Derivation and evaluation of a labeled hedonic scale

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a semantically labeled hedonic scale (LHS) that would yield ratio-level data on the magnitude of liking/disliking of sensation equivalent to that produced by magnitude estimation (ME). The LHS was constructed by having 49 subjects who were trained in ME rate the semantic magnitudes of 10 common hedonic descriptors within a broad context of imagined hedonic experiences that included tastes and flavors. The resulting bipolar scale is statistically symmetrical around neutral and has a unique semantic structure. The LHS was evaluated quantitatively by comparing it with ME and the 9-point hedonic scale. The LHS yielded nearly identical ratings to those obtained using ME, which implies that its semantic labels are valid and that it produces ratio-level data equivalent to ME. Analyses of variance conducted on the hedonic ratings from the LHS and the 9-point scale gave similar results, but the LHS showed much greater resistance to ceiling effects and yielded normally distributed data, whereas the 9-point scale did not. These results indicate that the LHS has significant semantic, quantitative, and statistical advantages over the 9-point hedonic scale.

Figures

Figure 1

The LHS constructed from the geometric means of magnitude estimates of the 10 semantic descriptors.

Figure 2

Shown for comparison are the locations of semantic descriptors on the LHS, the LAM, the OPUS, and the bipolar form of the (gLMS. Filled diamonds indicate the location of moderately on each scale, which is the only semantic descriptor other than neutral that is common to all of the scales. Horizontal dotted lines intersect the other scales at the locations of like moderately and dislike moderately on the LHS. Tick marks indicate the locations of the 4 other positive and negative descriptors that are “semantically equivalent” on the LHS, LAM, and OPUS. The remaining 4 descriptors of the gLMS, which have no direct counterparts on the other 3 scales, are shown on the right.

Figure 3

The means ± standard error of the hedonic ratings for 26 food item names. The means for ME were standardized to the LHS data.

Figure 4

Histograms of hedonic ratings compared with an expected normal distribution for the 2 scales. The data are for items that were rated “like extremely,” “like moderately,” “neutral,” and “dislike very much” items, respectively. The P-values denote the Shapiro–Wilk W test results.

Figure 5

The mean hedonic ratings for the 26 food items from the LHS and the 9-point hedonic scale. The means for the 9-point hedonic scale were adjusted to be plotted on the LHS (see text for explanation).