JFS S: Sensory and Food Quality

Effect of Reference Foods in Repeated

Acceptability Tests: Testing Familiar
and Novel Foods Using 2 Acceptability Scales
A. NASSER EL DINE AND A. OLABI

ABSTRACT: Hedonic tests are routinely used to assess the acceptance of food products. However, these single tests
may not be the best approach for predicting long-term use. The objectives of this study were, first, to check whether a
difference from reference score is more sensitive to changes in hedonic scores, second, to assess whether the labeled
affective scale (LAM) is more sensitive to differences than the 9-point scale, and third, to assess the effect of repeated
exposure on the hedonic scores of neophilic and neophobic panelists for familiar and novel foods. Two groups of 41
panelists were tested with either the 9-point hedonic scale or LAM scale. Panelists received a food neophobia ques-
tionnaire and were subsequently classified to neophobic, neophilic, or neutral. Ten foods, including 5 novel and 5
familiar, were used. In each session, 5 to 6 foods were served twice/week for 4 wk. Serving frequency ranged between
1 and 8 times (1, 2, 4, 6, 8). Data analyses were performed 3 times, using either absolute acceptability scores or rela-
tive scores, that is, the difference between absolute scores and scores for either the reference (cracker, RELFAM) or a
novel food (pickled-ginger, RELNOV) served in every session. The 3 analyses (absolute, RELFAM, and RELNOV) gen-
erated similar results with respect to the number of significant differences between foods. There was no major drift
in acceptability scores with sessions. A significant food effect was obtained (P < 0.05) and a significant food × neo-
phobia (P < 0.05) was noted for 2 novel foods, pickled ginger, and lychee, whereby neophobic panelists were less
accepting of them. Both scales were equally sensitive with some advantages for LAM over the 9-point hedonic scale.
Keywords: acceptability, LAM scale, neophobia, reference foods, repeated exposure

Introduction The increase in acceptance with repeated exposure has been

S: Sensory & Food

F ood items are typically assessed for their acceptability in
single-taste sessions. Despite the short time needed for 1-time
described as a “mere exposure” effect (Pliner 1982; Crandall 1984;
Porcherot and Issanchou 1998) and has been shown to be ben-

Quality
hedonic assessments and the consequent cost savings, several eficial for increasing the acceptability of healthier foods. Tuorila-
problems have been noticed. These drawbacks range from the Olikainen (1987) reported a reduction in liking for whole milk and
serving size (Zandstra and others 1999), to the artificial testing an increase in liking for the skim milk version. Similarly, Mattes
environment (Meiselman and others 2000a) and the frequency of (1993) obtained a significant decrease in preference for 4 preferred
exposure to food items (De Graaf and others 2005). In these labo- high fat level foods after a long-term reduced fat diet.
ratory tests, the measurement is restricted to momentary impres- The development of food boredom or a monotony effect is
sions and the development of the appreciation of products over demonstrated by a decrease in hedonic ratings with repeated expo-
time is not considered. Thus, they could not be always considered sure (Stubenitsky and others 1999; Zandstra and others 2000b). The
as good predictors of consumers’ behavior toward foods in real- monotony effect has been shown to be dependent on several fac-
life situations. Accordingly, the acceptability of foods may change tors, including the type of food (Schutz and Pilgrim 1958), its initial
after repeated consumption (Kamen and Peryam 1961; Tuorila- pleasantness (Schutz and Pilgrim 1958; Siegel and Pilgrim 1958),
Ollikainen and others 1986; Vickers and Holton 1998; Hetherington typical frequency of intake (Hetherington and others 2000, 2002),
and others 2000; Zandstra and others 2000a, 2000b; Hetherington and the availability of choice (Kamen and Peryam 1961; Zandstra
and others 2002; Chung and Vickers 2007), though there are stud- and others 2000b; Raynor and others 2006), which generally in-
ies that have revealed consistent hedonic scores over a short time creases acceptability. Regarding the type of food, staple foods have
period of few days (Goldman 1994). Therefore, acceptance could been shown to be less susceptible to a monotony effect (Schutz and
be reinforced (Pliner 1982) or could decline with repeated exposure Pilgrim 1958).
(Hetherington and others 2000, 2002). Furthermore, initial hedo- In addition, the change in acceptability with repeated exposure
nic ratings were maintained for some foods while that of others could depend on the novelty of the food and the food neophobia
decreased in previous studies (Schutz and Pilgrim 1958; Siegel and level of panelists. The Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) was developed
Pilgrim 1958). by Pliner and Hobden (1992) and has been the tool of choice for
measuring food neophobia levels. Several studies have shown that
“mere exposure” to the taste of unfamiliar foods increased liking for
MS 20080536 Submitted 7/17/2008, Accepted 11/5/2008. Authors are with these foods (Birch and Marlin 1982; Pliner 1982). In Pliner’s (1982)
Nutrition and Food Science Dept., American Univ. of Beirut, Riad El Solh investigation, acceptability of novel tropical fruit juices increased
1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon. Direct inquiries to author Olabi (E-mail: after 20 trials and the exposure effect was explained as the dissipa-
ammar.olabi@aub.edu.lb).
tion of food neophobia.


R

C 2009 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE S97
doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.01034.x
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
 Use of reference foods in acceptability . . .
A variety of sensory tools have been used to assess the accept-
ability of foods, including the 9-point hedonic scale (Peryam and
Girardot 1952; Peryam and Pilgrim 1957), the labeled affective mag-
nitude scale (Schutz and Cardello 2001; Cardello and Schutz 2004),
the FACT scale (Schutz 1964), and others. However, despite the
simplicity and ease of use of the 9-point hedonic scale, several
problems were reported, including the lack of equivalence between
intervals (Peryam and Pilgrim 1957; Schutz and Cardello 2001), ex-
cessive use of the neutral category as a “safe place” (Jones and oth-
ers 1955), avoidance of end anchors, and lack of a true zero and
of independent judgments (Stevens and Galanter 1957). Accord-
ingly, studies have compared the sensitivity and reliability of this
scale compared with the magnitude estimation scale and obtained
better sensitivity with the magnitude estimation (Mc Daniel and
Sawyer 1981) or similar levels of sensitivity (Moskowitz and Sidel
1971; Lavenka and Kamen 1994; Barylko-Pikielna and others 2004)
and similar levels of sensitivity, reliability, and precision (Warren
and others 1982; Pearce and others 1986). The labeled affective
magnitude scale was developed to evaluate liking/disliking (Schutz
and Cardello 2001) based on the study of Green and others (1993,
1996) who devised the “labeled magnitude” scale (LMS), modeled
after the “category-ratio” scale (Borg 1982). Jeon and others (2004)
compared the variation among the mean errors for these 2 scales
and demonstrated an equal level of discrimination ability between
the two, while studies by Green and others (2006) and Schutz and
Cardello (2001) showed that the 9-point hedonic scale was a more
conservative sensory tool in determining differences among sam-
ples and the LAM scale was more sensitive.
Reference samples are regularly and successfully used in qual-
ity control studies or in descriptive analysis as benchmarks for
comparison and to stabilize panelists’ performance and reliability
(Nielsen and others 2005), in addition to its use in certain threshold
methods such as the method of constant stimuli. However, the use
of reference foods in hedonic tests is still rare despite the existence
S: Sensory & Food
of few studies. These included the use of the self-adjusting scale
(Gay and Mead 1992; Mead and Gay 1995) and comparisons be-
Quality
tween the 9-point hedonic scale with reference compared with the
typical hedonic scale (Bergara-Almeida and da Silva 2002). A desert
chocolate bar formulated for warm-weather military rations was
used by Lawless (1994) in the Barter scale to predict the total ap-
peal of foods or meal combinations. In addition, Olabi (2001) used
reference foods in a study about the optimization of a space diet
and found that the use of reference foods could be helpful when
a significant session effect is expected and with incomplete design
studies by increasing the precision of statistical tests.
In the development of innovative, high quality, and appealing
foods, sensory evaluation is key. Foods that do not attain high con-
sumer acceptance are destined to fail. It is important to provide the
industry with methods and tools that will reduce risks and uncer-
tainty in decision making and would be of great economical value.
Previous studies discussed previously have revealed changes in ac-
ceptability in repeated acceptability tests. Moreover, these changes
were known to be affected by many factors, including context or
session effects. The main goal of this study was to assess the stabil-
ity and differentiating power of acceptance testing with and with-
out the use of a hedonic reference. Of further interest was the use of
the LAM scale, which is expected to stabilize consumers’ frame of
reference in making acceptability judgments (Schutz and Cardello
2001). Therefore, the hypotheses were first, that the use of a hedo-
nic reference would improve the sensitivity of assessing acceptabil-
ity changes through the use of relative scores, which in turn will
“capture” any session-related changes, instead of absolute scores,
second, that the LAM would be more sensitive to acceptability
S98 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009
differences, and third, that neophobic panelists would be less ac-
cepting of novel foods. The objectives of this study were, first, to
check whether a difference from reference score is more sensitive
to changes in hedonic scores, second, to assess whether the labeled
affective scale (LAM) is more sensitive to differences than the 9-
point scale, and third, to assess the effect of repeated exposure on
the hedonic scores of neophilic and neophobic panelists for famil-
iar and novel foods.
Materials and Methods
Preliminary tests
Preliminary tests were carried out with the aim of selecting ade-
quate foods for the experimental sessions. A total of 30 to 35 pan-
elists participated in each of the 7 preliminary tests. The panelists
were mostly graduate students and staff from the Nutrition and
Food Science Dept. at the American Univ. of Beirut. During each
session, panelists rated their acceptability for 5 food samples from
different food categories using a 9-point hedonic scale. They also
rated the level of familiarity of each food on a 9-point categorical
scale with “very unfamiliar” and “very familiar” as its outermost
categories. The goal of these preliminary tests was to select a ref-
erence food, in addition to 5 familiar and 5 novel foods. Standard
deviations as well as means of acceptability ratings and familiar-
ity scores were calculated for the preliminary sessions. Food items
with mean familiarity ratings higher than 6 were considered famil-
iar products, and lower than 5 were considered novel products. In
addition, the selection of familiar and novel food items was lim-
ited to foods requiring little or no preparation. The familiar foods
were typical of the Lebanese diet and were selected for the experi-
mental sessions based on high familiarity ratings, while the oppo-
site held true for novel foods, and varying acceptability levels to
span the acceptability spectrum. Foods from the main food cat-
egories (main dish, side dish, dessert, soup, and beverage) were
assessed in the preliminary tests to imitate all the items and the
variety of a meal. One to 2 foods were selected from each food
category for the experimental sessions based on the criteria re-
lated to novelty, familiarity, and acceptability as described previ-
ously. Food items were purchased locally from different grocery
stores.
Main experiment
Stimuli. In every session, several foods were assessed, including
a reference food, which was included for the purpose of providing a
reference point for calculating relative scores, which could be more
sensitive than absolute scores, especially in the event of a session
effect. Several criteria were followed in the selection of the reference
food. It had to have a neutral taste quality to minimize carryover
effects and was chosen to have little or no preparation to prevent
the changes in quality as well as in the sensory properties during
preparation. Thus, commercial foods that are staples fitted these
requirements. In addition, the product had to have relatively high
acceptability and familiarity ratings with a low standard deviation

R
for acceptability. The salty cracker (ETI , Bursa, Turkey) fulfilled
these requirements and was selected as the reference food in the
present study.

R
The selected familiar foods were Falafel (Barbar , Beirut,
Lebanon), canned Baba ghanouj (mashed roasted eggplants mixed

R
with tahini, lemon juice, and oil-Al Wadi Alakhdar , Chtoura,

R
Lebanon), asparagus soup (Maggi , Bursa, Turkey), and apricot
nectar (mashed dried apricot, Damascus, Syria, dissolved in water
in the proportion of 1 kg:1 L in the laboratory) were obtained from
local grocery stores.
Use of reference foods in acceptability . . .

As for the novel foods, different ethnic processed foods such as
Chinese, Thai, and French were purchased locally. These included
R
lychee (Monoprix , France), which was used as a dessert; pick-
led ginger (Bangkok, Thailand); the known Chinese item was used

R
as a side dish. Potato soup (Le Potage , Sevres, France) and chili

R
(Hormel , San Antonio, Tex., U.S.A.) represented the soup and
main dish categories, respectively. Additionally, the beverage used
was freshly squeezed sugar cane juice. All the familiar and novel
food items are listed in Table 1.
Participants
Eighty-two panelists participated in the study. The panelists
were 23 male and 59 female (mean age = 22, age range = 18 to
54, SD = 5.93), mainly graduate, undergraduate students, and staff
at the American Univ. of Beirut. They were recruited through an
advertisement in the university electronic bulletin and posters at
campus buildings. They were randomly and evenly assigned to 1 of
the 2 groups (41 panelists/group), whereby each group of panelists
conducted the taste sessions using either the 9-point hedonic or the
labeled affective magnitude (LAM, reference Schutz and Cardello
2001) scale. To be eligible for participation, panelists had not to
have a dislike for a large number of foods and not to have dietary re-
strictions or food allergies. Table 2 summarizes the main character-
istics of the panelists. Panelists were rewarded with money coupons
for their participation.
Procedure
On each test day, panelists arrived at the laboratory at least 2 h af-
ter their last meal (either mid-morning or mid-afternoon). Upon ar-
rival, respondents were seated in individual booths with white fluo-
rescent lighting located in the sensory evaluation laboratory of the
Dept. of Nutrition and Food Science. The environment was calm
and undisruptive. Then panelists were supplied with the food tray,
a pen, and a questionnaire.
elists filled in the beginning of every session a questionnaire, which
included questions about mood, which was rated on a 7-point cat-
egory smiley scale (Chen and others 1996; Morien and others 2008),
with “very pleasant” and “very unpleasant” as end anchors, and
hunger that was rated on a 15-cm line scale. The panelists were
classified based on their neophobia scores to 1 of 3 categories: neo-
phobic, neophilic, or neutral. The categories were based on a ± 1.0
standard deviation (positive for neophobic, negative for neophilic)
difference from the mean of a large sample obtained in the Pliner
and Hobden’s (1992) study. A neutral category included those who
had a score of < ±1 standard deviation from the mean. Pliner and
Hobden (1992) obtained a mean of 34.51 and classified panelists
to neophobic and neophilic based on a 1 standard deviation differ-
ence (11.86) from the mean.
Furthermore, panelists were asked to taste the food samples in
the order provided and to rate their degree of liking for each food,
the level of familiarity, and their attitude toward each food item.
The assessments of acceptability were performed using either a
9-point hedonic scale, or on a 10-cm vertical LAM scale anchored
by “greatest imaginable dislike” at 0 and “greatest imaginable like”
at 10. The scale presented to the panelists had no numbers, only
descriptors. Panelists were asked to indicate their acceptability rat-
ing on the LAM scale by marking a slash (/) on any location on the
scale. All respondents (both acceptability scales) also chose their fa-
miliarity ratings on a 9-point category scale labeled with numbers
for each category and with only “not at all familiar” and “extremely
familiar” as end anchors, as well as their attitude toward the food
products as measured by the FACT scale consisting of 9 categories
assigned to statements listed from the most positive attitude such
as category “1” or “I would eat this every opportunity I have” to the
most negative food attitude such as category “9” or “I would eat this
only if I were forced to” (Schutz 1964).
Twenty to 30 g of each sample were presented in individual
50-mL portion plastic cups (produced locally) coded with 3-digit

S: Sensory & Food

In the 1st session, panelists filled a Food Neophobia Question- random numbers. Stimuli were prepared 1 d before use and were
naire (FNS, Pliner and Hobden 1992) including 10 questions on a refrigerated until half an hour before tasting, with the exception

