‘arora, 1:58 PM Psycnological Erors Log In|Join|Renew| Search... ? ssP About, Membership Job Center Knowledge _ Meetings _ Foundation wiki Home Title List Categories Wiki Help Society of Sensory Professionals Knowledge Sensory Wiki Psychological Errors Last modified at 2/2/2021 3:51 PM by Maren Johnson Psychological Errors in Sensory testing and Ways to Reduce Them i Page Rating witit|o Categories } Methodology Central Tendency: Subjects rate samples using the middle point of scale and avoid using the extreme ends. Reasons: Subjects are afraid to use the ends because these may be a sample that has higher /lower intensity than the sample that was just tested. Antidotes: Use scales that have less defined endpoints. Use subjects that are familiar with the tested samples. Expectation Error: Subjects rate samples according to their -ntps:iwwww-sonsorysocety.orgknowladgelsspurkiPages/Psychologcal Errors aspx 18‘21092, 1:58 PM Psychological Errors Log In |Join |Renew 2 SSP About Membership Job Center Knowledge Meetings Foundation make the right answer from the knowledge about product or the variables that direct interest in the study. Antidotes: Not giving any information concerning with the test and samples. Order of presentation should be randomized for each subject and assigned unbiased codes for each sample. Halo effect: Subjects rate the same attributes when they appear in a series of questions differently from when they were asked separately. Reasons: This error occurs when there are more than one attributes including in the test, especially with the study that have both acceptance and intensity questions. Subjects try to rate intensity attributes to match with their liking. Antidotes: Randomize the order of attributes, separate intensity and acceptance attributes, hitps www sensorysocity orgknowledgo!sspwrkiPages/Psychological Erors. aspx 216‘21092, 1:58 PM Psychological Errors Log In |Join |Renew 2 SSP About __ Membership , Job.Center_ Knowledge Meetings _ Foundation Subjects provide the same response to a series of products that might be slightly different from time to time. As a result, the test might not be able to capture any different or trend. Reasons: Subjects become complacent and start evaluating using a routine rather than concentrating on each sample. Antidotes: Varying the types of samples, make sure panelists know you are tracking performance; add a modified product into the test. Stimulus Error: Subjects rate samples according to the other stimulus and not on their perception from the samples. Reasons: Subjects use prior knowledge about products to “get it right” or because they could expect a particular characteristic or intensity based on a psychological or physical stimulus such as package hitps www sensorysocity orgknowlodge!sspwrkiPages/Psychological Erors. aspx 36‘21092, 1:58 PM Psychological Errors Log In |Join |Renew 2 SSP About Membership. Job Center Knowledge Meetings Foundation method. Antidotes: Provide as little information to panelists as possible. Remove packaging or other “clues” whenever possible and appropriate. Never include the person who directly prepares or formulates the test as a subject in the study. Avoid leaving any indication that will lead to product identification or information. Logical Error: Subjects rate attributes logically on how the attributes are associated. Reasons: Subjects relate two or more attributes to each other. For example in case of chocolate cake, subject relates the dark color with chocolate flavor and rate the darker color with the higher intensity of chocolate flavor. Antidotes: Keeping the sample uniform by masking the samples. Using doctored samples to exercise trained panels. hitps www sensorysocity orgknowlodge!sspwrkiPages/Psychological Erors. aspx 46‘21092, 1:58 PM Psychological Errors Log In |Join |Renew 2 SSP About __,,Membership_,Job Center Knowledge Meetings Foundation sor OPE SE ARR FESSes than they actually are. Reasons: Occurs when panelists “compare” (even without realizing they are comparing) samples, which can tend to exaggerate the magnitude of difference in subject mind in the mind of the subject. For example, a poorer quality sample was followed a higher quality sample the score for the higher quality sample may be artificially high. Antidotes: Error can be minimized by using balanced and randomized sample presentation order and may be reduced to some extent by training. References: ’ Chambers, E. IV. and Wolf, M.B. 1996. (Eds.) Sensory Testing Methods, 2nd Edition. ASTM, West Conshohocken. PA. 2 Meilgaard, D., Civille, G.V. and Carr, B. 2007 Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 4th edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. hitps www sensorysocity orgknowlodge!sspwrkiPages/Psychological Erors. aspx 56‘21092, 1:58 PM Psychological Errors Log In |Join |Renew About Membership Job Center Knowledge Meetings Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. hitps www sensorysocity orghknowlodgo!sspwrkiPages/Psychological Erors. aspx SSP Foundation ae