• Harry T. Lawless
  • Hildegarde Heymann
Part of the Food Science Text Series book series (FSTS)


In this chapter we carefully parse the definition for sensory evaluation, briefly discuss validity of the data collected before outlining the early history of the field. We then describe the three main methods used in sensory evaluation (discrimination tests, descriptive analysis, and hedonic testing) before discussing the differences between analytical and consumer testing. We then briefly discuss why one may want to collect sensory data. In the final sections we highlight the differences and similarities between sensory evaluation and marketing research and between sensory evaluation and commodity grading as used in, for example, the dairy industry.


Sensory Evaluation Sensory Test Sensory Specialist Marketing Research Discrimination Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aaron, J. I., Mela, D. J. and Evans, R. E. 1994. The influence of attitudes, beliefs and label information on perceptions of reduced-fat spread. Appetite, 22(1), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, H. 1918. The Education of Henry Adams. The Modern Library, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R. M. and Roessler, E. B. 1965. Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  4. ASTM E1958. 2008. Standard guide for sensory claim substantiation. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.Google Scholar
  5. ASTM. 1989. Sensory evaluation. In celebration of our beginnings. Committee E-18 on Sensory Evaluation of Materials and Products. ASTM, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  6. Barrios, E. X. and Costell, E. 2004. Review: use of methods of research into consumers’ opinions and attitudes in food research. Food Science and Technology International, 10, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bett, K. L. and Johnson, P. B. 1996. Challenges of evaluating sensory attributes in the presence of off-flavors. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodyfelt, F. W., Drake, M. A. and Rankin, S. A. 2008. Developments in dairy foods sensory science and education: from student contests to impact on product quality. International Dairy Journal, 18, 729–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodyfelt, F. W., Tobias, J. and Trout, G. M. 1988. Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products. Van Nostrand/AVI Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Boyle, J. A., Lundström, J. N., Knecht, M., Jones-Gotman, M., Schaal, B. and Hummel, T. 2006. On the trigeminal percept of androstenone and its implications on the rate of specific anosmia. Journal of Neurobiology, 66, 1501–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brandt, M. A., Skinner, E. Z. and Coleman, J. A. 1963. Texture profile method. Journal of Food Science, 28, 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brinberg, D. and McGrath, J. E. 1985. Validity and the Research Process. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Cardello, A. V. 2003. Ideographic sensory testing vs. nomothetic sensory research for marketing guidance: comments on Garber et al. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cardello, A. V. and Sawyer, F. M. 1992. Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectations on food acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caul, J. F. 1957. The profile method of flavor analysis. Advances in Food Research, 7, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Claassen, M. and Lawless, H. T. 1992. Comparison of descriptive terminology systems for sensory evaluation of fluid milk. Journal of Food Science, 57, 596–600, 621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costell, E., Tárrega, A. and Bayarri, S. 2009. Food acceptance: the role of consumer perception and attitudes. Chemosensory Perception. doi:10.1007/s12078-009-9057-1.Google Scholar
  18. Dantas, M. I. S., Minim, V. P. R., Deliza, R. and Puschmann, R. 2004. The effect of packaging on the perception of minimally processed products. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 2, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., Hedderley, D., MacFie, H. J. H. and Frewer, L. J. 1999. The importance of brand, product information and manufacturing process in the development of novel environmentally friendly vegetable oils. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing, 3, 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Drake, M. A. 2007. Invited Review: sensory analysis of dairy foods. Journal of Dairy Science, 90, 4925–4937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Einstein, M. A. 1991. Descriptive techniques and their hybridization. In: H. T. Lawless and B. P. Klein (eds.), Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 317–338.Google Scholar
  23. Enneking, U., Neumann, C. and Henneberg, S. 2007. How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gacula, M. C., Jr. 1991. Claim substantiation for sensory equivalence and superiority. In: H. T. Lawless and B. P. Klein (eds.), Sensory Science Theory and Applications in Foods. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 413–436.Google Scholar
  25. Garber, L. L., Hyatt, E. M. and Starr, R. G. 2003. Measuring consumer response to food products. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giboreau, A. and Fleury, H. 2009. A new research platform to contribute to the pleasure of eating and healthy food behaviors through academic and applied food and hospitality research. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gimé©nez, A., Ares, G. and Gámbaro, A. 2008. Consumer attitude toward shelf-life labeling: does it influence acceptance? Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 871–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hein, K. A., Hamid, N., Jaeger, S. R. and Delahunty, C. M. 2009. Application of a written scenario to evoke a consumption context in a laboratory setting: effects on hedonic ratings. Food Quality and Preference. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.10.003Google Scholar
