonic/purchase intent scale exhibited the fewest false preferences in the placebo condition, and this was because of its fewer categories rather than any cognitive strategy change elicited by its different labels. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS A problem with paired preference testing is the tendency of consumers to give false preferences, which produces the seriously misleadingoverestimation of the proportion of consumers who have preferences for one or other of the products being assessed. The placebo condition is an important control for alleviating this problem. The statistical analysis can be improved by finding a protocol that maximizes the proportion of “no preference” responses in the placebo condition. The key finding here is that using hedonic or purchase intent questions rather than preference questions may possibly provide a way of achieving this aim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[7]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  PAIRED PREFERENCE TESTS: d′ VALUES FROM MEXICAN CONSUMERS WITH VARIOUS RESPONSE OPTIONS , 2005 .

[8]  R. Morrison,et al.  EFFECT OF BONING BEEF CARCASSES PRIOR TO CHILLING ON MEAT TENDERNESS , 1975 .

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

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

[11]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  ‘Different-stimulus’ scaling errors; effects of scale length , 2007 .

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

[13]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  A comparison of category and line scales under various experimental protocols , 2004 .

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

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

[16]  B. Rousseau The β-strategy : An alternative and powerful cognitive strategy when performing sensory discrimination tests , 2001 .

[17]  Michael J. Hautus,et al.  Can the same-different test use a β-criterion as well as a τ-criterion? , 2007 .

[18]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  INDUCTION OF SCALING ERRORS , 2004 .

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

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

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

[22]  L. Thurstone A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

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