| Abstract: | The most widely used scale for assessing food liking or disliking is the 9‐pt hedonic scale. Unfortunately, this affective scale suffers from problems related to unequal scale intervals and the underuse of end categories, which results in a reduced ability to differentiate among extremely well liked or extremely disliked foods. Magnitude estimation avoids these problems while enabling ratio statements to be made about the data. However, it does not provide absolute ratings of liking/disliking and can be difficult for some consumers to use. We report here on the development of a labeled affective magnitude scale (LAM) scale that has advantages over both the 9‐pt hedonic scale and magnitude estimation. Forty‐four semantic labels were scaled for their affective meaning by subjects using modulus‐free magnitude estimation. The geometric mean magnitude estimates obtained for each semantic label were used to construct a series of labeled affective magnitude scales by spacing the labels along a visual analogue scale according to their obtained semantic values. Reliability and sensitivity studies were conducted to assess the effects of alternative semantic and numeric labels. The results of these studies led to the choice of a scale format that uses verbal labels that are consistent with the 9‐pt hedonic scale. The labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale was compared to the hedonic scale and magnitude estimation in several food preference and acceptability tests. The LAM was shown to have equal reliability and sensitivity to the hedonic scale, provided somewhat greater discrimination among highly liked foods, and resulted in data that were similar to magnitude estimation in terms of the obtained ratios among rated stimuli. The LAM scale was also judged by consumers to be as easy to use as the 9‐pt hedonic scale and significantly less difficult than magnitude estimation. |
