Advertisement

Context Effects and Biases in Sensory Judgment

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

Abstract

Human judgments about a sensation or a product are strongly influenced by items that surround the item of interest, either in space or in time. This chapter shows how judgments can change as a function of the context within which a product is evaluated. Various contextual effects and biases are described and categorized. Some solutions and courses of action to minimize these biases are presented.

Keywords

Context Effect Contrast Effect Magnitude Estimation Stimulus Range Sensory Adaptation 
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.

References

  1. Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R. M. and Roessler, E. B. 1965. Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, N. 1974. Algebraic models in perception. In: E. C. Carterette and M. P. Friedman (eds.), Handbook of Perception. II. Psychophysical Judgment and Measurement. Academic, New York, pp. 215–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird, J. C. and Noma, E. 1978. Fundamentals of Scaling and Psychophysics. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Beebe-Center, J. G. 1932. The Psychology of Pleasantness and Unpleasantness. Russell & Russell, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bingham, A. F., Birch, G. G., de Graaf, C., Behan, J. M. and Perring, K. D. 1990. Sensory studies with sucrose maltol mixtures. Chemical Senses, 15, 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birnbaum, M. H. 1982. Problems with so called “direct” scaling. In: J. T. Kuznicki, A. F. Rutkiewic and R. A. Johnson (eds.), Problems and Approaches to Measuring Hedonics (ASTM STP 773). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonnans, S. and Noble, A. C. 1993. Effects of sweetener type and of sweetener and acid levels on temporal perception of sweetness, sourness and fruitiness. Chemical Senses, 18, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boring, E. G. 1942. Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Clark, C. C. and Lawless, H. T. 1994. Limiting response alternatives in time–intensity scaling: An examination of the halo-dumping effect. Chemical Senses, 19, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond, J. and Lawless, H. T. 2001. Context effects and reference standards with magnitude estimation and the labeled magnitude scale. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diehl, R. L., Elman, J. L. and McCusker, S. B. 1978. Contrast effects on stop consonant identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 599–609.Google Scholar
  14. Dijksterhuis, G. 1993. Principal component analysis of time–intensity bitterness curves. Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolese, M., Zellner, D., Vasserman, M. and Parker, S. 2005. Categorization affects hedonic contrast in the visual arts. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 5, 21–25.Google Scholar
  16. Eimas, P. D. and Corbit, J. D. 1973. Selective adaptation of linguistic feature detectors. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. El Gharby, A. 1995. Effect of Nonsensory Information on Sensory Judgments of No-Fat and Low-Fat Foods: Influences of Attitude, Belief, Eating Restraint and Label Information. M.Sc. Thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  18. Eng, E. W. 1948. An Experimental Study of the Reliabilities of Rating Scale for Food Preference Discrimination. M. S. Thesis, Northwestern University, and US Army Quartermaster Food and Container Institute, Report # 11–50.Google Scholar
  19. Engen, T. and Levy, N. 1958. The influence of context on constant-sum loudness judgments. American Journal of Psychology, 71, 731–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frank, R. A. and Byram, J. 1988. Taste–smell interactions are tastant and odorant dependent. Chemical Senses, 13, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frank, R. A., van der Klaauw, N. J. and Schifferstein, H. N. J. 1993. Both perceptual and conceptual factors influence taste–odor and taste–taste interactions. Perception & Psychophysics, 54, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gay, C. and Mead, R. 1992 A statistical appraisal of the problem of sensory measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanson, H. L., Davis, J. G., Campbell, A. A., Anderson, J. H. and Lineweaver, H. 1955. Sensory test methods II. Effect of previous tests on consumer response to foods. Food Technology, 9, 56–59.Google Scholar
  26. Helson, H. H. 1964. Adaptation-Level Theory. Harper & Rowe, New York.Google Scholar
  27. James, W. 1913. Psychology. Henry Holt and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  28. 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, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, F. N. and Marcus, M. J. 1961. The subject effect in judgments of subjective magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, F. N. and Woskow, M. J. 1966. Some effects of context on the slope in magnitude estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kamenetzky, J. 1959. Contrast and convergence effects in ratings of foods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(1), 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kofes, J., Naqvi, S., Cece, A. and Yeh, M. 2009. Understanding Presentation Order Effects and Ways to Control Them in Consumer Testing. Paper presented at the 8th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawless, H. T. 1983. Contextual effect in category ratings. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 11, 346–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawless, H. T. 1994. Contextual and Measurement Aspects of Acceptability. Final Report #TCN 94178, US Army Research Office.Google Scholar
  36. Lawless, H. T. and Malone, G. J. 1986a. A comparison of scaling methods: Sensitivity, replicates and relative measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lawless, H. T. and Malone, J. G. 1986b. The discriminative efficiency of common scaling methods. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lawless, H. T., Glatter, S. and Hohn, C. 1991. Context dependent changes in the perception of odor quality. Chemical Senses, 16, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lawless, H. T., Horne. J. and Speirs, W. 2000. Contrast and range effects for category, magnitude and labeled magnitude scales. Chemical Senses, 25, 85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee, H.-S., Kim, K.-O. and O’Mahony, M. 2001. How do the signal detection indices react to frequency context bias for intensity scaling? Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marks, L. E. 1994. Recalibrating the auditory system: The perception of loudness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 382–396.Google Scholar