Quality
7-point scale assessing the food neophobia level with levels ranging of the soups and falafel, which were prepared on the morning of
from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). In addition, the pan- the session day. The soups and chili were heated in a microwave
(Daewoo, Seoul, South Korea, KOR-6C2B- 1200 Watts) for 30 and 60
s, respectively. Food stimuli were presented on a tray with a nap-
Table 1 --- Food items for taste sessions.
kin, plastic forks and spoons, and spring water for rinsing between
Food Food Times Session samples. It is noteworthy to mention that the order of the sam-
category item/type served served ples was counterbalanced in each session based on the design for
Main dish Falafela (F) 4 2, 4, 6, 8 5 or 6 samples as described by Macfie and Bratchell (1989), which
Chilib (N) 4 1, 3, 5, 7 balances the carryover effects. The counterbalancing was adopted
Appetizer Baba ghanoujc (F) 6 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
for several reasons, first to prevent any carryover and order effects,
Pickled gingerd (N) 8 1 to 8
Soup Asparagus soupe (F) 2 2, 5 second because this study was conducted in a laboratory environ-
Potato soupf (N) 1 8 ment, with small portions served for every food and accordingly did
Beverage Apricot nectar (F) 1 7 not mimic a home or restaurant environment, and third because
Sugar cane juice (N) 2 1, 4 with the presence of the aforementioned conditions, it is not pos-
Dessert Lycheeg (N) 6 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8
Reference food Salty crackersh (F) 8 1 to 8 sible to call the group of foods served in every session a meal but
rather a meal simulation. There are pros and cons for having a “real
F = familiar; N = novel. Brands: a Barbar, Beirut, Lebanon; b Hormel, San
Anotonio, Tex., U.S.A.; c Al Wadi Alakhdar, Chtoura, Lebanon; d Bangkok, life” compared with a laboratory type of scenario and obviously the
Thailand; e Maggi, Nestle, Bursa, Turkey. f Le Potage, Sevres, France.g Monoprix, choice in this study was for the latter, which provides better control
France. h ETI, Bursa, Turkey.
at the expense of having a more representative type of experience.
Table 2 --- Characteristics of panelists. Additionally, new 3-digit random numbers were used to code the
food items between sessions even for the repeated samples thus,
Gender Neophobia level
reducing number bias.
Female Male Neophobic Neophilic Intermediate
9-point 26 15 3 9 29 Experimental design
hedonic scale Eighty-two panelists were evenly and randomly divided be-
LAM scale 33 8 4 9 28 tween 2 groups, one using the 9-point hedonic scale and the
Total 59 23 7 18 57
other using the LAM scale. Ten foods, including 5 novel and

Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE S99

 Use of reference foods in acceptability . . .

5 familiar, were served to all the panelists. The selection of foods
as familiar or novel was based on the familiarity scores of the
preliminary sessions. The serving frequency ranged between 1 and
8 times (1, 2, 4, 6, 8), whereby for each serving frequency there is
both a familiar and a novel food. The serving frequency was var-
ied for the foods to assess the effect of different serving frequencies
on the changes in acceptability scores and to increase the number
of tested foods. Five to 6 foods were served to the panelists twice a
week at lunchtime and included the typical items of a meal (main
dish, appetizer, and so on) for a period of 4 wk. The foods were ran-
domized over the sessions in such a way that the reference food
(cracker) and 1 novel food (pickled ginger) were repeated every ses-
sion. It is important to note that pickled ginger was not meant to be
another reference food especially that it did not have a low standard
deviation for acceptability in the preliminary tests, had low aver-
age acceptability and low familiarity ratings, all opposite qualities
to what is needed in a reference food. However, it was important
for the sake of balancing the experimental design to include a novel
food that was served in every session, similar to the reference food
(cracker). Hence it was considered useful to do the analyses using
the relative scores with both the cracker and pickled ginger to com-
pare and contrast the results of these 2 analyses with each other and
with that of the absolute scores. The detailed experimental design
of the study is in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 3.
Statistical analyses
Two types of analyses of variance were conducted. The 1st one
included the data for the 2 scales and is summarized in Table 4, 5,
and 6. For this analysis, the effect of the different predictor vari-
ables on the acceptability of the foods was assessed. The main
factors were: scale type (9-point compared with LAM), food nov-
elty (familiar compared with novel), session (1 through 8), serv-
S: Sensory & Food
ing frequency (TSERV: 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 times), neophobia category
(neophobic, neophilic, and neutral), food (1 to 10; nested within
novelty and TSERV), and panelist (nested within scale and neo-
phobia category). In addition, mood and hunger were added as
covariates to the model. An analysis of variance was performed
using PROC GLM of the SAS statistical software (SAS version 8.02,
1999-2001, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C., U.S.A.). In the statistical
model, the response variable was the acceptability of the foods.
Panelist, food, and session were random effects, while scale type,
food novelty, serving frequency, neophobia category, mood, and
hunger were fixed effects in the model. Each main effect was tested
as well as all 2-way interactions and selected 3-way interactions.
In addition, the analysis was repeated twice using relative scores,
which represented the difference between the absolute scores and
the reference scores from either the regular reference (cracker) or
the novel food (pickled ginger) that was served in every session.
The relative values were calculated as a difference score for each
individual panelist in each individual session. Mean separation was
performed using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD). Sig-
nificance was preestablished at α < 0.05.
Separate analyses of variance were conducted with the absolute
scores for the 9-point hedonic scale or the LAM original data to ob-
tain the results that are summarized in Table 5, in addition to calcu-
lating the normality of data and the frequency of neutral responses.
Naturally, the analysis of variance model did not include any scale
effect or any of its interactions. Mean separation was performed us-
ing Tukey’s HSD. Significance was preestablished at α < 0.05.
Moreover, the normality of the data per food and per scale was
checked using the Anderson–Darling (AD) values. AD values reflect
the goodness of fit to a standard normal distribution (lower values
indicate a better fit), the LAM scale was closer to normal distribu-
tion than the 9-point hedonic scale.

Subjects Figure 1 --- Outline of experimental design.

Quality

9-point LAM Scale Type

(41) (41) (9-point hedonic or LAM)

F(5) N(5) F(5) N(5) Novelty (number of foods)

(N: Novel; F: Familiar)

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Food
(Familiar: 1-5; Novel: 6-10)

1 2 4 6 8 1 2 4 6 8 1 2 4 6 8 1 2 4 6 8 Frequency of Serving (TSERV)

(1, 2, 4, 6, 8)

Table 3 --- Experimental design of the study.

Session/
times served 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
8 Crackers Crackers Crackers Crackers Crackers Crackers Crackers Crackers
8 Pickled Pickled Pickled Pickled Pickled Pickled Pickled Pickled
ginger ginger ginger ginger ginger ginger ginger ginger
6 Baba ghanouj Baba ghanouj Baba ghanouj Baba ghanouj Baba ghanouj Baba ghanouj
6 Lychee Lychee Lychee Lychee Lychee Lychee
4 Chili Falefel Chili Falafel Chili Falafel Chili Falafel
2 Sugar Asparagus Sugar Asparagus
cane juice soup cane juice soup
1 Apricot nectar Potato soup

S100 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009

Use of reference foods in acceptability . . .

Results and Discussion of variance included in Table 5) are summarized in the 2nd column
of Table 4. The familiar reference food used (cracker) had the high-
Comparison of different models: absolute est acceptability score among the foods (8.1). On the other hand,
compared with relative scores the novel food (pickled ginger) that was served in every session re-
The strongest effect was the differences among the foods. The ceived the lowest acceptability rating (3.0). Differences (P < 0.05)
acceptability scores (absolute scores) for foods (from the analysis between the top 3 foods were found. These foods were cracker,
falafel, and lychee, with ratings of 8.1, 7.6, and 7.0, respectively,
Table 4 --- Acceptability means for 10 food items using and differences were also found between the bottom three, namely,
absolute scores and relative to both familiar (RELFAM) Baba ghanouj, sugar cane juice, and pickled ginger, with 5.3, 3.7,
and novel food (RELNOV). and 3.0, respectively. The other foods (apricot nectar, chili, aspara-
Food name Absolute values RELFAM RELNOV gus and potato soups) had scores ranging between 5.8 and 7.0 and
Pickled ginger (N) 3.0 a
5.2 a
−0.0a in general did not show differences. The average acceptability of fa-
Sugar cane juice (N) 3.7b 4.4b −0.8b miliar foods tended to be higher than that of novel foods, though
Baba ghanouj (F) 5.3c 2.9c −2.3c this was not shown to be significant in the analysis of variance
Apricot nectar (F) 5.8cd 2.3cd −2.9cd (Table 5).
Chili (N) 6.8de 1.4de −3.8de
Analysis of variance results for absolute scores. The analysis
Asparagus soup (F) 6.9ef 1.2def −4.0def
Potato soup (N) 7.0def 1.2def −4.0def of variance results for the absolute scores are summarized in the
Lychee (N) 7.0e 1.1ef −4.0ef 3rd column of Table 5. Differences were obtained for food (nested
Falefel (F) 7.6f 0.6f −4.6f within TSERV and novel; Table 4, P < 0.001). The panelist × TSERV
Crackers (F) 8.1g 0.0g −5.2g and panelist × novel interactions (P < 0.001) are an indication that
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different the serving frequency and novelty had a different effect on the gen-
(P > 0.05).
RELFAM: Relative to familiar reference food. eral acceptability of foods for different panelists. This outcome is
RELNOV: Relative to novel food item repeated in every session. to be expected because panelists always differ and hence the need

Table 5 --- Significance of predictor variables (F-values and P-values) in 3 different models (absolute scores, RELFAM,
and RELNOV) for main effects and their interactions.
Absolute scores RELFAMb RELNOVc FACTd
Variablesa df Error term F -values
Panelist (scale-neophobia) 76 Error 1 1.00 1.80∗ ∗ ∗ 4.73∗ ∗ ∗ 4.14∗ ∗ ∗
Session 7 Error 2 0.11 0.32 0.44 0.83
Scale 1 Error 3 0.05 1.00 0.26 1.39
Times served (TSERV) 4 Error 4 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.11
Novel (scale-neophobia) 1 Error 5 0.48 0.44 0.47 0.02
Neophobia level 2 Error 6 0.86 1.28 1.19 0.90
Hunger 1 MSE2 1.58 0.00 2.11 0.32

S: Sensory & Food

Mood 1 MSE 1.87 0.36 0.58 0.30
Food (TSERV-novel) 4 Error 7 64.27∗ ∗ ∗ 62.07∗ ∗ ∗ 59.28∗ ∗ ∗ 1.84

Quality
Panelist × TSERV 304 MSE 5.61∗ ∗ ∗ 5.32∗ ∗ ∗ 4.97∗ ∗ ∗ 3.55∗ ∗ ∗
Panelist × novel 76 MSE 13.07∗ ∗ ∗ 12.33∗ ∗ ∗ 11.50∗ ∗ ∗ 7.53∗ ∗ ∗
Scale × food 4 MSE 4.76∗ ∗ ∗ 4.49∗ ∗ 4.19∗ ∗ 146.15∗ ∗ ∗
Food × neophobia 8 MSE 2.52∗ ∗ 2.39∗ 2.12∗ 1.37
Hunger × food 4 MSE 6.06∗ ∗ ∗ 5.62∗ ∗ ∗ 4.80∗ ∗ ∗ 1.46
Mood × food 4 MSE 3.05∗ 2.85∗ 3.04∗ 0.80
Mood × neophobia 2 MSE 1.77 3.76∗ 0.04 0.47
Session × neophobia 14 Error 8 2.31 3.47 1.82 5.13
Novel × neophobia 2 Error 9 0.80 0.80 0.87 1.37
Scale × novel 1 Error 10 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.58
Scale × neophobia 2 Error 11 0.85 0.18 2.69 1.80
Session × novel 7 Error 12 1.93 2.19 2.58 0.86
TSERV × neophobia 8 Error 13 0.71 0.71 0.74 0.46
Scale × session 7 Error 14 1.04 1.90 0.95 0.55
Scale × TSERV 4 Error 15 0.29 0.28 0.30 0.23
Hunger × panelist 76 MSE 0.66 1.16 1.18 0.88
Hunger × scale 1 MSE 0.42 0.70 1.09 0.07
Mood × scale 1 MSE 1.52 0.53 1.80 3.13
Hunger × session 7 MSE 0.45 0.40 0.52 0.40
Mood × session 7 MSE 0.19 0.95 0.22 0.85
Hunger × TSERV 4 MSE 0.12 0.13 0.48 0.41
Mood × TSERV 4 MSE 0.20 0.24 0.10 0.59
Hunger × novel 1 MSE 1.79 1.58 0.34 0.43
Mood × novel 1 MSE 0.02 0.00 0.25 2.46
Hunger × neophobia 2 MSE 0.56 0.03 0.08 0.06
Hunger × mood 1 MSE 1.40 0.01 0.68 0.34
Scale × session × neophobia 14 MSE 0.61 0.72 1.43 0.69
Scale × session × novel 7 MSE 0.20 0.19 0.18 1.00
Session × novel × neophobia 14 MSE 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.34
Scale × TSERV × neophobia 8 Error 16 2.31∗ 5.32∗ ∗ ∗ 4.97∗ ∗ ∗ 1.37
Scale × novel × neophobia 2 Error 17 1.31 1.32 0.37 0.34
a
Response variable is acceptability.
b
RELFAM: Relative scores to cracker (familiar reference food), c RELNOV: Relative scores to the pickled ginger (novel food item repeated in every session), d FACT:
Food action rating scale, ∗ P < 0.05, ∗ ∗ P < 0.01,∗ ∗ ∗ P < 0.001.

Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE S101

 Use of reference foods in acceptability . . .

to have a panelist effect. In addition, scale × food, hunger × food
(P < 0.001), and mood × food (P < 0.05) interactions reveal the
different effects of scale, mood, and hunger on the acceptability
of different foods, again showing the benefit of including mood
and hunger as covariates in the model. Unfortunately, mood and
hunger were continuous variables and accordingly the means of
the different levels of these interactions could not be compared.
The food × neophobia level interaction (P < 0.01) demonstrated
that the acceptability of certain foods was different for different
neophobia groups. This is further discussed in the “Effect of food
neophobia” section below. As for the scale × TSERV × neo in-
teraction, naturally there were significant differences (P < 0.001)
between the levels of the different foods, as demonstrated by
differences for varying levels of TSERV (for example, the accept-
ability of TSERV = 4 for the 9-point scale and neophilic panelists
was significantly different (P < 0.001) from the acceptability of
TSERV = 8 for the LAM scale and neophobic panelists). However,
when comparisons were made between the 3 neophobia groups for
the same scale and the same TSERV, differences (P < 0.05) were ob-
tained for some or all of the neophobia groups for the 9-point scale
and TSERV = 6, and for the LAM scale and TSERV = 8, respectively.
The least squares means were neophilic = 6.9a , intermediate =
6.1ab , and neophobic = 5.2c ; neophilic = 6.6a , intermediate = 5.4b ,
and neophobic = 4.3c for the 9-point scale and TSERV = 6 and for
the LAM scale and TSERV = 8, respectively.
Relative compared with absolute scores. The results of the
analyses of variance for the relative scores (cracker: RELFAM and
pickled ginger: RELNOV) are summarized in Table 5. In general,
the relative scores models had similar sensitivity to the effects
and interactions of the variables as the absolute scores. The ex-
Table 6 --- Least squares mean absolute acceptability
scores for food items using the labeled affective mag-
nitude scale (LAM) and 9-point hedonic scale.
S: Sensory & Food
ceptions were panelist effect (P > 0.05) with the absolute ac-
ceptability scores and mood × neophobia level, which was sig-
nificant (P < 0.05) for RELFAM but not for the absolute values
or RELNOV. Session effect was also not significant (P > 0.05) in
all models, confirming the absence of a trend in the acceptabil-
ity scores with time. The same level of significance (P-value) was
found with the different models for most main factors and the 2-
or 3-way interactions; thus differences were noted for food (nested
for time served and novelty), panelist × TSERV (nested for scale
type and neophobia level), panelist × novel (nested for scale type
and neophobia level), hunger × food and scale × neo × TSERV
(P < 0.001), and mood × food interaction (P < 0.05). However,
different levels of significance (P-value) were noted for food ×
neophobia, scale × food, and mood × neophobia. Scale × food
was more significant with the absolute values model (P < 0.001)
than the RELFAM and RELNOV models (P < 0.01). The same ap-
plied to food × neophobia, though with different significance levels
(0.001 compared with 0.05, respectively). As for mood × neopho-
bia interaction, it was significant (P < 0.05) only with the RELFAM
model. Given the results above, it could be noted that in general,
the relative sores models had a similar sensitivity to differences in
the investigated variables and interactions as the typical absolute
scores model. All of the above-mentioned interactions have been
described in the previous section.
Variables analyzed using the FACT scores are summarized in
the 6th column of Table 5. Similar results to the absolute scores
were obtained for panelist × novel and panelist × TSERV and
scale × food. On the other hand, other variables were shown to
be significant with the absolute scores but not with the FACT.
This applied to food × neo, hunger × food, mood × food, and
scale × TSERV × neo.
The acceptability scores (absolute scores and relative scores) for
foods are summarized in Table 4. The 10 different foods could be
arbitrarily classified to 3 groups: highly liked (cracker, falafel, ly-

chee), highly disliked (pickled ginger, Baba ghanouj, sugar cane

9-point Food
juice) and foods with intermediate level of acceptance (apricot nec-
Quality

Food name (type) LAM hedonic scale name (type)

tar, chili, and potato and asparagus soups). Comparable differences
Crackers (F) 8.2a 8.0a Crackers (F) were found with the different models. In addition, the differences
b ab
Falafel (F) 7.3 7.8 Falafel (F)
Lychee (N) 7.1b
7.6 abc
Potato soup (N) between the foods were more frequent for the absolute scores com-
Asparagus soup (F) 7.0b 6.9bc Lychee (N) pared to the RELFAM and RELNOV model where less differences
Potato soup (N) 6.8bc 7.2bc Chili (N) were noted in the highly liked and moderately liked foods (inter-
Chili (N) 6.5bc 7.0bc Asparagus soup (F) mediate). This outcome could be easily explained for the RELNOV
cd cd
Apricot nectar (F) 5.5 6.1 Apricot nectar (F)
model but is surprising for the RELFAM one. In terms of the REL-
Baba ghanouj (F) 5.3d 5.2d Baba ghannouj (F)
Sugar cane juice (N) 3.6e
3.8 e
Sugar cane juice (N) NOV model, the difference with the absolutes score model was due
Pickled ginger (N) 2.6e 3.3e Pickled ginger (N) to the fact that pickled ginger, which was used to calculate the
Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P >
RELNOV scores had a bimodal type of distribution for its abso-
0.05). lute acceptability scores and a high standard deviation (SD = 2.7).
F = familiar food; N = novel food.
This in turn translated to higher variability when computing the

Table 7 --- Mean acceptability ratings and standard deviations for foods through taste sessions.
Session
Food 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SD
a
Cracker 8 (1.1) 8 (1.2) 8.1 (1.2) 8.2 (1.2) 8.2 (1.3) 8.1 (1.3) 8.2 (1.3) 8.3 (1.2) 0.1
Pickled ginger 3 (2.9) 3 (2.8) 3.2 (3.2) 3.1 (3.2) 3.3 (3.1) 3.2 (3.2) 3.2 (3.1) 3.2 (3.2) 0.1
Baba ghanouj 5.7 (2.5) 5.3 (2.5) 5.2 (2.7) 5.2 (2.6) 5.3 (2.5) 5.4 (2.6) 0.2
Lychee 7 (2.2) 6.9 (2.3) 7.2 (2.1) 7.1 (2.3) 7.2 (2.3) 7.3 (2.2) 0.1
Falafel 7.8 (1.4) 7.8 (1.5) 7.8 (1.5) 7.9 (1.7) 0.1
Chili 7.1 (1.8) 6.9 (2.0) 7.1 (2.0) 7.2 (2.0) 0.1
Asparagus soup 6.7 (1.9) 6.8 (2.1) 0.1
Sugar cane juice 3.8 (2.2) 3.7 (2.5) 0.1
Apricot nectar 5.9 (2.3)
Potato soup 6.9 (1.9)
SD = standard deviation of mean ratings for each food in all sessions.
a
Standard deviation of mean ratings for individual food in single session.

S102 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009

Use of reference foods in acceptability . . .
RELNOV scores and resulted in inflating the standard deviations
for all the foods with the RELNOV model, thereby resulting in less
differences between foods. This solidified the original hypothesis
of the authors that a hedonic reference should have low variability,
high familiarity, and high acceptability.
After the identification of significant predictors (Table 5), in-
cluding 2- and 3-way interactions (P < 0.05), the number of sig-
nificant differences was counted for each significant variable or
interaction for each model separately to assess the sensitivity of
each model in detecting the maximum possible number of differ-
ences. Of course, this comparison remains one of qualitative na-
ture given that these variables are already significant and some-
times have the same level of significance (P-value). This type of
comparison has been used in previous studies (Stoer and Lawless
1993; Schutz and Cardello 2001). The predictor variables that were
compared in this study were food, scale × food, food × neo, and
scale × TSERV × neo. The number of significant differences was
relatively similar for food (34, 32, and 32), scale × food (116, 116,
and 105), and food × neo (228, 221, and 241) with the absolute,
RELFAM, and RELNOV models, respectively. The exception was
scale × TSERV × neo (109, 105, and 191) where more differences
were obtained with RELNOV compared to the 2 other models. Con-
sequently, the 3 models had similar levels of sensitivity because no
major differences were observed by using either the absolute rat-
ings or the relative ratings. However, it should be noted that these
numbers were very similar in absolute and RELFAM, while RELNOV
had slightly different numbers.
Comparison of acceptability scales
(9-point and LAM)
Sensitivity to significant differences among food items.
There was a scale × food interaction (P < 0.05) for all mod-
els as noted previously. The least squares mean absolute accept-
ability scores for the 9-point and LAM scales are summarized in
Table 5. The results showed that foods were different (P < 0.05) to
the same extent (that is, having the same superscripts) with both
scales for the lower acceptability foods (pickled ginger, sugar cane
juice, Baba ghanouj, and apricot nectar). However, a difference was
8 Figure 2 --- Mean absolute
7 low (solid symbols) and high
6
5
4
3
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
noted for the other foods. Cracker was different from falafel and ly-
chee with the LAM, while no differences were obtained with the 9-
point hedonic scale when similar comparisons were made between
the top 3 foods, namely, cracker, falafel, and potato soup. This di-
vergence implies that the LAM scale could be more sensitive to dif-
ferences in highly liked items, an outcome that was obtained by
Schutz and Cardello (2001). They found that both scales had equiv-
alent levels of sensitivity except for high level of effect and related
this outcome to the presence of the end-point “greatest imaginable
liking/disliking” in the LAM scale that enables more extreme rat-
ings than “like/dislike extremely” in the 9-point hedonic scale.
However, it is important to note that in the Schutz and Cardello’s
(2001) study the same panelists used both scales in separate ses-
sions, while in our case, there were 2 separate groups, each group
evaluating foods using a specific scale (either the 9-point hedonic
scale or the LAM scale). Using the same panelists for both scales
might have improved the sensitivity of “between scales” compar-
isons in a similar manner to the difference between a paired t-
test compared with a 2-sample t-test due to less variability for the
same panelists than for different panelists. However, this was not
the case for this study because having the same panelists assess
both scales would have introduced the training effect factor and
made an already complex design more intricate. In addition, the
order for moderately liked foods was different between the 9-point
hedonic and LAM scale groups. For the 9-point scale the ranking
for acceptability scores in decreasing order was: lychee, chili and
asparagus soup, and apricot nectar, while for LAM it was aspara-
gus soup, potato soup, chili, and apricot nectar. It is important to
mention that no significant differences existed between all of these
foods for both scales. Mean acceptability scores suggested that al-
though the 2 panelist groups used 2 different scales to evaluate ac-
ceptability, the results showed similar tendencies for acceptance for
both groups. The rank of the different foods in terms of their ac-
ceptability was the same for both scales except for the moderately
S: Sensory & Food
liked foods mentioned previously. In general, it could be concluded
that the LAM scale discriminated better between samples in near
Quality
optimal liking because it was more sensitive to differences among
well-liked foods and had relatively similar results when compared
to the 9-point hedonic scale for the other foods.
acceptability scores (both
scales) of pickled ginger (),
lychee (), and chili ( ) for
neophobia (open symbols)
groups in repeat sessions.
Pickled ginger
Pickled ginger
Lychee (Phil)
Lychee (Phob)
Chili
Chili
Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE S103
 Use of reference foods in acceptability . . .
Sensitivity to significant differences among variables. The
number of significant differences for comparisons between the dif-
ferent foods was assessed. A total of 45 can be made for food. Both
scales had a high number of significant differences for food, with
a slightly higher number for LAM (32 compared with 27). A simi-
lar trend was observed for the number of significant differences of
food × neophobia (176 compared with 171), possibly indicating a
slightly higher level of sensitivity for the LAM scale. This hypothesis
has received a considerable support in previous studies performed
by Schutz and Cardello (2001) where the LAM scale was more
sensitive to differences; hence more significant differences were
observed when panelists gave their ratings on the LAM scale as
compared to the 9-point hedonic scale. A similar outcome was
found by Green and others (2006) where more differences among
peanut samples were detected by using the LAM scale to compare
between the fruit flavored and nonfruit flavored peanuts. The la-
beled magnitude scale for perceived satiety (SLIM), developed by
Cardello and others (2005), was also shown to have high sensitiv-
ity to differences between pairs of foods and specifically at the ex-
tremes of hunger or fullness.
Normality of obtained data. The LAM scale was closer to nor-
mal distribution than the 9-point hedonic scale. The AD values
were lower in the data generated from the LAM scale for familiar
foods (asparagus soup: 1.2 compared with 2.8; apricot nectar: 0.9
compared with 1.2; falafel: 5.6 compared with 9.1; Baba ghanouj:
3.1 compared with 6.5 for LAM and 9-point hedonic, respectively)
and novel foods (potato soup: 1.1 compared with 2.6; sugar cane
juice: 1.1 compared with 1.6; chili: 5.8 compared with 8.9; lychee:
9.0 compared with 9.4). This confirmed the findings of Schutz and
Cardello (2001) on the LAM scale, who compared this scale to the
9-point hedonic scale and magnitude estimation scale. Interest-
ingly enough, the trend of lower AD-values with the LAM scale was
reversed with the novel food that was repeated in every session
(pickled ginger) (24.2 compared with 29.2, respectively). This was
S: Sensory & Food
not the case with the reference food (cracker), with 8.66 compared
with 24.9 for LAM and 9-point hedonic scale, respectively. Both
Quality
the reference food and pickled ginger had extreme acceptability
levels. Therefore, it could be expected that one or both foods would
not have normal distributions. Accordingly, this outcome needs to
be further explored in future studies by assessing the normality of
highly liked/disliked foods using the 9-point and the LAM scales.
Neutral scores tendency in both scales. Percent of neutral
responses for each scale was calculated across food names and
panelists. A “5” point and a “5 cm” were considered the neutral re-
sponses for 9-point hedonic scale and LAM scale, respectively. Ac-
cordingly, 6.0% neutral responses for the 9-point hedonic scale and
2.7% for the LAM scale were obtained. Thus, the 9-point hedonic
scale was encouraging to a small extent judges to choose a neu-
tral response more than LAM scale, as a safe place to use whenever
no other option fits their opinion. This was supported previously
by Jones and others (1955) and was considered one of the weak-
nesses of the 9-point hedonic scale because it decreases its effi-
ciency. This outcome and even the percentages obtained were in
line with Schutz and Cardello’s (2001) study where the LAM scale
was also found to have fewer neutral responses. The authors ob-
tained 2.9% and 6.4% neutral responses for the LAM and 9-point
scale when the neutral response on the LAM scale was defined as
“50 mm.” A smaller percentage of neutral responses (5.2%) com-
pared to the 9-point scale was also produced by the data generated
from the LAM scale in the above study when a less conservative cri-
terion with a range of 45 to 55 mm was used as indication of neutral
responses.
S104 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009
Effect of repeated exposure
Acceptability ratings were drifting but at a very small extent from
1 session to another (Table 5: session effect was not significant,
P > 0.05). The average acceptability ratings for foods across ses-
sions and their standard deviations are summarized in Table 6.
Food type does not seem to have a specific effect on the changes in
acceptability ratings through time and the ratings were stable over
the different sessions. Moreover, the reference food and the novel
food served at every session were highly stable from sessions 1 to
8. The stability of the mean acceptability scores for reference foods
was considered a favorable result in Olabi’s (2001) study. In addi-
tion, TSERV that also gives an indication of the repeated exposure
effect was not significant (Table 5) nor were most of its interactions
with other variables, with the exception of panelist × TSERV
and scale × TSERV × NEO, which have been described
previously.
Sustained acceptability ratings were also found in a study assess-
ing the influence on acceptance of a bitter compound after 10 re-
peated experiences (Mattes 1994), unlike another similar study by
Stein and others (2003), which was conducted in a setting chosen by
participants instead of the typical laboratory setting (Mattes 1994).
Other studies conducted on either staple or novel foods showed sig-
nificant increase and/or decrease in acceptability through succes-
sive sessions (Pliner 1982; Crandall 1984; Porcherot and Issanchou
1998; Hetherington and others 2000, 2002). Food novelty, particu-
larly for staple foods, and high initial acceptability resulted in an
increase and sustained acceptability, respectively, while foods with
low initial hedonic ratings showed a significant decrease in final he-
donic ratings (Siegel and Pilgrim 1958).
The results obtained in this study could be related to the rela-
tive short duration of the study (8 sessions in 4 wk) and the rela-
tively low number of repeated exposures, which could have been
insufficient to have a major effect on food acceptability and the
consequent phenomena like the development of monotony and/or
mere exposure effect. A comparison between this study and previ-
ous studies for the number of exposures revealed either similar or
higher levels of exposures for those studies. The studies with similar
levels included 5 exposures for bread (Zandstra and others 2000a),
7 exposures for a standard meal (Meiselman and others 2000b),
10 exposures for meat sauces (Zandstra and others 2000b), and 13
exposures for doughnuts (Crandall 1984). As for those with higher
levels, they included 18, 20, 20, 22, and 35 exposures for fla-
vored crackers (Porcherot and Issanchou 1998), iced tea (Vickers
and Holton 1998), a novel tropical fruit juice (Pliner 1982), 2 alter-
nate daily menus (Siegel and Pilgrim 1958), and 41 food items, re-
spectively. Most of the above-cited studies have revealed changes
in acceptability with repeated exposure and included home/field
consumption rather than laboratory testing performed in the
present study. Finally, the nature of food stimuli was different
because most of the above-mentioned studies evaluated 1 to 2
products per session (mainly snacks), with the exception of the
Siegel and Pilgrim (1958), Schutz and Pilgrim (1958), and Meisel-
man and others (2000a, 2000b) studies, while a combination of 5
or 6 foods imitating a complete meal were provided to the par-
ticipants in this study. In addition, increasing the sample size
might contribute to a drift in acceptability with time, although
this could be more challenging when several foods are assessed
per session. On another note, the foods selected for this study
had a wide acceptability range. This range factor might have pre-
vented the detection of drift over time, which could have been
more likely had foods with a narrow acceptability range been
selected.
Use of reference foods in acceptability . . .
Effect of food neophobia
Acceptability of familiar and novel foods by panelists of dif-
ferent food neophobia groups. The average neophobia score on
the FNS for the 82 panelists was 30.44 and the standard devia-
tion was 10.41. The scores ranged between 13 and 68. Cronbach’s
alpha of the scale was 0.823 demonstrating a high level of in-
ternal consistency and a similar level (0.847) to a previous study
where the FNS was used (Tuorila and others 2001). The low num-
ber of panelists in the high neophobia group for this study was
consistent with the previous experience of the corresponding au-
thor, and confirmed previous findings of a lower attendance for
high neophobia panelists in central laboratory tests compared to
an Internet survey (Henriques and others 2008). A previous study
by Olabi and others (personal communication) had revealed that
around 20% of Lebanese college students were in the high neo-
phobia group instead of the roughly 10% obtained in this study. As
mentioned in the “Analysis of variance results for absolute scores”
section, food × neophobia level was significant (P < 0.05). Dif-
ferences (P < 0.05) among neophobia groups were found only
for 2 unfamiliar foods and in the predicted directions, whereby
neophobics were less accepting of them than neophilics (Tuo-
rila and others 1994; Raudenbush and Frank 1999; Tuorila and
others 2001; Henriques and others 2008). Lychee had a neopho-
bic mean = 6.3b , neophilic mean = 7.8b , and intermediate =
7.1ab and pickled ginger had a neophobic mean = 1.8c , neophilic
= 4.2a , and intermediate = 3.0b . It is important to note that the
TSERV was 6 for lychee and 8 for pickled ginger, which should
partially explain the significant differences obtained with the sig-
nificant scale × TSERV × neo interactions between different
neophobia groups for the 9-point scale and TSERV = 6, and for the
LAM scale and TSERV = 8, respectively, as discussed in the “Analysis
of variance results for absolute scores” section.
Session effect for food neophobia groups. There was no inter-
action of session × neophobia level or novel × neophobia × session
(P > 0.05, Table 5). Ratings over the sessions were close between
the neophilic and neophobic panelists for most foods, with the ex-
ception of pickled ginger, and to a certain extent chili and lychee
(Figure 2), 3 novel foods, which is a phenomenon noted previously.
However, it is important to mention that there was no novel × neo-
phobia interaction effect. In addition, although repeated expo-
sure tends to have a positive impact on neophobia, neophobics
in the present intervention were found to have similar acceptabil-
ity ratings for foods during the 4-wk study with a slight increase
and/or decrease through time. This outcome is not in agreement
with other studies showing a positive effect of varied and multi-
ple food exposures on neophobia in human infants (Gerrish and
Mennella 2001), children (Loewen and Pliner 1999; Wardle and
others 2003), and adults (Pliner and others 1993). On the other
hand, the absence of a major effect of multiple food exposure
on food neophobia levels in a weight reduction program (WRP)
of adolescents, which was maintained for a period of 9 mo (Ri-
gal and others 2006), was in line with the findings of the present
experiment.
Given the results obtained in this study, it is recommended to
have a higher number of exposures and a longer duration for sim-
ilar studies. Both of these changes could in turn induce significant
changes in acceptability with repeated exposure, an element that
was relatively missing in this study. Another possible change would
be having the same panelists assess the foods with both scales to
enable a more sensitive “between scales” comparison. In addition,
repeating this study in either a better-controlled environment, such
as the army or boarding schools, or in a less controlled environment
such as an in-home use test would be advantageous.
Conclusions
M odels including absolute scores and relative-to-reference
scores were found to have comparable levels of sensitivity
to differences among single variables and 2- or 3-way interactions.
Moreover, foods were similarly classified according to their accept-
ability into highly liked, highly disliked, and intermediate in the
3 models. The results showed that, in general, foods were signif-
icantly different to the same extent with both scales with a dif-
ference noted in the top 3 most liked foods (crackers, falafel, and
lychee or potato soup), whereby, cracker was significantly different
from falafel and lychee with LAM scale but not with the 9-point he-
donic scale. This implied that both scales had equivalent levels of
sensitivity except for high level of effect with the LAM scale pro-
viding better discrimination among highly liked foods. Compari-
son of frequency of significant differences in the possible compar-
isons among foods and other variables demonstrated that the LAM
scale had slightly higher level of sensitivity in detecting differences
among attributes. Furthermore, data generated by the LAM scale
had a distribution that is more normal than the traditional 9-point
hedonic scale and the LAM scale tended to minimize the use of
neutral responses. Repeated exposure was found to have no ma-
jor effect on the acceptability of foods during the 4-wk period. Only
a slight increase and decrease in acceptability of both novel and fa-
miliar foods occurred throughout the study. A slight difference in
acceptability ratings of novel foods between neophilics and neo-
phobics was observed. Neophobics gave lower ratings to pickled
ginger and lychee (P < 0.05). Furthermore, there was no significant
change in the acceptability ratings of both neophobia groups over
time.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Omar Kebbe Baghdadi, Dr. Harry Lawless,
Hamza Daroub, Dr. John Walker, and Dr. Ziad Mahfoud for tech-
nical assistance and all the panelists who participated on the panel
S: Sensory & Food
for their dedication.
Quality
References
Barylko-Pikielna N, Matuszewska I, Jeruszka M, Kozlowska K, Brzozowska A,
Roszkowski W. 2004. Discriminability and appropriateness of category scaling ver-
sus ranking methods to study sensory preferences in elderly. Food Qual Pref 15:167–
75.
Bergara-Almeida S, da Silva M. 2002. Hedonic scale with reference: performance in
obtaining predictive models. Food Qual Pref 13:57–64.
Birch LL, Marlin DW. 1982. I don’t like it; I never tried it: effects of exposure on two-
year-old children’s food preferences. Appetite 3:353–60.
Borg, GAV. 1982. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sport Exer
14:377–81.
Cardello AV, Schutz HG. 2004. Numerical scale-point locations for constructing the
LAM (labeled affective magnitude) scale. J Sens Stud 19:341–6.
Cardello AV, Schutz HG, Lesher LL, Merill E. 2005. Development and testing of a la-
beled magnitude scale of perceived satiety. Appetite 44:1–13.
Chen AW, Resurreccion AVA, Paguio LP. 1996. Age appropriate hedonic scales to mea-
sure food preferences of young children. J Sens Stud 11:141–63.
Chung S, Vickers Z. 2007. Influence of sweetness on the sensory-specific satiety and
long-term acceptability of tea. Food Qual Pref 18:256–64.
Crandall CS. 1984. The liking of foods as a result of exposure: eating doughnuts in
Alaska. J Soc Psychol 125(2):187–94.
De Graaf C, Kramer FM, Meiselman HL, Lesher LL, Baker-Fulco C, Hirsch ES, Warber
J. 2005. Food acceptability in field studies with US army men and women: relation-
ship with food intake ad food choice after repeated exposures. Appetite 44:23–31.
Gay C, Mead R. 1992. A statistical appraisal of the problem of sensory measurement. J
Sens Stud 7:205–28.
Gerrish CJ, Mennella JA. 2001. Flavor variety enhance food acceptance in formula-fed
infants. Am J Clin Nutr 73:1080–5.
Goldman A. 1994. Predicting product performance in the marketplace by immediate-
and extended-use sensory testing. Food Technol 48(10):103–6.
Green BG, Shaffer GS, Gilmore MM. 1993. Derivation and evaluation of a seman-
tic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties. Chem Senses
18:683–702.
Green BG, Dalton P, Cowart B, Shaffer G, Rankin K, Higgins J. 1996. Evaluating the “la-
beled magnitude scale” for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chem Senses
21:323–35.
Green JL, Bratka KJ, Drake MA, Sanders TH. 2006. Effectiveness of category and line
scales to characterize consumer perception of fruity fermented flavor in peanuts. J
Sens Stud 21:146–54.
Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE S105
 Use of reference foods in acceptability . . .
Henriques AS, King SC, Meiselman, HL. 2008. Consumer segmentation based on food
neophobia and its application to product development. Food Qual Pref 20:83–91.
Hetherington MM, Bell A, Rolls BJ. 2000. Effects of repeat consumption on pleasant-
ness, preference and intake. Br Food J 102(7):507–21.
Hetherington MM, Pirie LM, Nabb S. 2002. Stimulus satiation: effects of repeated ex-
posure to foods on pleasantness and intake. Appetite 38:19–28.
Jeon SY, O’Mahony M, Kim KO. 2004. A comparison of category and line scales under
various experimental protocols. J Sens Stud 19:49–66.
Jones LV, Peryam DR, Thurstone LL. 1955. Development of a scale for measuring sol-
diers’ food preferences. Food Res 20:512–20.
Kamen JM, Peryam DR. 1961. Acceptability of repetitive diets. Food Technol 26:173–7.
Lavenka N, Kamen J. 1994. Magnitude estimation of food acceptance. J Food Sci
59(6):1322–4.
Lawless HT. 1994. Contextual and measurement aspects of acceptability. Final Report
nr TCN 94178, U.S. Army Research Office.
Loewen R, Pliner P. 1999. Effects of prior exposure to palatable and unpalatable
novel foods on children’s willingness to try novel foods in stimulating and non-
stimulating situations. Appetite 32:351–66.
Macfie HJ, Bratchell N. 1989. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation
and first order carry over effects in hall tests. J Sens Stud 4:129–48.
Mattes RD. 1993. Fat preference and adherence to a reduced-fat diet. Am J Clin Nutr
57:373–81.
Mattes RD. 1994. Influences on acceptance of bitter foods and beverages. Physiol Be-
hav 56:1229–36.
Mc Daniel MR, Sawyer FM. 1981. Preference testing of whiskey sour formulation:
magnitude estimation versus the 9-point hedonic scale. J Food Sci 46:182–5.
Mead R, Gay C. 1995. Sequential design of sensory trials. Food Qual Pref 6:271–80.
Meiselman HL, Johnson JL, Reeve W, Crouch JE. 2000a. Demonstrations of the influ-
ence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 35:231–37.
Meiselman HL, de Graaf C, Lesher L. 2000b. The effects of variety and monotony on
food acceptance and intake at a midday meal. Physiol Behav 70:119–25.
Morien A, Garrison D, Keeney Smith N. 2008. Range of motion improves after massage
in children with burns: a pilot study. J Bodywork Movement Therap 12:67–71.
Moskowitz HR, Sidel JL. 1971. Magnitude and hedonic scales of food acceptability. J
Food Sci 36:677–80.
Nielsen D, Hyldig G, Sorensen R. 2005. An effective way to minimize drifting and mon-
itor the performance of a sensory panel during long-term projects—a case study
from a project on Herring quality. J Sens Stud 20:35–47.
Olabi A. 2001. The optimization of a bioregenerative life support space diet [PhD the-
sis]. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ.
Peryam DR, Girardot NF. 1952. Advanced taste-test method. Food Engr 24:58–61.
Peryam DR, Pilgrim FJ. 1957. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences.
Food Technol 11:9–14.
Pearce JH, Korth B, Warren CB. 1986. Evaluation of three scaling methods for hedo-
nics. J Sens Stud 1(1):27–46.
Pliner P. 1982. The effect of mere exposure on liking for edible substances. Appetite
3:283–90.
Pliner P, Hobden K. 1992. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neo-
phobia in humans. Appetite 19:105–20.
S: Sensory & Food
Pliner P, Pelchat M, Grabski M. 1993. Reduction of neophobia in humans by exposure
to novel foods. Appetite 20:111–23.
Porcherot C, Issanchou S. 1998. Dynamics of liking for flavored crackers: test of pre-
Quality
dictive value of a boredom test. Food Qual Pref 9(1/2):21–9.
S106 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 74, Nr. 2, 2009
Raudenbush B, Frank RA. 1999. Assessing food neophobia: the role of stimulus famil-
iarity. Appetite 32:261–71.
Raynor HA, Niemeier HM, Wing RR. 2006. Effect of limiting snack food variety on
long-term sensory-specific satiety and monotony during obesity treatment. Eating
Behav 7:1–14.
Rigal N, Frelut M, Monneuse M, Hladik C, Simmen B, Pasquet P. 2006. Food neopho-
bia in the context of a varied diet induced by a weight reduction program in mas-
sively obese adolescents. Appetite 46:207–14.
Schutz HG, Cardello AV. 2001. A labeled affective magnitude scale for assessing food
liking/disliking. J Sens Stud 16:117–59.
Schutz HG, Pilgrim FJ. 1958. A field study of food monotony. Psychol Reports 4:559–
65.
Schutz HG. 1964. A food action rating scale for measuring food acceptance. Paper
presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Food Technologists, May
24-28, 1964, Washington, D.C.
Siegel PS, Pilgrim FJ. 1958. The effect of monotony on the acceptance of food. Am J
Psychol 71:756–9.
Stein LJ, Nagai H, Nakagawa M, Beauchamp GK. 2003. Effects of repeated exposure
and health-related information on hedonic evaluation and acceptance of a bitter
beverage. Appetite 40:119–29.
Stevens SS, Galanter EH. 1957. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen of percep-
tual continua. J Exp Psychol 54(6):377–411.
Stoer NL, Lawless HT. 1993. Comparison of single product scaling and relative-
to-reference scaling in sensory evaluation of dairy products. J Sens Stud 8:257–
70.
Stubenitsky K, Aaron JI, Catt SL, Mela DJ. 1999. Effect of information and extended
use on the acceptance of reduced-fat products. Food Qual Pref 10:367–76.
Tuorila H, Meiselman HL, Bell R, Cardello AV, Johnson W. 1994. Role of sensory and
cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking for novel and fa-
miliar foods. Appetite 23:231–46.
Tuorila H, Lahteenmaki L, Pohjalainen L, Lotti I. 2001. Food neophobia among the
Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food Qual Pref 12:29–
37.
Tuorila-Olikainen H. 1987. Selection of milk with varying fat contents and related to
overall liking, attitudes, norms and intentions. Appetite 8:1–14.
Tuorila-Ollikainen H, Lahteenmaki L, Salovarra H. 1986. Attitudes, norms, intentions
and hedonic responses in the selection of low salt bread in a longitudinal choice
experiment. Appetite 7:127–39.
Vickers Z, Holton E. 1998. A comparison of taste test ratings, repeated consumption,
and post-consumption ratings of different strengths of iced tea. J Sens Stud 13:199–
212.
Wardle J, Herrera ML, Cooke L, Gibson EL. 2003. Modifying children’s food prefer-
ences: the effects of exposure and reward on acceptance of an unfamiliar vegetable.
Eur J Clin Nutr 57:341–8.
Warren C, Pearce J, Korth B. 1982. Magnitude estimation and category scaling. ASTM
Standard News 10:15–6.
Zandstra EH, de Graaf C, van Trijp HCM, van Staveren WA. 1999. Laboratory hedonic
ratings as predictors of consumption. Food Qual Pref 10:411–8.
Zandstra EH, de Graaf C. Mela DJ, van Staveren WA. 2000a. Short- and long-term ef-
fects of changes in pleasantness on food intake. Appetite 34:253–60.
Zandstra EH, de Graaf C, van Trijp HCM. 2000b. Effects of variety and repeated in-
home consumption on product acceptance. Appetite 35:113–9.