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


Scaling describes the application of numbers, or judgments that are converted to numerical values, to describe the perceived intensity of a sensory experience or the degree of liking or disliking for some experience or product. Scaling forms the basis for the sensory method of descriptive analysis. A variety of methods have been used for this purpose and with some caution, all work well in differentiating products. This chapter discusses theoretical issues as well as practical considerations in scaling.


Magnitude Estimation Sensory Experience Category Scale Scaling Method Psychophysical Function 


  1. AACC (American Association of Cereal Chemists). 1986. Approved Methods of the AACC, Eighth Edition. Method 90–10. Baking quality of cake flour, rev. Oct. 1982. The American Association of Cereal Chemists, St. Paul, MN, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. H. 1974. Algebraic models in perception. In: E. C. Carterette and M. P. Friedman (eds.), Handbook of Perception. Psychophysical Judgment and Measurement, Vol. 2. Academic, New York, pp. 215–298.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N. H. 1977. Note on functional measurement and data analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 21, 201–215.Google Scholar
  4. ASTM. 2008a. Standard test method for unipolar magnitude estimation of sensory attributes. Designation E 1697-05. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.08, End Use Products. American Society for Testing and Materials, Conshohocken, PA, pp. 122–131.Google Scholar
  5. ASTM. 2008b. Standard test method for sensory evaluation of red pepper heat. Designation E 1083-00. In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 15.08, End Use Products. American Society for Testing and Materials, Conshohocken, PA, pp. 49–53.Google Scholar
  6. Aust, L. B., Gacula, M. C., Beard, S. A. and Washam, R. W., II. 1985. Degree of difference test method in sensory evaluation of heterogeneous product types. Journal of Food Science, 50, 511–513.Google Scholar
  7. Baird, J. C. and Noma, E. 1978. Fundamentals of Scaling and Psychophysics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Banks, W. P. and Coleman, M. J. 1981. Two subjective scales of number. Perception and Psychophysics, 29, 95–105.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Fast, K., Green, B. G., Prutkin, J. and Snyder, D. J. 2003. Labeled scales (e.g. category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: What we have learned from genetic variation in taste. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 125–138.Google Scholar
  11. Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Green, B. G., Hoffman, H. J., Ko, C.-W., Lucchina, L. A., Marks, L. E., Snyder, D. J. and Weiffenbach, J. M. 2004a. Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiology and Behavior, 82, 109–114.Google Scholar
  12. Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Chapo, A. K., Fast, K., Yiee, J. H., Hoffman, H. J., Ko, C.-W. and Snyder, D. J. 2004b. From psychophysics to the clinic: Missteps and advances. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 617–632.Google Scholar
  13. Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Fast, K., Green, B. Kveton, J., Lucchina, L. A., Prutkin, J. M., Snyder, D. J. and Tie, K. 1999. Sensory variability, food preferences and BMI in non-medium and supertasters of PROP. Appetite, 33, 228–229.Google Scholar
  14. Basker, D. 1988. Critical values of differences among rank sums for multiple comparisons. Food Technology, 42(2), 79, 80–84.Google Scholar
  15. Baten, W. D. 1946. Organoleptic tests pertaining to apples and pears. Food Research, 11, 84–94.Google Scholar
  16. Bendig, A. W. and Hughes, J. B. 1953. Effect of number of verbal anchoring and number of rating scale categories upon transmitted information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(2), 87–90.Google Scholar
  17. Bi, J. 2006. Sensory Discrimination Tests and Measurement. Blackwell, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Birnbaum, M. H. 1982. Problems with so-called “direct” scaling. In: J. T. Kuznicki, R. A. Johnson and A. F. Rutkiewic (eds.), Selected Sensory Methods: Problems and Approaches to Hedonics. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 34–48.Google Scholar
  21. Borg, G. 1982. A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In: H.-G. Geissler and P. Pextod (Eds.), Psychophysical Judgment and the Process of Perception. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
  22. Borg, G. 1990. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and the perception of exertion. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 16, 55–58.Google Scholar
  23. Boring, E. G. 1942. Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Brandt, M. A., Skinner, E. Z. and Coleman, J. A. 1963. The texture profile method. Journal of Food Science, 28, 404–409.Google Scholar
  25. Butler, G., Poste, L. M., Wolynetz, M. S., Agar, V. E. and Larmond, E. 1987. Alternative analyses of magnitude estimation data. Journal of Sensory Studies, 2, 243–257.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Cardello, A. V., 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
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Caul, J. F. 1957. The profile method of flavor analysis. Advances in Food Research, 7, 1–40.Google Scholar
  31. Chambers, E. C. and Wolf, M. B. 1996. Sensory Testing Methods. ASTM Manual Series, MNL 26. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.Google Scholar
  32. Chen, A. W., Resurreccion, A. V. A. and Paguio, L. P. 1996. Age appropriate hedonic scales to measure the food preferences of young children. Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 141–163.Google Scholar
  33. Chung, S.-J. and Vickers, 2007a. Long-term acceptability and choice of teas differing in sweetness. Food Quality and Preference 18, 963–974.Google Scholar
  34. Chung, S.-J. and Vickers, 2007b. Influence of sweetness on the sensory-specific satiety and long-term acceptability of tea. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 256–267.Google Scholar
  35. Coetzee, H. and Taylor, J. R. N. 1996. The use and adaptation of the paired comparison method in the sensory evaluation of hamburger-type patties by illiterate/semi-literate consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 7, 81–85.Google Scholar
  36. Collins, A. A. and Gescheider, G. A. 1989. The measurement of loudness in individual children and adults by absolute magnitude estimation and cross modality matching. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 85, 2012–2021.Google Scholar
  37. Conner, M. T. and Booth, D. A. 1988. Preferred sweetness of a lime drink and preference for sweet over non-sweet foods. Related to sex and reported age and body weight. Appetite, 10, 25–35.Google Scholar
  38. Cordinnier, 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
  39. Cox, E. P. 1980. The optimal number of response alternatives for a scale: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 407–422.Google Scholar
  40. Curtis, D. W., Attneave, F. and Harrington, T. L. 1968. A test of a two-stage model of magnitude estimation. Perception and Psychophysics, 3, 25–31.Google Scholar
  41. Edwards, A. L. 1952. The scaling of stimuli by the method of successive intervals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 118–122.Google Scholar
  42. Ekman, G. 1964. Is the power law a special case of Fechner’s law? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19, 730.Google Scholar
  43. Einstein, M. A. 1976. Use of linear rating scales for the evaluation of beer flavor by consumers. Journal of Food Science, 41, 383–385.Google Scholar
  44. 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–S105.Google Scholar
  45. Engen, T. 1974. Method and theory in the study of odor preferences. In: A. Turk, J. W. Johnson and D. G. Moulton (Eds.), Human Responses to Environmental Odors. Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Finn, A. and Louviere, J. J. 1992. Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 11, 12–25.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Frijters, J. E. R., Kooistra, A. and Vereijken, P. F. G. 1980. Tables of d’ for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure. Perception and Psychophysics, 27, 176–178.Google Scholar
  49. Gaito, J. 1980. Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence of an old misconception. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 564–587.Google Scholar
  50. Gay, C., and Mead, R. 1992 A statistical appraisal of the problem of sensory measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 205–228.Google Scholar
  51. Gent, J. F. and Bartoshuk, L. M. 1983. Sweetness of sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone and sacchar in is related to genetic ability to taste the bitter substance 6-n-propylthiouracil. Chemical Senses, 7, 265–272.Google Scholar
  52. Gescheider, G. A. 1988. Psychophysical scaling. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 169–200.Google Scholar
  53. Giovanni, M. E. and Pangborn, R. M. 1983. Measurement of taste intensity and degree of liking of beverages by graphic scaling and magnitude estimation. Journal of Food Science, 48, 1175–1182.Google Scholar
