20.

S E N ' S O R Y M E T H O D O L O G Y FOR P R O D U C T D E V E I O P M E N T B A R B A R A HALL E L L I S

S E N S O R Y E V A L U A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T G R E E N V I L L E , N O R T H C A R O L I N A

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Marketing i s concerned w i t h all aspects of consumer acceptance including demographics, psychographics and purchase motivation. Market t e s t i n g i s done a t the consumer l e v e l i n natural se t t ings .

R&D i s concerned with developing products having acceptable cha rac t e r i s t i c s a t a reasonable cost . Testing usual ly must be done i n "unnatural" settings (k, t he laboratory) . of t he budget allowed marketing and must depend upon marketing f o r graphics and motivational information. Marketing must depend upon R&D f o r t he development of po ten t i a l ly successful new products.

R&D operates on a f r ac t ion

Product acceptance i s t h e prime concern of both marketing and R&D. Marketing can afford the time and expense of measuring acceptance at the consumer l eve l . methods of evaluating products during t h e development process. I n order to be va l id ly predict ive these R&D methods must eventually be correlated with f i e l d consumer s tudies . Considerable caxe must be exercised i n the se lec t ion of sensory methods and panels, control of t e s t i n g conditions and in t e rp re t a t ion of data .

R&D has had t o develop l e s s cos t ly and quicker

It i s not d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e rp re t da ta from f i e l d t es t s as being d i r e c t l y r e l a t ed t o consumer acceptance since t h e t e s t subjects are "real" consumers. It i s d i f f i c u l t t o relate laboratory-generated da ta t o con- sumer acceptancrs ince t h e subjects cannot qual i fy as representat ive of t he real consumers. This requires a complete understanding of sensory tes t methods, t h e i r appl icat ion t o spec i f ic problems, and the meaning of da t a obtained. It i s no wonder t h a t marketing people shy away from the sensory t e s t i n g a rea w i t h t he explanation tha t they don't understand the implications. To understand the implications would require considerable more study than most marketing people are wil l ing t o expend i n t h i s area. R&D on the other hand with i t s much s m a l l e r budget and the problem of t i m e i s forced t o u t i l i z e sensory methods.

IMPORTANCE OF CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE

The basic concern i n all sensory t e s t i n g i s product acceptance. I n i t i a l l y we want t o know whether or not our product i s acceptable t o the consumer, or whether t he acceptab i l i ty of our product "matches" or "exceeds" t h a t of another product. Later we w i l l want t o know if we can maintain t h i s acceptab i l i ty l e v e l i n production through control of ingredients and process (Qual i ty Control). Eventually we w i l l want t o know the age at which our product i s no longer acceptable t o t h e consumer (Shelf Li fe ) .

21.

Accept a c e M e asurerne n t

The most accurate measurement of consumer acceptance i s the sa l e s d o l l a r . Unfortunately t h i s measurement has several ser ious drawbacks: it i s very expensive, it requires considerable t i n e , it i s not e a s i l y controlled, and it i s frequent ly not reproducible. Measurement of the sa les do l l a r i s impractical i n most product developnent s i tua t ions .

The most p rac t i ca l approach t o predict ing consumer acceptance today i s through the use of sensory panels. Sensory panels measure human responses t o sensory stimuli i n food products. Consumers perceive product cha rac t e r i s t i c s through the senses of s m e l l , taste, touch, s ight and sound. Sensory cues along with behavioral influences provide the consumer w i t h a bas i s f o r a judgmental value of acceptance or re jec t ion . Certainly our government and news media are m a k i n g t he consuner very much aware of the sensory cha rac t e r i s t i c s of a l l products--food and non-food.

Some of t he physical cha rac t e r i s t i c s of food products can be masured instrumentally, but we cannot l i m i t our measurement t o instruments because it i s not possible t o specify t h e in te rac t ion of the varying physical propert ies i n producing an overa l l judgment. must be correlated with human responses if they are t o have any meaning i n evaluating sensory cha rac t e r i s t i c s . Instrumental measurements have no r e a l m e a n i n g without cor re la t ion with human panels. Human measurements can have r e d meaning without instrumental cor re la t ion .

Instrumental readings

For obvious reasons of better control it i s desirable t o work towards greater use of instruments. A t t h e present time we must depend upon sensory tests supported by 03 j ec t ive measurements wherever possible.

Non- Se ns ory Fact or s

Factors of pr ice , ava i l ab i l i t y , u t i l i t y , convenience and function may be more or less important for a pas t icu lar product. The importance of sensory cha rac t e r i s t i c s as compared t o non-sensory f a c t o r s should not be underestimated. Consumers expect food products t o have acceptable charac- t e r i s t i c s of taste, smll, f ee l ing and appearance. Ralph Nader recent ly dismissed f lavor as the "deter iorat ion of a food product i n t h e human mouth". basis of sensory propert ies as w e l l as function, t he nu t r i t i ve q u a l i t i e s of a food may remain unut i l ized. attempts t o improve t h e nu t r i t i on of t he undernourished of t he world w i t h - out regard f o r their acceptance standards.

Apparently he misses the point t h a t without acceptab i l i ty on the

This has been the sad lesson of some

Sensory evaluation i s the technica l approach t o the predict ion of consumer acceptabi l i ty . important product charac te r i s t ics ; t o set probable limits of t h e i r detect- a b i l i t y ; and t o estimate acceptabi l i ty . Final ly , f i e l d tes ts m u s t be run and the da t a compared with t h a t from laboratory tests t o ascer ta in the as sumed correlat ion.

Laboratory tes ts can be used t o determine

SENSORY TEST METHODS

Basical ly there are three types of sensory methods:

2 2 .

Affective Discr iminat ive Descriptive.

This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s on t h e bas i s of the "task of the subject". ina te between products? or t o describe the cha rac t e r i s t i c s which he perceives? These categories can be sub-classified by what t he subject represents--an instrument or a consumer. If he represents an instrument, t h e subject i s a subs t i t u t e f o r a physical measuring technique. If he represents a consumer the subject represents some cross-section of a t a r g e t population.

I s h i s t a sk t o repor t h i s feelings or emotions? t o discrim-

Affective Tests:

This category includes both preference and acceptance tests. The terms "preference" and "acceptance" are of ten used interchangeably. For purposes of product development it might be w e l l t o point out t h a t one product may be preferred t o another without being an acceptable product.

Affective tes ts used i n product development include ranking, paired comparison, hedonic scales--word and facial, and word act ion r a t ing scales .

R a n k i n g t es t s are fast, e a s i l y applied and e a s i l y interpreted. Their main disadvantages are t h a t they give no indicat ion of magnitude of preference and they evaluate samples only i n re la t ionship t o each other. Paired Comparison tes ts can be used with a scale, o r i n a s e r i e s i n more complex designs. They show a re la t ionship only between samples i n a pa i r or s e t . Hedonic R a t i n g Scales are very widely used. They indicate magni- tude of l i ke -d i s l ike which permits comparison of several samples. In te r - p re ta t ion of terms used and scale values determined may be var iable according t o product category. t h i s every opportunity I had--1 would e a t t h i s if I were forced to") come c loser t o measuring t r u e acceptance than the Hedonic Rating Scales.

Food Action Rating Scales ("I would e a t

Considerations f o r using a f fec t ive tes ts i n product development include t h e following:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Panel i s t s should be persons who normally eat and enjoy the product.

Pane l i s t s should not have had any p r io r experience with t h e product. have par t ic ipated i n t h e development of t he product.

They should not be persons who -

The minimum number of pane l i s t s i s 24. persons making two judgments each do not cons t i tu te 24 independent judgments .)

(Twelve

Panel i s t s should not be asked t o make p rac t i ca l decisions such as t h a t posed by the "Would you buy it?" question. They are not i n a p rac t i ca l s i t ua t ion and are not able t o give a va l id answer t o the question.

23.

5.

6 .

7.

Laboratory preference panels are va l id f o r determination of d i r ec t ion of preference only, not for magnitude of preference. F ie ld tes ts must be run t o make ce r t a in of t he assumed correlat ion.

"No preference" votes should be considered i n the f i n a l i n t e rp re t a t ion of t e s t r e s u l t s and should not be d i s - carded. Discarding of these votes w i l l d i s t o r t t he test f indings.

Some decis ion should be made as t o the type of judgment required--single or multiple use.

Affective tests determine preference or acceptabi l i ty . They generate l i t t l e information concerning f lavor construction or f lavor difference. Two products may have iden t i ca l preference r a t ings and r ad ica l ly d i f f e ren t f l avor construction. O r a food developer may know very w e l l t h a t a competitor's product i s preferred t o h i s own. What he needs t o know t o improve the acceptab i l i ty of h i s product, i s "how" the f l avor of t h e two products d i f f e r s . information i s t o use t h e appropriate method; i n t h i s case, a descr ipt ive type. method does not supply the information required.

The only e f f i c i e n t way t o obtain such

AU. sensory t e s t i n g including af fec t ive t e s t i n g i s wasted if the

Affective t es t s are very important i n product development. They are used t o determine consumer l i k e s and d i s l i k e s a t t he concept stage and throughout development. They are pa r t i cu la r ly important at the concept stage when there i s no prototype. (If our g o d i s a product already i n existence, we need u t i l i z e descr ipt ive techniques only.) If we change OUT product by using an a l t e rna te ingredient or process, w e must use a f fec t ive t e s t s t o determine consumer s e n s i t i v i t y (or tolerance) f o r var ia t ions i n product cha rac t e r i s t i c s . Shelf l i f e i s determined as t h a t age a t which our product becoms unacceptable t o the consumer.

Discriminative and descr ipt ive measurements must be correlated with a f fec t ive tests before they can be assumed t o have any va l id re la t ion- ship t o acceptance. Once t h i s has been accomplished, discriminative and descr ipt ive tes ts can be e f f i c i e n t l y u t i l i z e d with only occasional checks w i t h a f fec t ive tes ts .

Discriminative Tests:

Descriminative tes ts determine difference or s imi l a r i t y between They include the standard difference tests (forced-choice) and products.

t h e s e n s i t i v i t y tests (threshold, d i lu t ion) . Basical ly a31 discriminative t e s t s measure differences i n t e r m s

of threshold. t i v e of t h e consumer, we w i l l se lec t them on t h e bas i s of product usage or some other consumer c r i t e r i a . If we are using difference panel i s t s as physical measuring i n s t r u m n t s then we would select them on the basis of "sensi5ivi ty to", or "low thresholds for", the f lavor difference. I n e i t h e r case the f indings m u s t be correlated w i t h da t a from ac tua l f i e l d s tudies . The dangers of depending upon laboratory difference panels as representat ive of the consumer population without f i e l d cor re la t ion are

If we are using difference pane l i s t s as being representa-

24.

obvious. reproduce the spectrum of threshold l e v e l s existing i n the real consumer world. It i s general ly assumed t h a t laboratory panels are more sensi t ive than consumer panels because of se lec t ion and experience. be true depending upon the individual thresholds of t h e panel members and the ir repre sent at ivene s s of t he consumer population.

It i s doubtful t h a t any laboratory panel could r e l i a b l y

The reverse may

The standard difference tes ts are the triangle, duo-trio and paired comparison. They are precis ion methods and lend themselves t o s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. They are applicable when differences are s l i gh t . When differences are large, t he rating scale approach i s more useful. They can be used only when intersample e f f e c t s (contrast , carry-over, etc.) aze minimum. (Products with l inger ing b i t te rness , smoke, sweetness or t a c t i l e f a c t o r s do not lend themselves t o precis ion discriminative tes t s .) They should not be used when treatments d i f f e r i n kind ra ther than i n degree. For example, they should not be used t o determine differences between brands of product, since two brands may vary i n several dimnsions. can be used t o determine difference between two l e v e l s of t he same ingredient i n the same product.

They

I n product development we of ten have the task of evaluating similar ingredients t o perform t h e same function. For example, we may wish t o evaluate several d i f f e ren t sweeteners i n a product. While the primary function of t h e ingredient i s " to sweeten", any pa r t i cu la r sweeten- ing ingredient can affect other f lavor cha rac t e r i s t i c s (mouth f ee l ing fac tors , aftertaste, other tas tes , aromatic notes) also. These addi t ional f l avor e f f e c t s can preclude the use of t h e precis ion discriminative tests. I n such cases we are l imited t o a single sample tes t , usual ly one of t he descr ipt ive techniques.

The prac t ice of using scales of "degree of difference" i s widespread. The maning of these scales i s questionable. Without anchored scales, i.e., scales with physical standards present, it appears t h a t degree of difference has l i t t l e meaning. would be t h e percentage of persons f inding a difference, and a minimum panel s ize of s i x t y persons i s required f o r t h i s measurement.

A more meaningful measure

The design of a triangle difference t e s t can a f f ec t t he s e n s i t i v i t y of the tes t . experimental sample appears t o be more sens i t ive i n some cases than the design which permits one cont ro l and two experimental samples. important t o inspect da t a f o r t h i s phenomenon and t o m a k e allowances f o r it i n in te rpre ta t ion . Also, if t h e tes t i s l imited t o the more sens i t ive design, and the pane l i s t s are aware of t h i s , it may change t h e probabi l i ty of t h e t e s t .

The design allowing f o r two controls and one

It Ls

Difference t e s t s t e l l only whether or not a pa r t i cu la r group of persons did or did not f i nd a difference. "how" samples are d i f f e ren t . s ens i t i v i ty .

They do not usual ly indicate They are not necessar i ly re la ted t o consumer

Difference tes ts are useful i n product development pa r t i cu la r ly i n "matching" prcducts. process or ingredient change has produced a measurable difference i n t h e f lavor cha rac t e r i s t i c s of a product. effect of packaging materials, and i n maintaining qua l i ty control standards.

They can be used t o determine whether or not a

They are useful i n evaluating the

25.

Threshold t e s t s determine the minimum detectable concentration

The standard difference t e s t s can of a substance (absolute threshold) or t he minimum detectable change i n concentration (difference threshold) . be used, or t he sequential-up s e r i e s i n which a gradually increasing s e r i e s of concentrations i s u t i l i z e d . Both sequential-up and sequential- down ( s t a i r case approach) series are considered t o be past of the basic psychophysical approach t o threshold determination. For purposes of product development t h e sequential-down s e r i e s i s impractical because of physiolog- i c a l complications i n going from stronger concentrations t o weaker ones. The sequential-up series i s recommended f o r product development. The l e v e l duplicated i n several runs may be taken as the threshold l eve l . If the standard difference tes ts are used, t he threshold has been defined as being t h e point i n the series where 75% of t h e judgments are cor rec t (ASCM, Committee E-18) . threshold l e v e l over t h e generally accepted l e v e l of 50%.

This apparently permits addi t ional confidence i n the

Threshold t e s t s can be useful i n product development i n the se lec t ion of materials necessary f o r a pa r t i cu la r function within the product but not desirable from a f lavor standpoint, e.g., emulsif iers . If a choice i s t o be made between two or more such materials on t h e bas i s of f lavor , t he material with t h e highest threshold value ( i . e . -7 requiring a higher concentration for detection) would be the recommended material . Threshold tes ts can be applied i n the s a manner f o r the se lec t ion of packaging mater ia ls (as can l i n i n g materials). Threshold-dilution tests can a l so be used t o e s t ab l i sh standards f o r she l f - l i f e . Aged product can be prepared i n various concentrations with f r e sh product i n order t o se lec t a standard f o r t he she l f - l i f e l i m i t . This approach i s p a r t i c u l a l y useful with beverages or products which blend physically without d i f f i c u l t y .

Threshold tes ts can a l so be used f o r t he evaluation of f lavoring ingredients i n a t e s t medium. Difference threshold tes ts can be used as qua l i ty control checks on d i f f e ren t l o t s of t he s a m f lavoring material.

DescriDtive Tests:

Descriptive t es t s answer t he question "What are the character- i s t i c s of t h i s product?" descr ipt ive methods focus on the product. If the subject i s used as a consumer, descr ipt ive methods focus on the consumer's awareness of , or s e n s i t i v i t y to--product charac te r i s t ics .

If t h e subject i s used as an instrument,

Descriptive tes ts are usually both qua l i t a t ive and quant i ta t ive. They yield a simple descr ipt ion of product cha rac t e r i s t i c s and r e l a t i v e in t ens i ty values. Specific techniques f o r descr ipt ive analysis of flavor and tex ture have been developed. These are the p ro f i l e methods. They are based on t h e use of reference standards and standardized evaluation pro- cedures. Simple r a t i n g scales are used for in tens i ty . Flavor p ro f i l e includes a technique f o r measuring the duration of f lavor notes ca l led " t i m e intensi ty" .

The p r o f i l e methods u t i l i z e s m a l l t ra ined panels of four t o s ix They are v e r s a t i l e and can be applied t o many d i f f e ren t products

They are e f f i c i e n t i n t h a t they evaluate many dimensions a t persons. and problems. t h e same t i m e .

2 6 .

The p ro f i l e methods are b e t t e r known at the research l e v e l than i n marketing. A descr ipt ive approach more popular with marketing people i s the semant ic -d i f fe ren t id . Semantic-differential i s designed t o f ind out which descr ipt ive terms r e a l l y describe the f lavor of a food. A l i s t of terms which might apply t o the product i s presented t o the subject whose t a s k i s t o se l ec t those he feels do apply t o the product. In addition he may be asked t o assign an in t ens i ty v d u e usual ly on a bi-polar scale . Semantic-differential. t e s t s are usually done i n the f i e l d .

Confidence I n A Relationship

Descriptive methods do not lend themselves t o ordinary s t a t i s - Data must be accepted "as is" without the securi ty of t i c a l procedures.

confidence l eve l s . The importance of descr ipt ive methods has been growing, pa r t i cu la r ly i n the area of sub jective-objective correlat ion. Flavor p ro f i l e i s the only sensory method useful f o r cor re la t ion with instrumental f lavor readings (G.C. ) . t o a "confidence i n a re la t ionship between descr ipt ive da t a and ins t ru- mental da t a i n l i e u of a s t a t i s t i c a l re la t ionship. This approach t o in t e r - p re t a t ion of descr ipt ive da t a poses no problem f o r those who r e l y on a "common sense" approach t o the in te rpre ta t ion of sensory data. The p ro f i l e methods are reproducible and, when va l id ly used and interpreted, can give meaningful da t a without t he use of t h e usual s t a t i s t i c a l methods.

I n a recent manual on t h i s top ic the ASTM r e fe r s

I n the p r o f i l e descr ipt ive methods the subjects are used as instruments and are not intended t o be representat ive of t he consumer. I n the semantic-differential approach the subjects are used as consumers and are considered t o be representat ive of some t a r g e t population. Problems of dealing with semantics are compounded i n the semantic-differential where terms are - not usual ly generated by a panel of persons working with r e fe r - ence standards and standardized procedures. Several persons may use the sana3 term with d i f f e ren t meanings ( b i t t e r , sour, rancid) or they may use d i f f e ren t terms but m e a n t h e same thing. The value of using descr ipt ive terms generated by a panel with a common vocabulary i s obvious. approach i n product developlnent would be t o use a t ra ined descr ipt ive p r o f i l e panel t o generate terms f o r later use i n semantic-differential approaches at the consumer l eve l .

The bes t

Advisory Role I n Product Development

Another advantage of the p ro f i l e approach i n product development i s t h a t the panel i s t ra ined t o evaluate "blend" and other general charac- t e r i s t i c s of "good" f lavor such as "lack of af terf lavor" . panels can suggest spec i f ic changes i n t h e product f o r the purpose of improv- ing the f lavor . i n product development.

The p ro f i l e

Many f lavor p ro f i l e panels play a very act ive advisory ro l e

Descriptive p ro f i l e methods are primarily used as too l s i n product development. product development ac t iv i ty . product development problems :

The panels are s m a l l and usual ly accessible t o the They are useful i n the solut ion of many

1. To match product--particularly when in-depth knowledge of product cha rac t e r i s t i c s i s required.

2 7 .

2. To develop new product (no prototype) --useful i n i n i t i a l stages and t o assess general charac te r i s t ics .

3. To change process--descriptive methods can determine if f l avor or texture of product i s changed, and if so, i n which spec i f ic cha rac t e r i s t i c s . This approach i s espec ia l ly useful when the s i z e of equipment i s changed as i n going from l a b equipment t o p i l o t equipment, or from p i l o t equipment t o f u l l plant production. Any changes occurring i n the product can be described, and the formulation or process changed accordingly t o match t h e product as or ig ina l ly developed and t e s t ed at bench top l eve l .

4. To replace ingredients--descriptive da t a w i l l indicate if o r ig ina l specif icat ions have been maintained, and if not, spec i f ica t ions of changed product.

5. To define specif icat ions of product created--descriptive i s t h e only method which describes f lavor as perceived by t h e consumer.

6. T o evaluate e f f e c t s of packaging materiaJ-s--descriptive methods give in-depth information about cha rac t e r i s t i c s changed or introduced by packaging materials.

7. To e s t ab l i sh and maintain qua l i ty control standards-- tolerances can be determined by acceptance techniques and maintained by descr ipt ive techniques. i s the only method which produces a permanent record of t h e f l avor cha rac t e r i s t i c s of a product.

Descriptive

8. To determine shelf- l i fe--descr ipt ive methods can be u t i l i z e d once acceptance tes ts have established shelf l i f e l i m i t . The descr ipt ive method i s the only one which permits a permanent record of t h e product at zero time.

Descriptive tests provide information concerning product chmac te r i s t i c s . product cha rac t e r i s t i c s . They are discriminative i n t h a t difference can be inferred by comparison of several product prof i les . i s a difference but we also know how t o describe the difference.

They focus on the product or on consumer awareness of They do not masure preference or acceptance.

I n t h i s case not only do we know t h a t there

WHICH METHOD S m L WE USE?

Acceptance i s the most important f ac to r i n product development but it i s of ten impossible, i ne f f i c i en t or t oo expensive t o use accept- ance tests f o r all product development problems. mthods f o r spec i f ic P.D. problems has been spelled out.

The use of spec i f ic

Just as there i s no single sensory method which solves a l l problems sa t i s f ac to r i ly , there i s no set order of t e s t i n g methods. We may

28.

begin with d f e c t i v e and descr ipt ive s tud ies at t h e concept stage, and use all three types of lnethods throughout t h e development program.

It i s a f a i r l y common pract ice t o combine a f fec t ive and differ- ence tests. It i s a w e l l es tabl ished f a c t t h a t there i s a preference bias f o r t h e control i n t h i s s i tua t ion . This prac t ice should be avoided.

FACTORS p;FFECTLNG METHODOLOGY

Factors i n f luen t i a l i n t he e f f i c i e n t se lec t ion of t e s t methods can and do exist outside the sensory group. Some of these f ac to r s are de scribed be l ow.

1. F a c i l i t i e s and Personnel Available.

Methods available w i l l be de f in i t e ly l imited by t h i s f ac to r which i s a d i r e c t r e s u l t of management in t e re s t and available funds.

Product a c t i v i t y today would be severely hampered by the lack of sensory testing f a c i l i t i e s and knowledgeable personnel. Fortunately most food companies do support the sensory testing ac t iv i ty . Some have a t t r ac t ive f a c i l i t i e s not f u l l y u t i l i z e d because of inadequate or untrained staff.

A very b ig problem f o r some product developers i s the r e s t r i c t i o n of panel se lec t ion and s ize because of t he f e w per sons available. The smaller de s c r i p t ive panels are of ten worth the t ra in ing investment f o r product developers i n t h i s s i tua t ion . A combination of in-lab descr ipt ive t e s t i n g and outside c o n s w r s tudies would provide answers t o aJ1 questions arising during the development of a product.

2. Time Accounting Procedures.

I n many companies it i s the policy t o charge separate pro jec ts f o r p a n e l i s t ' s time on methods requiring longer evaluation sessions as i n descr ipt ive t e s t s . Tests requiring less t i m e on the pa r t of t he individual pane l i s t (preference tests) are charged t o an overhead project . The cost of a descr ipt ive tes t requiring f i v e pane l i s t s f o r an hour as compared t o a preference tes t requir ing t h i r t y pane l i s t s f o r t e n minutes each involves t h e same t o t d manhour expenditure. I n the case of the descr ipt ive panel, t he product developer's project w i l l be charged; i n the case of t h e preference test , t he overhead project w i l l be charged. inform you t h a t t h e company pays f o r it one way or another. The a c t u d fact i s t h a t t he e f f e c t on method- ology can be s ignif icant , and can undermine a good a l l - around sensory t e s t i n g program.

Administrators w i l l

29.

3. Problem Definit ion-- O r Lack of Problem Definit ion.

There i s a tendency on the pa r t of product development requesters t o order sensory t e s t s as they do groceries-- they would l i k e so many preference tests, or so many t r i a n g l e tests. If the organization maintains any kind of respectable sensory t e s t i n g group, t h e requester should define h i s product development problem t o the sensory t e s t i n g supervisor. The se lec t ion of t e s t method should be l e f t t o t h e supervisor.

Many times tests are requested which w i l l not provide t h e answer t o the basic problem. The results are f r u s t r a t i n g and demoralizing f o r a l l .

Step One f o r t h e product developer when considering sensory methods i s TO DEFINE THE PROBLEM. must do some thinking about what it i s he w a n t s t o know before requesting sensory t e s t information.

The requester

4. Number Happiness.

Another f ac to r which can a f f ec t methodology i s ''number happiness". which give us numbers--sometimes without real maning.

There i s a tendency t o prefer those methods

What i s t h e meaning of a 4.5 on a 9-point hedonic scale if a subject w i l l e a t a m e a t product with t h a t ra t ing, but push away a desser t product with t h e same rating? O r , what i s the bas i s f o r "ki l l ing" a high pro te in beverage product with a 3.6 hedonic r a t i n g while a very popular non-protein beverage enjoyed a 7.6 hedonic ra t ing? The two products are designed f o r vas t ly d i f f e ren t purposes, but t h e low hedonic r a t ing of t h e protein drink caused the death of what might have been a successful product for a spec i f ic market. There are probably many f inanciaJ-ly successful products on the market with low hedonic r a t ings --but f i l l i n g t h e need f o r ce r t a in funct ions or economic categories .

I n o w rush t o generate numbers we must remember t h a t conditions and need can a f f ec t t he in te rpre ta t ion of data.

When properly applied, sensory evaluation methods can provide p rac t i ca l information a t a reasonable cost . product development, pa r t i cu la r ly at t h e researrch l eve l . The re la t ionship of new product development t o p r o f i t growth and the high mortal i ty r a t e of new products means t h a t a tremendous amount of product development a c t i v i t y must take place. Sensory evaluation mthods u t i l i z e d i n R&D can and do play an important ro l e i n increasing the l ikelihood of product success.

This i s very important i n

30.

Am. SOC. Testing Materials. 1968. Manual on Sensory Testing Methods. STP 434. 77 pages. Philadelphia, Pa.

Am. SOC. Testing Materials. 1970. R e v i e w of Correlation of Objective- Subjective Methods i n t h e Study of Odors and Tastes. 30 pages. Philadelphia, Pa.

STP 451.

Amerine, M. A., R . M. Pangborn, and E. B. Roessler. 1965. Pr inciples of Sensory Evaluation of Food, p. 326. Academic Press, New York.

E l l i s , B. H . 1967. E f f i c i en t use of sensory evaluation methods. - Food Product Development. 1:5 p. 18.

Hirsch, N. L. 1970. A t t e m p t s at quant i ta t ing f lavor differences. Food Product Development 4:2 p. 22.

Klemmer, E. T. 1968. Psychological pr inc ip les of subjective evaluation. - I n Basic Pr inc ip les of Sensory Evaluation. p. 51. ASTM STP 433.

Nader, Ralph. 1970. Address t o the I n s t i t u t e of Food Technologists Annual Meeting, San Francisco, C a l i f .

Schutz, H. G. 1969. The u t i l i z a t i o n of sensory evaluation i n new product Presented at t h e 17th Annua.l Technology Conference development.

on New Product Development, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.

R . B. SLEETH: Thanks very much Barbara. We hope t h a t f o r our next event we have psychologically motivated you t o t r i ang le t e s t on orange juice, coffee and I hope donuts, t h a t Professor Palmer has i n the back for us. So we w i l l see you back at 10:15.

AUTTIS MULLINS: Jus t two or three announcements. I have been asked t o remind you t h a t you are i n F lor ida and t h a t it does require a reconfirmation on your f l i g h t s . Those of you who are not accustomed t o t h a t , when you are leaving Flor ida you must reconfirm your a i r l i n e or you might not have your seat. So do t h a t and if you have special t ransporta- t i o n problems you can check at the r eg i s t r a t ion desk and have t h i s taken care of . Another announcement -- t he In te rco l leg ia te and young Youth Ac t iv i t i e s Committee members are requested t o meet at a t ab le a t the noon luncheon today, apparently t o t ransac t a l i t t l e business during the lunch because we don't want you competing with our program after lunch.

Another announcement -- t h e Meat-judging Team, coaches and other in te res ted people are t o meet i n Room 361 t h i s evening at 9:00 P.M. o r as soon as you r e tu rn from the picnic. Another announcement regarding the Conference Proceedings -- as you know, we do get a Conference Proceedings pr inted from the conference program each year. This year i s no exception. Everything at the conference i s being recorded; therefore w e do want t o record questions t h a t you may have of t he speakers. It w i l l be necessary f o r you t o get t o a microphone, if you are close t o the microphones i n the a i s l e , please come t o those. If not, then j u s t stand where you are, repeat

31.

your name, your a f f i l i a t i o n and your question and your question w i l l be repeated a t t he microphone here. We do want t o insure t h a t every question i s properly recorded i n the conference proceedings.

-- Refreshments --

R. B. SLEETH: I n OUT opening remarks we alluded t o providing the consumer with new and improved products, more information r e l a t i v e t o i t s safe ty and educational mater ia l on more desirable methods of prepara- t i on . Many of our trade associat ions are providing the mechanism f o r the dissemination of knowledge about t he food industry and i t s products t o the consumer. One such group t h a t has ce r t a in ly provided much leadership i n t h i s area has been the NatioaaJ. Association of Food Chains, headed by i t s President, M r . C. G . Adamy. M r . Adamy w i l l now share with us some of h i s experiences i n educating the consumer by speaking on the general subject of Consumer and Consumerism-Attitudes Toward Specif ic Products and Ingredients. M r . Admy.

# i f # # # # # # # # # # #