  29. Helm, E. and Trolle, B. 1946. Selection of a taste panel. Wallerstein Laboratory Communications, 9, 181–194.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, L. V., Peryam, D. R. and Thurstone, L. L. 1955. Development of a scale for measuring soldier’s food preferences. Food Research, 20, 512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kamen, J. 1989. Observations, reminiscences and chatter. In: Sensory Evaluation. In celebration of our Beginnings. Committee E-18 on Sensory Evaluation of Materials and Products. ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 118–122.Google Scholar
  32. Kimura, A., Wada, Y., Tsuzuki, D., Goto, S., Cai, D. and Dan, I. 2008. Consumer valuation of packaged foods. Interactive effects of amount and accessibility of information. Appetite, 51, 628–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawless, H. T. 1993. The education and training of sensory scientists. Food Quality and Preference, 4, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawless, H. T. and Claassen, M. R. 1993. The central dogma in sensory evaluation. Food Technology, 47(6), 139–146.Google Scholar
  35. Lawless, H. T. and Klein, B. P. 1989. Academic vs. industrial perspectives on sensory evaluation. Journal of Sensory Studies, 3, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, L., Frederick, S. and Ariely, D. 2006. Try it, you’ll like it. Psychological Science, 17, 1054–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacRae, R. W. and Geelhoed, E. N. 1992. Preference can be more powerful than detection of oddity as a test of discriminability. Perception and Psychophysics, 51, 179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V. and Carr, B. T. 2006. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. Fourth Second edition. CRC, Boca Raton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meiselman, H. L. 1993. Critical evaluation of sensory techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 4, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mielby, L. H. and Frøst, M. B. 2009. Expectations and surprise in a molecular gastronomic meal. Food Quality and Preference. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.09.005Google Scholar
  41. Moskowitz, H. R., Beckley, J. H. and Resurreccion, A. V. A. 2006. Sensory and Consumer Research in Food Product Design and Development. Wiley-Blackwell, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moskowitz, H. R. 1983. Product Testing and Sensory Evaluation of Foods. Food and Nutrition, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  43. Oliver, T. 1986. The Real Coke, The Real Story. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  44. O’Mahony, M. 1988. Sensory difference and preference testing: The use of signal detection measures. Chpater 8 In: H. R. Moskowitz (ed.), Applied Sensory Analysis of Foods. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 145–175.Google Scholar
  45. O’Mahony, M. 1979. Psychophysical aspects of sensory analysis of dairy products: a critique. Journal of Dairy Science, 62, 1954–1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pangborn, R. M. and Dunkley, W. L. 1964. Laboratory procedures for evaluating the sensory properties of milk. Dairy Science Abstracts, 26, 55–121.Google Scholar
  47. Park, H. S. and Lee, S. Y. 2003. Genetically engineered food labels, information or warning to consumers? Journal of Food Products Marketing, 9, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peryam, D. R. and Swartz, V. W. 1950. Measurement of sensory differences. Food Technology, 4, 390–395.Google Scholar
  49. Plotto, A., Barnes, K. W. and Goodner, K. L. 2006. Specific anosmia observed for β-ionone, but not for α-ionone: Significance for flavor research. Journal of Food Science, 71, S401–S406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shepherd, R., Sparks, P., Belleir, S. and Raats, M. M. 1991/1992. The effects of information on sensory ratings and preferences: The importance of attitudes. Food Quality and Preference, 3, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sidel, J. L., Stone, H. and Bloomquist, J. 1981. Use and misuse of sensory evaluation in research and quality control. Journal of Dairy Science, 61, 2296–2302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Siegrist, M. and Cousin, M-E. 2009. Expectations influence sensory experience in a wine tasting. Appetite, 52, 762–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Skinner, E. Z. 1989. (Commentary). Sensory evaluation. In celebration of our beginnings. Committee E-18 on Sensory Evaluation of Materials and Products. ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 58–65.Google Scholar
  54. Stone, H. and Sidel, J. L. 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices, Third Edition. Academic, San Deigo.Google Scholar
  55. Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A. and Singleton, R. C. 1974. Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology 28(1), 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 34.Google Scholar
  56. Sun Tzu (Sun Wu) 1963 (trans.), orig. circa 350 B.C.E. The Art of War. S.B. Griffith, trans. Oxford University.Google Scholar
  57. Szczesniak, A. S., Loew, B. J. and Skinner, E. Z. 1975. Consumer texture profile technique. Journal of Food Science, 40, 1253–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tuorila, H. and Monteleone, E. 2009. Sensory food science in the changing society: opportunities, needs and challenges. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 20, 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wysocki, C. J. and Labows, J. 1984. Individual differences in odor perception. Perfumer and Flavorist, 9, 21–24.Google Scholar
  60. Yeomans, M. R., Chambers, L., Blumenthal, H. and Blake, A. 2008. The role of expectation in sensory and hedonic evaluation: The case of salmon smoked ice-cream. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. York, R. K. 1995. Quality assessment in a regulatory environment. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 137–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zellner, D. A., Strickhouser, D. and Tornow, C. E. 2004. Disconfirmed hedonic expectations produce perceptual contrast, not assimilation. The American Journal of Psychology, 117, 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry T. Lawless
    • 1
  • Hildegarde Heymann
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Food ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Viticulture and EnologyUniversity of California – DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations