A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking

319 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale (2010, background): “The LAM scale (after Schutz and Cardello (2001)).”
Predicting the Handle and Comfort of Military Clothing Fabrics from Sensory and Instrumental Data: Development and Application of New Psychophysical Methods (2003, background): “Previous research showed that a scale with no numbers produces data equivalent to scales labeled with numbers ranging from 0 to 100 or -100 to + 100 [40].”
Exploring influences on food choice in a large population sample: The Italian Taste project (2017, unknown): “Before starting the hedonic evaluation of food samples participants are introduced to the use of the Labeled Affective Magnitude scale (LAM; Schutz & Cardello, 2001).”
The Influence of the Color of the Cup on Consumers' Perception of a Hot Beverage (2012, methodology): “To rate acceptability, the consumers had to score their overall liking using a 10-cm labeled affective magnitude scale (LAM; Schutz and Cardello 2001).”
Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory (2011, background): “The avoidance of the end categories effectively reduces the 9-point scale to a 7-point scale (Moskowitz, 1982; Moskowitz & Sidel, 1971) and limits its ability to discriminate among very well liked or very disliked stimuli (Lim & Fujimaru, 2010; Schutz & Cardello, 2001; Villanueva & Da Silva, 2009).”