Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Acceptance Testing

  • Chapter
Sensory Evaluation of Food

Part of the book series: Food Science Text Series ((FSTS))

Abstract

An alternative to choice procedures for assessing the consumer appeal of foods is to use a rating scale for the degree of liking or disliking, otherwise known as acceptability scaling or acceptance testing. This chapter illustrates procedures for acceptability scaling, starting with the traditional 9-point hedonic scale in widespread use. Alternative types of acceptance scales are shown. The just-about-right (JAR) scale is illustrated and its statistical analyses are discussed.

About 1930, Dr. Beebe-Center, psychologist at Harvard, wrote a book in which he reported the results of investigations of the pleasantness/unpleasantness of dilute solutions of sucrose and sodium chloride. He called his measurements hedonics. I liked the word, which is both historically accurate and now well installed, and used it in the first official report on the new scale.

—David Peryam, “Reflections” (1989)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bahn, K. D. 1989. Cognitive and perceptually based judgments in children’s brand discriminations and preferences. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4, 183–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartoshuk, L. M., Snyder, D. J. and Duffy, V. B. 2006. Hedonic gLMS: Valid comparisons for food liking/disliking across obesity, age, sex and PROP status. Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting, Association for Chemoreception Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beausire, R. L. W., Norback, J. P. and Maurer, A. J. 1988. Development of an acceptability constraint for a linear programming model in food formulation. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3, 137–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, D. J. and Rayner, J. C. W. 2001. Application of the Stuart test to sensory evaluation data. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 353–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, L. L. 1979. Dimensions of preschool children’s food preferences. Journal of Nutrition Education, 11, 77–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birch, L. L., Birch, D., Marlin, D. W. and Kramer, L. 1982. Effects of instrumental consumption on children’s food preferences. Appetite, 3, 125–143.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, L. L., Zimmerman, S. I. and Hind, H. 1980. The influence of social-affective context on the formation of children’s food preferences. Child Development, 51, 865–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, G. 1982. A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In: H.-G. Geissler and P. Petzold (eds.), Psychophysical Judgment and the Process of Perception. VEB Deutscherverlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, pp. 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, D. A. 1994. Flavour quality as cognitive psychology: The applied science of mental mechanisms relating flavour descriptions to chemical and physical stimulation patterns. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, D. A. 1995. The cognitive basis of quality. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 201–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, J. A. and Boyd, R. 2002. Effect of health concern and consumption patterns on measures of sweetness by hedonic and just right scales. Journal of Sensory Studies, 18, 235–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byer, A. J. and Saletan, L. T. 1961. A new approach to flavor evaluation of beer. Wallerstein Laboratory Communications, 24, 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V. and Maller, O. 1982a. Acceptability of water, selected beverages and foods as a function of serving temperature. Journal of Food Science, 47, 1549–1552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V. and Maller, O. 1982b. Relationships between food preferences and food acceptance ratings. Journal of Food Science, 47, 1553–1557, 1561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V. and Schutz, H. G. 1996. Food appropriateness measures as and adjunct to consumer preference/acceptability evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 7, 239–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V. and Schutz, H. G. 2004. Research note. Numerical scale-point locations for constructing the LAM (Labeled affective magnitude) scale. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 341–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A., Lawless, H. T. and Schutz, H. G. 2008. Effects of extreme anchors and interior label spacing on labeled magnitude scales. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 323–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H. G., Lesher, L. L. and Merrill, E. 2005. Development and testing of a labeled magnitude scale of perceived satiety. Appetite, 44, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V., Winterhaler, C. and Schutz, H. G. 2003. Predicting the handle and comfort of military clothing fabrics from sensory and instrumental data: Development and application of new psychophysical methods. Textile Research Journal, 73, 221–237.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, A. W., Resurreccion, A. V. A. and Paguio, L. P. 1996. Age appropriate hedonic scales to measure food preferences of young children. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 141–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S.-J., and Vickers, A. 2007a. Long-term acceptability and choice of teas differing in sweetness. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 963–974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S.-J., and Vickers, A. 2007b. Influence of sweetness on the sensory-specific satiety and long-term acceptability of tea. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 256–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee, H. 1996. The successful use of adapted paired preference, rating and hedonic methods for the evaluation of acceptability of maize meal produced in Malawi. Abstract, 3rd Sensometrics Meeting, June 19–21, 1996, Nantes, France, pp. 35.1–35.3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordonnier, S. M. and Delwiche, J. F. 2008. An alternative method for assessing liking: Positional relative rating versus the 9-point hedonic scale. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 284–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deliza, R. and MacFie, H. J. H. 1996. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 103–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. A., Meiselman, H. L., Edwards, A. and Lesher, L. 2003. The influence of eating location on the acceptability of identically prepared foods. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 647–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Dine, A. N. and Olabi, A. 2009. Effect of reference foods in repeated acceptability tests: Testing familiar and novel foods using 2 acceptability scales. Journal of Food Science, 74, S97–S106.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Engen, T. 1974. Method and theory in the study of odor preferences. In: A. Turk, J. W. Johnson, Jr. and D. G. Moulton (eds.), Human Responses to Environmental Odors. Academic, New York, pp. 121–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engen, T. 1978. The origin of preferences in taste and smell. In: J. H. A. Kroeze (ed.), Preference Behaviour and Chemoreception. Information Retrieval, London, pp. 263–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engen, T., Lipsitt, L. P. and Peck, M. 1974. Ability of newborn infants to discriminate sapid substances. Developmental Psychology, 10, 741–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epler, S., Chambers, E. and Kemp, K. E. 1997. Hedonic scales are better predictors than just right scales of optimal sweetness in lemonade. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 191–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss, J. L. 1981. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Second Edition. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forde, C. G. and Delahunty, C. M. 2004. Understanding the role cross-modal sensory interactions play in food acceptability in younger and older consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 715–727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, C. 2009. Appendix G: Methods for determining whether JAR distributions are similar among products (Chi-square, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (VMH), Stuart-Maxwell, McNemar). In: L. Rothman and M. J. Parker (eds.), Just-About-Right Scales: Design, Usage, Benefits, and Risks. ASTM Manual MNL63, ASTM International, Conshohocken, PA, pp. 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gacula, M. C., Rutenbeck, S. K., Campbell, J. F., Giovanni, M. E., Gardze, C. A. and Washam, R. W. 1986. Some sources of bias in consumer testing. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 175–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garber, L. L., Hyatt, E. M. and Starr, R. G. 2003. Measuring consumer response to food products. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, C., and Mead, R. 1992 A statistical appraisal of the problem of sensory measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 205–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. G., Shaffer, G. S. and Gilmore, M. M. 1993. Derivation and evaluation of a semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties. Chemical Senses, 18, 683–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. L., Bratka, K. J., Drake, M. A. and Sanders, T. H. 2006. Effective of category and line scales to characterize consumer perception of fruity fermented flavors in peanuts. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 146–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenhoff, K. and MacFie, H. J. H. 1994. Preference mapping in practice. In: H. J. H. MacFie and D. M. H. Thomson (eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences. Blackie Academics, London, pp. 137–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest, S., Essick, G., Patel, A., Prajapati, R. and McGlone, F. 2007. Labeled magnitude scales for oral sensations of wetness, dryness, pleasantness and unpleasantness. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 342–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Head, M. K., Giesbrecht, F. G. and Johnson, G. N. 1977. Food acceptability research: Comparative utility of three types of data from school children. Journal of Food Science, 42, 246–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein, K. A., Jaeger, S. R., Carr, B. T. and Delahunty, C. M. 2008. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 651–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helgensen, H., Solheim, R. and Naes, T. 1997. Consumer preference mapping of dry fermented lamb sausages. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, S. V. and Lawless, H. T. 1999. A method of adjustment for preferred levels of capsaicin in liquid and solid food systems among panelists of two ethnic groups and comparison to hedonic scaling. Food Quality and Preference, 10, 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hottenstein, A. W., Taylor, R., and Carr, B. T. 2008. Preference segments: A deeper understanding of consumer acceptance or a serving order effect? Food Quality and Preference, 19, 711–718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough, G., Bratchell, N. and Wakeling, I. 1992. Consumer preference of Dulce de Leche among students in the United Kingdom. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jack, F. R., Piggott, J. R. and Paterson, A. 1994. Use and appropriateness in cheese choice, and an evaluation of attributes influencing appropriateness. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jellinek, J. S. 1975. The Use of Fragrance in Consumer Products. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. and Vickers, Z. 1987. Avoiding the centering bias or range effect when determining an optimum level of sweetness in lemonade. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2, 283–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. R. and Vickers, Z. 1988. A hedonic price index for chocolate chip cookies. In: D. M. H. Thomson (ed.), Food Acceptability. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 135–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. V., Peryam, D. R. and Thurstone, L. L. 1955. Development of a scale for measuring soldiers’ food preferences. Food Research, 20, 512–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahkonen, P., Tuorila, H. and Hyvonen, L. 1995. Dairy fact content and serving temperature as determinants of sensory and hedonic characteristics of cheese soup. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 127–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo, K., Knaapila, A., Kallela, M., Palotie, A., Wessman, M., Sammalisto, S., Peltonen, L., Tuorila, H. and Perola, M. 2007. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86, 55–63.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K.-O. and O’Mahony, M. 1998. A new approach to category scales of intensity I: Traditional versus rank-rating. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 241–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, S. A., Sigman-Grant, M. and Guinard, J.-X. 1994. Sensory testing with young children. Food Technology, 48(3), 92–94, 96–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. C., Meiselman, H. L., Hottenstein, A. W., Work, T. M. and Cronk, V. 2007. The effects of contextual variables on food acceptability: A confirmatory study. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koster, E. P., Couronne, T. Leon, F. Levy, C. and Marcelino, A. S. 2003. Repeatability in hedonic sensory measurement: A conceptual exploration. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, B. J. 1990. Evaluating rating scales for sensory testing with children. Food Technology, 44(11), 78–80, 82, 84, 86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagrange, V. and Norback, J. P. 1987. Product optimization and the acceptor set size. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2, 119–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahteenmaki, L. and Tuorila, H. 1997. Item by use appropriateness of drinks varying in sweetener and fat content. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T. 1977. The pleasantness of mixtures in taste and olfaction. Sensory Processes, 1, 227–237.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T. 1994. Contextual and measurement aspects of acceptability. Final Report #TCN 94178, U. S. Army Research Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T. 2010. Commentary on “Comparative performance of the nine-point hedonic hybrid and self-adjusting scales in generation of internal preference maps.” Food Quality and Preference, 21, 165–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T. and Malone, G. J. 1986. A comparison of scaling methods: Sensitivity, replicates and relative measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T., Hammer, L. D. and Corina, M. D. 1982–1983. Aversions to bitterness and accidental poisonings among preschool children. Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology, 19, 951–964.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T., Popper, R. and Kroll, B. 2010. Comparison of the labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the Traditional nine-point hedonic scale. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 4–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavanaka, N. and Kamen, J. 1994. Magnitude estimation of food acceptance. Journal of Food Science, 59, 1322–1324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattes, R. D. and Lawless, H. T. 1985. An adjustment error in optimization of taste intensity. Appetite, 6, 103–114.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McBride, R. 1990. The Bliss Point Factor. Macmillan, South Melbourne, NSW (Australia).