  44. Mattes, R. D. and Lawless, H. T. 1985. An adjustment error in optimization of taste intensity. Appetite, 6, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McBride, R. L. 1982. Range bias in sensory evaluation. Journal of Food Technology, 17, 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McBride, R. L. and Anderson, N. H. 1990. Integration psychophysics. In R. L. McBride and H. J. H. MacFie (eds.), Psychological Basis of Sensory Evaluation. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp. 93–115.Google Scholar
  47. McBurney, D. H. 1966. Magnitude estimation of the taste of sodium chloride after adaptation to sodium chloride. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 869–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McGowan, B. A. and Lee, S.-Y. 2006. Comparison of methods to analyze time–intensity curves in a corn zein chewing gum study. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 296–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mead, R. and Gay, C. 1995. Sequential design of sensory trials. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Meilgaard, M., Civille, G. V. and Carr, B. T. 2006. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Third Edition. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  51. Mellers, B. A. and Birnbaum, M. H. 1982. Loci of contextual effects in judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 582–601.Google Scholar
  52. Mellers, B. A. and Birnbaum, M. H. 1983. Contextual effects in social judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 157–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Murphy, C. 1982. Effects of exposure and context on hedonics of olfactory-taste mixtures. In: J. T. Kuznicki, R. A. Johnson and A. F. Rutkeiwic (eds.), Selected Sensory Methods: Problems and Applications to Measuring Hedonics. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Murphy, C. and Cain, W. S. 1980. Taste and olfaction: Independence vs. interaction. Physiology and Behavior, 24, 601–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Olabi, A. and Lawless, H. T. 2008. Persistence of context effects with training and reference standards. Journal of Food Science, 73, S185–S189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Parducci, A. 1965. Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parducci, A. 1974. Contextual effects: A range-frequency analysis. In: E. C. Carterette and M. P. Friedman (eds.), Handbook of Perception. II. Psychophysical Judgment and Measurement. Academic, New York, pp. 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Parducci, A. and Perrett, L. F. 1971. Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus values. Journal of Experimental Psychology (Monograph), 89(2), 427–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Parducci, A., Knobel, S. and Thomas, C. 1976. Independent context for category ratings: A range-frequency analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 360–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Parker, S., Murphy, D. R. and Schneider, B. A. 2002. Top-down gain control in the auditory system: Evidence from identification and discrimination experiments. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 598–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Poulton, E. C. 1989. Bias in Quantifying Judgments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  63. Rankin, K. M. and Marks, L. E. 1991. Differential context effects in taste perception. Chemical Senses, 16, 617–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Riskey, D. R. 1982. Effects of context and interstimulus procedures in judgments of saltiness and pleasantness. In: J. T. Kuznicki, R. A. Johnson and A. F. Rutkeiwic (eds.), Selected Sensory Methods: Problems and Applications to Measuring Hedonics. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Riskey, D. R., Parducci, A. and Beauchamp, G. K. 1979. Effects of context in judgments of sweetness and pleasantness. Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 171–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sandusky, A. and Parducci, A. 1965. Pleasantness of odors as a function of the immediate stimulus context. Psychonomic Science, 3, 321–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sarris, V. 1967.Adaptation-level theory: Two critical experiments on Helson’s weighted-average model. American Journal of Psychology, 80, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sarris, V. and Parducci, A. 1978. Multiple anchoring of category rating scales. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schifferstein, H. J. N. 1995. Contextual shifts in hedonic judgment. Journal of Sensory Studies, 10, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schifferstein, H. J. N. 1996. Cognitive factors affecting taste intensity judgments. Food Quality and Preference, 7, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Frijters, J. E. R. 1992. Contextual and sequential effects on judgments of sweetness intensity. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schutz, H. G. 1954. Effect of bias on preference in the difference-preference test. In: D. R. Peryam, J. J. Pilgram and M. S. Peterson (eds.), Food Acceptance Testing Methodology. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, pp. 85–91.Google Scholar
  73. Stevenson, R. J., Prescott, J. and Boakes, R. A. 1995. The acquisition of taste properties by odors. Learning and Motivation, 26, 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stoer, N. L. 1992. Comparison of Absolute Scaling and Relative-To-Reference Scaling in Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products. Master’s Thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  75. Teghtsoonian, R. and Teghtsoonian, M. 1978. Range and regression effects in magnitude scaling. Perception & Psychophysics, 24, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thorndike, E. L. 1920. A constant error in psychophysical ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van der Klaauw, N. J. and Frank, R. A. 1996. Scaling component intensities of complex stimuli: The influence of response alternatives. Environment International, 22, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vollmecke, T. A. 1987. The Influence of Context on Sweetness and Pleasantness Evaluations of Beverages. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  79. Ward, L. M. 1979. Stimulus information and sequential dependencies in magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 444–459.Google Scholar
  80. Ward, L. M. 1987. Remembrance of sounds past: Memory and psychophysical scaling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 216–227.Google Scholar
  81. Zellner, D. A., Allen, D., Henley, M. and Parker, S. 2006. Hedonic contrast and condensation: Good stimuli make mediocre stimuli less good and less different. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 235–239.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