  54. Gracely, R. H., McGrath, P. and Dubner, R. 1978a. Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal-pain descriptors. Pain, 5, 5–18.Google Scholar
  55. Gracely, R. H., McGrath, P. and Dubner, R. 1978b. Validity and sensitivity of ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal-pain descriptors: Manipulation of affect by Diazepam. Pain, 5, 19–29.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Green, B. G., Dalton, P., Cowart, B., Shaffer, G., Rankin, K. and Higgins, J. 1996. Evaluating the “Labeled Magnitude Scale” for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chemical Senses, 21, 323–334.Google Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Guest, S., Essick, G., Patel, A., Prajpati, 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
  60. 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
  61. Huskisson, E. C. 1983. Visual analogue scales. In: R. Melzack (Ed.), Pain Measurement and Assessment. Raven, New York, pp. 34–37.Google Scholar
  62. Jaeger, S. R.; Jørgensen, A. S., AAslying, M. D. and Bredie, W. L. P. 2008. Best-worst scaling: An introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with food products. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 579–588.Google Scholar
  63. Jaeger, S. R. and Cardello, A. V. 2009. Direct and indirect hedonic scaling methods: A comparison of the labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale and best-worst scaling. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 249–258.Google Scholar
  64. Jones, F. N. 1974. History of psychophysics and judgment. In: E. C. Carterette and M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of Perception. Psychophysical Judgment and Measurement, Vol. 2. Academic, New York, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
  65. Jones, L. V. and Thurstone, L. L. 1955. The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 31–36.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. Keskitalo, K. Knaapila, A., Kallela, M., Palotie, A., Wessman, M., Sammalisto, S., Peltonen, L., Tuorila, H. and Perola, M. 2007. Sweet taste preference are partly genetically determined: Identification of a trait locus on Chromosome 161–3. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86, 55–63.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. King, B. M. 1986. Odor intensity measured by an audio method. Journal of Food Science, 51, 1340–1344.Google Scholar
  70. Koo, T.-Y., Kim, K.-O., and O’Mahony, M. 2002. Effects of forgetting on performance on various intensity scaling protocols: Magnitude estimation and labeled magnitude scale (Green scale). Journal of Sensory Studies, 17, 177–192.Google Scholar
  71. Kroll, B. J. 1990. Evaluating rating scales for sensory testing with children. Food Technology, 44(11), 78–80, 82, 84, 86.Google Scholar
  72. Kurtz, D. B., White, T. L. and Hayes, M. 2000. The labeled dissimilarity scale: A metric of perceptual dissimilarity. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 152–161.Google Scholar
  73. Land, D. G. and Shepard, R. 1984. Scaling and ranking methods. In: J. R. Piggott (ed.), Sensory Analysis of Foods. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 141–177.Google Scholar
  74. Lane, H. L., Catania, A. C. and Stevens, S. S. 1961. Voice level: Autophonic scale, perceived loudness and effect of side tone. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33, 160–167.Google Scholar
  75. Larson-Powers, N. and Pangborn, R. M. 1978. Descriptive analysis of the sensory properties of beverages and gelatins containing sucrose or synthetic sweeteners. Journal of Food Science, 43, 47–51.Google Scholar
  76. Lawless, H. T. 1977. The pleasantness of mixtures in taste and olfaction. Sensory Processes, 1, 227–237.Google Scholar
  77. Lawless, H. T. 1989. Logarithmic transformation of magnitude estimation data and comparisons of scaling methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 4, 75–86.Google Scholar
  78. Lawless, H. T. and Clark, C. C. 1992. Psychological biases in time intensity scaling. Food Technology, 46, 81, 84–86, 90.Google Scholar
  79. Lawless, H. T. and Malone, J. G. 1986a. The discriminative efficiency of common scaling methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 85–96.Google Scholar
  80. Lawless, H. T. and Malone, G. J. 1986b. A comparison of scaling methods: Sensitivity, replicates and relative measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 155–174.Google Scholar
  81. Lawless, H. T. and Skinner, E. Z. 1979. The duration and perceived intensity of sucrose taste. Perception and Psychophysics, 25, 249–258.Google Scholar
  82. Lawless, H. T., Popper, R. and Kroll, B. J. 2010a. 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
  83. Lawless, H. T., Sinopoli, D. and Chapman, K. W. 2010b. A comparison of the labeled affective magnitude scale and the nine point hedonic scale and examination of categorical behavior. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, S1, 54–66.Google Scholar
  84. Lawless, H. T., Cardello, A. V., Chapman, K. W., Lesher, L. L., Given, Z. and Schutz, H. G. 2010c. A comparison of the effectiveness of hedonic scales and end-anchor compression effects. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28, S1, 18–34.Google Scholar
  85. Lee, H.-J., Kim, K.-O., and O’Mahony, M. 2001. Effects of forgetting on various protocols for category and line scales of intensity. Journal of Sensory Studies, 327–342.Google Scholar
  86. Likert, R. 1932. Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.Google Scholar
  87. Lindvall, T. and Svensson, L. T. 1974. Equal unpleasantness matching of malodourous substances in the community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 264–269.Google Scholar
  88. Mahoney, C. H., Stier, H. L. and Crosby, E. A. 1957. Evaluating flavor differences in canned foods. II. Fundamentals of the simplified procedure. Food Technology 11, Supplemental Symposium Proceedings, 37–42.Google Scholar
  89. Marks, L. E. 1978. Binaural summation of the loudness of pure tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 64, 107–113.Google Scholar
  90. Marks, L. E., Borg, G. and Ljunggren, G. 1983. Individual differences in perceived exertion assessed by two new methods. Perception and Psychophysic, 34, 280–288.Google Scholar
  91. Marks, L. E., Borg, G. and Westerlund, J. 1992. Differences in taste perception assessed by magnitude matching and by category-ratio scaling. Chemical Senses, 17, 493–506.Google Scholar
  92. Mattes, R. D. and Lawless, H. T. 1985. An adjustment error in optimization of taste intensity. Appetite, 6, 103–114.Google Scholar
  93. McBride, R. L. 1983a. A JND-scale/category scale convergence in taste. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 77–83.Google Scholar
  94. McBride, R. L. 1983b. Taste intensity and the case of exponents greater than 1. Australian Journal of Psychology, 35, 175–184.Google Scholar
  95. McBurney, D. H. and Shick, T. R. 1971. Taste and water taste for 26 compounds in man. Perception and Psychophysics, 10, 249–252.Google Scholar
  96. McBurney, D. H. and Bartoshuk, L. M. 1973. Interactions between stimuli with different taste qualities. Physiology and Behavior, 10, 1101–1106.Google Scholar
  97. McBurney, D. H., Smith, D. V. and Shick, T. R. 1972. Gustatory cross-adaptation: Sourness and bitterness. Perception and Psychophysics, 11, 228–232.Google Scholar
  98. Mead, R. and Gay, C. 1995. Sequential design of sensory trials. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 271–280.Google Scholar
  99. Mecredy, J. M. Sonnemann, J. C. and Lehmann, S. J. 1974. Sensory profiling of beer by a modified QDA method. Food Technology, 28, 36–41.Google Scholar
  100. Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V. and Carr, B. T. 2006. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Fourth Edition. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  101. Moore, L. J. and Shoemaker, C. F. 1981. Sensory textural properties of stabilized ice cream. Journal of Food Science, 46, 399–402.Google Scholar
  102. Moskowitz, H. R. 1971. The sweetness and pleasantness of sugars. American Journal of Psychology, 84, 387–405.Google Scholar
  103. Moskowitz, H. R. and Sidel, J. L. 1971. Magnitude and hedonic scales of food acceptability. Journal of Food Science, 36, 677–680.Google Scholar
  104. Muñoz, A. M. and Civille, G. V. 1998. Universal, product and attribute specific scaling and the development of common lexicons in descriptive analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 57–75.Google Scholar
  105. Newell, G. J. and MacFarlane, J. D. 1987. Expanded tables for multiple comparison procedures in the analysis of ranked data. Journal of Food Science, 52, 1721–1725.Google Scholar
  106. Olabi, A. and Lawless, H. T. 2008. Persistence of context effects with training and reference standards. Journal of Food Science, 73, S185–S189.Google Scholar
  107. 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
  108. Pangborn, R. M. and Dunkley, W. L. 1964. Laboratory procedures for evaluating the sensory properties of milk. Dairy Science Abstracts, 26–55–62.Google Scholar
  109. Parducci, A. 1965. Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407–418.Google Scholar
  110. Park, J.-Y., Jeon, S.-Y., O’Mahony, M. and Kim, K.-O. 2004. Induction of scaling errors. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 261–271.Google Scholar
  111. 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
  112. Peryam. D. 1989. Reflections. In: Sensory Evaluation. In Celebration of our Beginnings. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 21–30.Google Scholar
  113. Peryam, D. R. and Girardot, N. F. 1952. Advanced taste-test method. Food Engineering, 24, 58–61, 194.Google Scholar
  114. Piggot, J. R. and Harper, R. 1975. Ratio scales and category scales for odour intensity. Chemical Senses and Flavour, 1, 307–316.Google Scholar
  115. Pokorńy, J., Davídek, J., Prnka, V. and Davídková, E. 1986. Nonparametric evaluation of graphical sensory profiles for the analysis of carbonated beverages. Die Nahrung, 30, 131–139.Google Scholar
  116. Poulton, E. C. 1989. Bias in Quantifying Judgments. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  117. Richardson, L. F. and Ross, J. S. 1930. Loudness and telephone current. Journal of General Psychology, 3, 288–306.Google Scholar
  118. Rosenthal, R. 1987. Judgment Studies: Design, Analysis and Meta-Analysis. University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  119. Shand, P. J., Hawrysh, Z. J., Hardin, R. T. and Jeremiah, L. E. 1985. Descriptive sensory analysis of beef steaks by category scaling, line scaling and magnitude estimation. Journal of Food Science, 50, 495–499.Google Scholar
  120. 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
  121. Siegel, S. 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  122. Sriwatanakul, K., Kelvie, W., Lasagna, L., Calimlim, J. F., Wels, O. F. and Mehta, G. 1983. Studies with different types of visual analog scales for measurement of pain. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 34, 234–239.Google Scholar
  123. Stevens, J. C. and Marks, L. M. 1980. Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation. Perception and Psychophysics, 27, 379–389.Google Scholar
  124. Stevens, S. S. 1951. Mathematics, measurement and psychophysics. In: S. S. Stevens (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Psychology. Wiley, New York, pp. 1–49.Google Scholar
  125. Stevens, S. S. 1956. The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes—loudness. American Journal of Psychology, 69, 1–25.Google Scholar
  126. Stevens, S. S. 1957. On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64, 153–181.Google Scholar
  127. Stevens, S. S. 1969. On predicting exponents for cross-modality matches. Perception and Psychophysics, 6, 251–256.Google Scholar
  128. Stevens, S. S. and Galanter, E. H. 1957. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377–411.Google Scholar
  129. Stoer, N. L. and Lawless, H. T. 1993. Comparison of single product scaling and relative-to-reference scaling in sensory evaluation of dairy products. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 257–270.Google Scholar
  130. Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A. and Singleton, R. C. 1974. Sensory Evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technology, 28, 24–29, 32, 34.Google Scholar
  131. Teghtsoonian, M. 1980. Children’s scales of length and loudness: A developmental application of cross-modal matching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 290–307.Google Scholar
  132. Thurstone, L. L. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.Google Scholar
  133. Townsend, J. T. and Ashby, F. G. 1980. Measurement scales and statistics: The misconception misconceived. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 394–401.Google Scholar
  134. Vickers, Z. M. 1983. Magnitude estimation vs. category scaling of the hedonic quality of food sounds. Journal of Food Science, 48, 1183–1186.Google Scholar
  135. 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
  136. 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
  137. Ward, L. M. 1986. Mixed-modality psychophysical scaling: Double cross-modality matching for “difficult” continua. Perception and Psychophysics, 39, 407–417.Google Scholar
  138. Weiss, D. J. 1972. Averaging: an empirical validity criterion for magnitude estimation. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 385–388.Google Scholar
  139. Winakor, G., Kim, C. J. and Wolins, L. 1980. Fabric hand: Tactile sensory assessment. Textile Research Journal, 50, 601–610.Google Scholar
  140. Yamaguchi, S. 1967. The synergistic effect of monosodium glutamate and disodium 5 inosinate. Journal of Food Science 32, 473–477.Google 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