A COMPARISON OF THE LABELED AFFECTIVE MAGNITUDE SCALE AND THE 9‐POINT HEDONIC SCALE AND EXAMINATION OF CATEGORICAL BEHAVIOR

Abstract

ABSTRACT Two experiments compared the performance of the 9‐point hedonic scale with the labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for food acceptability ratings of a well‐liked food (potato chips). Both scales performed well in discriminating products. Both scales uncovered a strong relationship between usage patterns and acceptance ratings. Both scales found a significant product by user group interaction effect that showed a consistent pattern of the type of chip consumed versus acceptance ratings. The 9‐point scale showed somewhat higher reliability as measured by the correlation of scores for a duplicate product. “Categorical” usage of the LAM scale, defined as making ratings within ±1–2 mm of a word phrase (depending upon the line length, approximately 1% of scale range), was observed here as seen previously. Use of a physically longer line (200 mm versus 116 mm) decreased the frequency of such categorical ratings. These results showed no strong advantage to either scaling method. The categorical use of the LAM scale may depend in part upon the physical appearance of the scale. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Different scales have been used for examining acceptability of foods. Using scales with high discriminative power, good reliability and some predictive value for correlating with food habits is a goal of sensory evaluation. Better scales may help show differences among new consumer products and avoid type II error (missing a difference, and/or not identifying a business risk or an opportunity).