    Google Scholar 

  • McBride, R. L. 1982. Range bias in sensory evaluation. Journal of Food Technology, 17, 405–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. R. and Sawyer, F. M. 1981. Preference testing and sensory evaluation: Magnitude estimation vs. the 9-point hedonic scale. Journal of Food Science, 46, 182–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwan, J. 1996. Preference mapping for product optimization. In: Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 71–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, R. and Gay, C. 1995. Sequential design of sensory trials. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 271–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiselman, H. L. 1992. Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite, 19, 49–55.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V. and Carr, B. T. 1991. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Second Edition. CRC, Boca Raton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H. R. 1980. Psychometric evaluation of food preferences. Journal of Foodservice Systems, 1, 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H. R. 1986. New Directions for Product Testing and Sensory Analysis of Foods. Food and Nutrition, Westport, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H. R. and Krieger, B. 1995. The contribution of sensory liking to overall liking: An analysis of six food categories. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, M., Park, H., Park, J. Y. and Kim, K.-O. 2004. Comparison of the statistical analysis of hedonic data using analysis of variance and multiple comparisons versus and R-index analysis of the ranked data. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 519–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagliarini, E., Gabbiadini, N. and Ratti, S. 2005. Consumer testing with children on food combinations for school lunch. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 131–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagliarini, E., Ratti, S., Balzaretti, C. and Dragoni, I. 2003. Evaluation of a hedonic method for measuring the acceptability of school lunches by children. Italian Journal of Food Science, 15, 215–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pangborn, R. M. and Pecore, S. D. 1982. Taste perception of sodium chloride in relation to dietary intake of salt. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 35, 510–520.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. H., Korth, B. and Warren, C. B. 1986. Evaluation of three scaling methods for hedonics. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D. R. 1989. Reflections. In: Sensory Evaluation. Celebration of our Beginnings. ASTM, Committee E-18 on Sensory Evaluation of Materials and Products, Philadelphia, pp. 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D. R. and Girardot, N. F. 1952. Advanced taste test method. Food Engineering, 24, 58–61, 194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D. R. and Pilgrim, F. J. 1957. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology, September 1957, 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pokorny, J. and Davidek, J. 1986. Application of hedonic sensory profiles for the characterization of food quality. Die Nahrung, 8, 757–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, R. and Kroll, B. R. 2005. Just-about-right scales in consumer research. Chemo Sense, 7, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E. C. 1989. Bias in Quantifying Judgments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resurreccion, A. V. A. 1998. Consumer Sensory Testing for Product Development. Aspen, Gaithersburg, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohm, H. and Raaber, S. 1991. Hedonic spreadability optima of selected edible fats. Journal of Sensory Studies, 6, 81–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, L. and Parker, M. J. 2009. Just-About-Right Scales: Design, Usage, Benefits, and Risks. ASTM Manual MNL63, ASTM International, Conshohocken, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schifferstein, H. J. N. 1995. Contextual shifts in hedonic judgment. Journal of Sensory Studies, 10, 381–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. J. and Beauchamp, G. K. 1988. Adult-like odor preference and aversions in three-year-old children. Child Development, 59, 1136–1143.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schraidt, M. F. 1991. Testing with children: Getting reliable information from kids. ASTM Standardization News, March 1991, 42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraidt, M. 2009. Appendix L: Penalty analysis or mean drop analysis. In: L. Rothman and M. J. Parker (Eds.), Just-About-Right Scales: Design, Usage, Benefits, and Risks. ASTM Manual MNL63, ASTM International, Conshohocken, PA, pp. 50–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, H. G. 1965. A food action rating scale for measuring food acceptance. Journal of Food Science, 30, 365–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, H. G. 1988. Beyond preference: Appropriateness as a measure of contextual acceptance. In: D. M. H. Thomson (ed.), Food Acceptability. Elsevier, London, pp. 115–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, H. G. 1994. Appropriateness as a measure of the cognitive-contextual aspects of food acceptance. In: H. J. H. MacFie and D. M. H. Thomson (eds.), Measurement of Food Preferences. Chapman and Hall, pp. 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, H. G. and Cardello, A. V. (2001). A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 117–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, R., Smith, K., and Farleigh, C. A. 1989. The relationship between intensity, hedonic and relative-to-ideal ratings. Food Quality and Preference 1, 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, H. and Sidel, J. 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices, Third Edition. Elsevier Academic, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczesniak, A. S. and Skinner, E. Z. 1975. Consumer texture profile method. Journal of Food Science, 40, 1253–1256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton, L. 2009. Appendix R: Chi-square. In: L. Rothman and M. J. Parker (eds.), Just-About-Right Scales: Design, Usage, Benefits, and Risks. ASTM Manual MNL63, ASTM International, Conshohocken, PA, pp. 75–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tepper, B. J., Shaffer, S. E. and Shearer, C. M. 1994. Sensory perception of fat in common foods using two scaling methods. Food Quality and Preference, 5, 245–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Trijp, H. C. M., Lahtennmaki, L. and Tuorila, H. 1992. Variety seeking in the consumption of spread and cheese. Appetite, 18, 155–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Trijp, H. C. M., Punter, P. H., Mickartz, F. and Kruithof, L. 2007. The quest for the ideal product: Comparing different methods and approaches. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 729–740.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, A. 1988. Sensory specific satiety in lemonade using a just right scale for sweetness. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva, N. D. M. and Da Silva, M. A. A. P. 2009. Performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villanueva, N. D. M., Petenate, A. J. and Da Silva, M. A. A. P. 2005. Comparative performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 691–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakeling, I. N. and MacFie, H. J. H. 1995. Designing consumer trials balanced for first and higher orders of carry-over effect when only a subset of k samples from t may be tested. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 299–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A. O. 2007. Comparison of Hedonic, LAM, and other scaling methods to determine Warfighter visual liking of MRE packaging labels, includes web-based challenges, experiences and data. Presentation at the 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Minneapolis, MN, 8/12/07. Supplement to Abstract Book/Delegate Manual.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao, E., Lim, J., Tamaki, K., Ishii, R., Kim, K.-O. and O’Mahony, M. 2003. Structured and unstructured 9-point hedonic scales: A cross cultural study with American, Japanese and Korean consumers. Journal of Sensory Studies, 18, 115–139.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Stocking Hall, Room 106, Ithaca, 14853, USA

    Harry T. Lawless

  2. Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California – Davis, 2003 RMI Sensory Building, 95616, Davis, CA, USA

    Hildegarde Heymann

Authors
  1. Harry T. Lawless
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hildegarde Heymann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lawless, H., Heymann, H. (2010). Acceptance Testing. In: Sensory Evaluation of Food. Food Science Text Series. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6488-5_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation