Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods

By Karen A. Hein, S. Jaeger, B. Carr, C.M Delahunty. 2008

180 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Food Science, Plant Science, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/43b4b670dec6424d9ec823c49dcfddf276dbb377

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Food Science

1. S. Fiszman
2. Paula Varela
3. Eli Cohen
4. Carl Johan Lagerkvist

In Plant Science

1. Paula Varela
2. Eli Cohen
3. Carl Johan Lagerkvist

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Paula Varela
2. Carl Johan Lagerkvist

Citations in the corpus

• Consumer preferences for food labelling attributes: Comparing direct ranking and best–worst scaling for measurement of attribute importance, preference intensity and attribute dominance (2013, methodology): “Among methods for the measurement of attribute importance, BWS has been found to generate greater respondent discrimination, providing more accurate information in sensory testing, while viewed by panellists as the most demanding method, requiring several successive choice tasks to be completed (Hei”
• Applying best‐worst scaling to wine marketing (2009, background): “Although the rating tasks are easy for respondents to complete, they weakly discriminate among the attributes ( Hein et al. , 2008”
• An alternative way to uncover drivers of coffee liking: Preference mapping based on consumers’ preference ranking and open comments (2014, result): “Hein et al. (2008) compared three consumer acceptance methods (9-point hedonic, labeled affective magnitude and unstructured line scales) and two consumer preference methods (best–worst scaling and preference ranking), concluding they were comparable in terms of implementation and easiness to perfor”