Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Liking for Food and Drink

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Eating and Drinking

Abstract

The hedonic component of food reward is the result of an integrative process where the sensory and perceptual information about the food or drink is combined with a range of factors unrelated to the product itself, such as the individual’s physiological status, personal experiences, culture and context. This perceptual and evaluative component of reward has been regarded as a key predictor of food consumption. Hedonic measures obtained in response to food and drink products have great importance in sensory and consumer science and are used to inform decision making in the food industry. In this context, the aim of the present chapter is to review methodological approaches to measure liking for food and drink. The most popular direct and indirect (i.e., implicit) methods are presented. Advantages and disadvantages of the methods are discussed from a critical perspective and recommendations for practitioners are provided.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andreassi, J. L. (2000). Psychophysiology: Human behavior and physiological response (4th ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ares, G., Barreiro, C., & Giménez, A. (2009). Comparison of attribute liking and jar scales to evaluate the adequacy of sensory attributes of milk desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies, 24, 664–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangcuyo, R. G., Smith, K. J., Zumach, J. L., Pierce, A. M., Guttman, G. A., & Simons, C. T. (2015). The use of immersive technologies to improve consumer testing: The role of ecological validity, context and engagement in evaluating coffee. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 84–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Fast, K., Green, B. G., Prutkin, J., & Snyder, D. J. (2002). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berget, I. (2018). Statistical approaches to consumer segmentation. In G. Ares & P. Varela (Eds.), Methods in consumer research. New approaches to classic methods (pp. 353–383). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlyne, D. E. (1973). The vicissitudes of aplopathematic and thelematoscopic pneumatology (or the hydrography of hedonism). In D. E. Berlyne & K. B. Madsen (Eds.), Pleasure, reward, preference (pp. 1–33). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, K. C. (1996). Food reward: Brain substrates of wanting and liking. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 20, 1–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, K. C. (2009). ‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders. Physiology & Behavior, 97, 537–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015). Pleasure systems in the brain. Neuron, 86, 646–664.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: Hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Research Reviews, 28, 309–369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in Neuroscience, 26, 507–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthoud, H. R. (2011). Metabolic and hedonic drives in the neural control of appetite: Who is the boss? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 21, 888–896.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Berthoud, H. R., & Morrison, C. (2008). The brain, appetite, and obesity. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 55–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blaukopf, C. L., & DiGirolamo, G. J. (2007). Reward, context, and human behaviour. Scientific World Journal, 7, 626–640.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, G. (1982). A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In H.-G. Geissler & P. Petxoid (Eds.), Psychophysical judgement and the process of perception (pp. 25–34). Berlin: VEB Deutxcher Veriag der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, M. M., Miccoli, L., Escrig, M. A., & Lang, P. J. (2008). The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. Psychophysiology, 45, 602–607.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, J. K., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & J. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 240–299). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V. (1996). The role of the human senses in food acceptance. In H. L. Meiselman & H. J. H. MacFie (Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 1–82). London: Blackie Academic & Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V. (2017). Hedonic scaling: Assumptions, contexts and frames of reference. Current Opinion in Food Science, 15, 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V., & Jaeger, S. R. (2007). Hedonic measurement for product development: New methods for direct and indirect scaling. In H. J. H. MacFie (Ed.), Consumer-led food product development (pp. 34–59). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V., & Jaeger, S. R. (2010). Hedonic measurement for product development: New methods for direct and indirect scaling. In S. R. Jaeger & H. MacFie (Eds.), Consumer-driven innovation in food and personal care products (pp. 135–174). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V., & Meiselman, H. L. (2018). Contextual influences on consumer responses to food products. In G. Ares & P. Varela (Eds.), Methods in consumer research. Alternative approaches and special applications (pp. 4–54). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V., & Schutz, H. G. (2007). Effect of food category referents on liking judgments. Poster presented at 7th Pangborn sensory science symposium, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardello, A. V., Lawless, H. T., & Schutz, H. G. (2008). Effects of extreme anchors and interior label spacing on labeled affective magnitude scales. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 473–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, P. M., Finkelstein, S. R., Scott, M. L., & Vallen, B. (2018). Negative associations of frozen compared with fresh vegetables. Appetite, 127, 296–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curia, A. V., Hough, G., Martínez, M. C., & Margalef, M. I. (2001). How Argentine consumers understand the Spanish translation of the 9-point hedonic scale. Food Quality and Preference, 12(3), 217–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalenberg, J. R., Hoogeveen, H. R., & Lorist, M. M. (2018). Physiological measurements: EEG and fMRI. In G. Ares & P. Varela (Eds.), Methods in consumer research. Alternative approaches and special applications (pp. 254–277). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danner, L., & Duerrschmid, K. (2018). Automatic facial expressions analysis in consumer science. In G. Ares & P. Varela (Eds.), Methods in consumer research. Alternative approaches and special applications (pp. 203–230). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, P., & Balleine, B. W. (2002). Reward, motivation, and reinforcement learning. Neuron, 36, 285–298.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Houwer, J., & Moors, A. (2007). How to define and examine the implicitness of implicit measures. In B. Wittenbrink & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 179–194). New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • El Dine, A. N., & 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(2), S97–S106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, A., & 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(1), 12–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, R., Hoover, A., Ceballos, N. A., & Komogortsev, O. (2011). Body mass index moderates gaze orienting biases and pupil diameter to high and low calorie food images. Appetite, 56, 577–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, B. G., Dalton, P., Cowart, B., Shaffer, G., Rankin, K., & Higgins, J. (1996). Evaluating the ‘labeled magnitude scale’ for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chemical Senses, 21, 323–335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. L., Bratka, K. J., Drake, M. A., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A., McGee, D., & Schwartz, J. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, K. A., Hamid, N., Jaeger, S. R., & Delahunty, C. M. (2010). Application of a written scenario to evoke a consumption context in a laboratory setting: Effects on hedonic ratings. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 410–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, K. A., Hamid, N., Jaeger, S. R., & Delahunty, C. M. (2012). Effects of evoked consumption contexts on hedonic ratings: A case study with two fruit beverages. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hersleth, M. (2018). Evoked contexts. In G. Ares & P. Varela (Eds.), Methods in consumer research. Alternative approaches and special applications (pp. 55–68). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersleth, M., Monteleone, E., Segtnan, A., & Næs, T. (2015). Effects of evoked meal contexts on consumers’ responses to intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes in dry-cured ham. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, E. H., & Polt, J. M. (1964). Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science, 143, 1190–1192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingworth, H. L. (1910). The central tendency of judgment. Journal of Philosophical and Psychological Science Methods, 7, 461–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huettel, S. A., Song, A. W., & McCarthy, G. (2014). Functional magnetic resonance imaging (3rd ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, S. R., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, S. R., & Porcherot, C. (2017). Consumption context in consumer research: Methodological perspectives. Current Opinion in Food Science, 15, 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, S. R., Jorgensen, A. S., Aaslyng, M. D., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, S. R., Hort, J., Porcherot, C., Ares, G., Pecore, S., & MacFie, H. J. H. (2017). Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, T., Soussignan, R., Schaal, B., & Royet, J. P. (2015). Reward for food odors: An fMRI study of liking and wanting as a function of metabolic state and BMI. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10, 561–568.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, L. V., & Thurstone, L. L. (1955). The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39(1), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Köster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 359–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, A. A., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2018). Measuring implicit associations in food-related consumer research. In G. Ares & P. Varela (Eds.), Methods in consumer research. Alternative approaches and special applications (pp. 203–230). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, H. S., & Lee, S. Y. (2016). Presentation methods for unidirectional scales to measure consumers’ liking and disliking percepts. Food Quality and Preference, 51, 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, H. S., Ahn, B. H., Lee, Y., Kreger, J., & Lee, S. Y. (2013a). Correlation of liking and disliking measurements in consumer acceptance tests. Food Quality and Preference, 30, 86–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, H. S., Ahn, B. H., Lee, Y., Kreger, J., & Lee, S. Y. (2013b). Comparison of bipolar and bivariate measurements of liking and disliking percepts in novel products. Food Quality and Preference, 30, 328–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T., Cardello, A. V., Chapman, K. W., Lesher, L. L., Given, Z., & Schutz, H. G. (2010a). A comparison of the effectiveness of hedonic scales and end-anchor compression effects. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 18–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, H. T., Popper, R., & Kroll, B. J. (2010b). A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, J. (2011). Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 733–747.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lutter, M., & Nestler, E. J. (2009). Homeostatic and hedonic signals interact in the regulation of food intake. The Journal of Nutrition, 139, 629–632.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, B. (1989). A psychology of food, more than a matter of taste. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marley, A. A. J., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 464–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiselman, H. L. (2013). The future in sensory/consumer research: Evolving to a better science. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 208–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mela, D. J. (2006). Eating for pleasure or just wanting to eat? Reconsidering sensory hedonic responses as a driver of obesity. Appetite, 47, 10–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moskowitz, H. R., & Sidel, J. L. (1971). Magnitude and hedonic scales of food acceptability. Journal of Food Science, 36, 677–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, S., Francis, I. L., & Lockshin, L. (2010). Comparison of best-worst and hedonic scaling for the measurement of wine preferences. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 15, 205–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Næs, T., Brockhoff, P. B., & Tomić, O. (2010). Statistics for sensory and consumer science. Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, D., Galhardo, J., Ares, G., Cunha, L. M., & Deliza, R. (2018). Sugar reduction in fruit nectars: Impact on consumers’ sensory and hedonic perception. Food Research International, 107, 371–377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oster, H. (2004). The repertoire of infant facial expressions: An ontogenetic perspective. In J. Nadel & D. Muir (Eds.), Emotional development: Recent research advances (pp. 261–292). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parducci, A., & Wedell, D. H. (1986). The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 496–516.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D. R., & Girardot, N. F. (1952). Advanced taste-test method. Food Engineering, 24, 58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food preference. Food Technology, 11, 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pool, E., Sennwalda, V., Delplanque, S., Brosch, T., & Sandera, D. (2016). Measuring wanting and liking from animals to humans: A systematic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 63, 124–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, R., Rosenstock, W., Schraidt, M., & Kroll, B. J. (2004). The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 853–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porcherot, C., Delplanque, S., Gaudreau, N., Ischer, M., De Marles, A., & Cayeux, I. (2018). Immersive techniques and virtual reality. In G. Ares & P. Varela (Eds.), Methods in consumer research. Alternative approaches and special applications (pp. 69–83). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, J., Lee, S. M., & Kim, K. (2011). Analytic approaches to evaluation modify hedonic responses. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 391–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saper, C. F., Chou, T. C., & Elmquist, J. K. (2002). The need to feed: Homeostatic and hedonic control of eating. Neuron, 36, 199–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeber, K. G., & Kerzel, D. (2011). Cognitive load in simultaneous interpreting: Model meets data. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16, 228–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinesio, F., Saba, A., Peparaio, M., Saggia Civitelli, E., Paoletti, F., & Moneta, E. (2018). Capturing consumer perception of vegetable freshness in a simulated real life taste situation. Food Research International, 105, 764–771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, J. E. (1973). The gustofacial response: Observation on normal and anencephalic newborn infants. Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, 4, 254–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauer, S. R., Boller, F., Zubin, J., & Pearlman, S. (1983). Pupillary dilation to emotional visual stimuli revisited. Psychophysiology, 20, S472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelick, A., & Dando, R. (2018). Thinking outside the booth – The eating environment, context and ecological validity in sensory and consumer research. Current Opinion in Food Science, 21, 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, H., Bleibaum, R. N., & Thomas, H. A. (2012). Sensory evaluation practices (4th ed.). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, Y.-L., Kanade, T., & Cohn, J. (2005). Facial expression analysis. In S. Y. Li & A. K. Jain (Eds.), Handbook of face recognition (pp. 247–275). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tuorila, H. (2007). Sensory perception as a basis of food acceptance and consumption. In H. J. H. MacFie (Ed.), Consumer-led food product development (pp. 34–59). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wichchukit, S., & O’Mahony, M. (2014). The 9-point hedonic scale and hedonic ranking in food science: Some reappraisals and alternatives. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 95(11), 2167–2178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winkielman, P., & Berridge, K. (2003). Irrational wanting and subrational liking: How rudimentary motivational and affective processes shape preferences and choices. Political Psychology, 24, 657–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao, E., Lim, J., Tamaki, K., Ishii, R., Kim, K.-O., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, L. L., Kim, K. O., Chompreeda, P., Rimkeeree, M., Yau, N. J. N., & Lundahl, D. S. (1998). Comparison in use of the 9-point hedonic scale between Americans, Chinese, Koreans, and Thai. Food Quality and Preference, 9(6), 413–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeinstra, G. G., Koelen, M. A., Colindres, D., Kok, F. J., & de Graaf, C. (2009). Facial expressions in school-aged children are a good indicator of “dislikes”, but not of “likes”. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 620–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zellner, D. A., Kern, B. B., & Parker, S. (2002). Protection for the good: Subcategorization reduces hedonic contrast. Appetite, 38, 175–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zellner, D. A., Rohm, E. A., Bassetti, T. L., & Parker, S. (2003). Compared to what? Effects of categorization on hedonic contrast. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(2), 468–473.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zellner, D. A., Allen, D., Henley, M., & Parker, S. (2006). Hedonic contrast and condensation: Good stimuli make mediocre stimuli less good and less different. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 235–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sensometrics and Consumer Science, Instituto Polo Tecnológico de Pando, Facultad de Química, Universidad de la República, Pando, Uruguay

    Gastón Ares & Leticia Vidal

Authors
  1. Gastón Ares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leticia Vidal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gastón Ares .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Herb Meiselman Training and Consulting, Rockport, MA, USA

    Herbert L. Meiselman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Ares, G., Vidal, L. (2020). Measuring Liking for Food and Drink. In: Meiselman, H. (eds) Handbook of Eating and Drinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14504-0_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation