1964
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1964.tb01771.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Sample Sequence on Food Preferencesa,b

Abstract: Hedonic-scale preference tests were run with four types of meat. Each one compared two nonirradiated ("good") samples with two irradiated ("poor")samples. Three effects were demonstrated: a) position effect (the later samples in the series were rated lower) ; h) contrast effect (serving "good" samples first lowered the ratings for "poor" samples); and c) convergence effect (serving "poor" samples first lowered the ratings for "good" samples).Contrast and convergence effects were shown to be independent of pos… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
1

Year Published

1972
1972
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Conversely, in opposition to the liking stability reported for 'good' foods by Schutz and Kamenetzky, our cookie data (Fig. 6) show preference dropped for the most liked sample, suggesting asymmetric dominance may constitute a different phenomenon from the context and convergence effects described previously (Eindhoven, Heligman, Hamman, & Peryam, 1964).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 83%
“…Conversely, in opposition to the liking stability reported for 'good' foods by Schutz and Kamenetzky, our cookie data (Fig. 6) show preference dropped for the most liked sample, suggesting asymmetric dominance may constitute a different phenomenon from the context and convergence effects described previously (Eindhoven, Heligman, Hamman, & Peryam, 1964).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 83%
“…In part this might be explained by the fact that the panelists were always given the reference sample first. This "position effect" has been observed in other panels (Eindhoven et al, 1964).…”
mentioning
confidence: 66%
“…The ordering of the plates on each serving tray was random such that each panelist tasted the samples in a different order. The samples were also arranged in a matrix to lessen biases due to the position effect (Eindhoven et al . 1964).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%