Dutch consumers do not hesitate: Capturing implicit ‘no dominance’ durations using Hold-down Temporal Dominance methodologies for Sensations (TDS) and Emotions (TDE)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In the ‘classic’ Temporal Dominance (TD) method, panellists are instructed to select a dominant attribute, which remains dominant until another attribute is selected. This procedure does not allow recording ‘no dominance (ND)’. ND periods can occur because of indecisive selection behaviour due to hesitation or uncertainty about attribute selection and time needed to switch from one attribute to another. ND periods may create noise in TD data. ND can be recorded implicitly using a ‘Hold-down’ procedure, where panellists actively hold down the attribute button that is perceived dominant, but release it when no longer dominant. The ‘Hold-down’ procedure allows subjects to report indecisive behaviour simply by not holding down a button. This study compared the ‘classic’ and ‘Hold-down’ TD methodologies. One hundred and thirty-seven participants evaluated four dark chocolates in two sessions, one for sensory (TDS) and one for emotion (TDE) evaluations. Participants employed either classic (n = 68) or Hold-down (n = 69) TD following a between subjects design. Similar dominance rates and dynamic evolutions of attributes during consumption were observed for both methods. ND durations between attribute selections were shorter than 1 s during sensory and emotion evaluations. Such short ND durations unlikely reflect periods of true hesitation, but rather reflect the time needed to switch between dominant attributes. No evidence is found for Hold-down TD outperforming classic TD in terms of sensitivity and discrimination ability. In conclusion, irrespective of the conceptual likelihood regarding the occurrence of ‘no dominance’ periods, the present study failed to demonstrate moments of hesitation using the ‘Hold-down’ procedure.

LanguageEnglish
Pages332-342
JournalFood Quality and Preference
Volume71
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

emotions
Emotions
duration
chocolate
methodology
uncertainty
Aptitude
Uncertainty
Noise

Keywords

  • Chocolates
  • Dynamic sensory measurements
  • No dominance duration time
  • Temporal Dominance of Emotions (TDE)
  • Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS)

Cite this

@article{52a6218f6c874575ac4c244c3a4174aa,
title = "Dutch consumers do not hesitate: Capturing implicit ‘no dominance’ durations using Hold-down Temporal Dominance methodologies for Sensations (TDS) and Emotions (TDE)",
abstract = "In the ‘classic’ Temporal Dominance (TD) method, panellists are instructed to select a dominant attribute, which remains dominant until another attribute is selected. This procedure does not allow recording ‘no dominance (ND)’. ND periods can occur because of indecisive selection behaviour due to hesitation or uncertainty about attribute selection and time needed to switch from one attribute to another. ND periods may create noise in TD data. ND can be recorded implicitly using a ‘Hold-down’ procedure, where panellists actively hold down the attribute button that is perceived dominant, but release it when no longer dominant. The ‘Hold-down’ procedure allows subjects to report indecisive behaviour simply by not holding down a button. This study compared the ‘classic’ and ‘Hold-down’ TD methodologies. One hundred and thirty-seven participants evaluated four dark chocolates in two sessions, one for sensory (TDS) and one for emotion (TDE) evaluations. Participants employed either classic (n = 68) or Hold-down (n = 69) TD following a between subjects design. Similar dominance rates and dynamic evolutions of attributes during consumption were observed for both methods. ND durations between attribute selections were shorter than 1 s during sensory and emotion evaluations. Such short ND durations unlikely reflect periods of true hesitation, but rather reflect the time needed to switch between dominant attributes. No evidence is found for Hold-down TD outperforming classic TD in terms of sensitivity and discrimination ability. In conclusion, irrespective of the conceptual likelihood regarding the occurrence of ‘no dominance’ periods, the present study failed to demonstrate moments of hesitation using the ‘Hold-down’ procedure.",
keywords = "Chocolates, Dynamic sensory measurements, No dominance duration time, Temporal Dominance of Emotions (TDE), Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS)",
author = "{van Bommel}, Roelien and Markus Stieger and Pascal Schlich and Gerry Jager",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.008",
language = "English",
volume = "71",
pages = "332--342",
journal = "Food Quality and Preference",
issn = "0950-3293",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Dutch consumers do not hesitate

T2 - Food Quality and Preference

AU - van Bommel, Roelien

AU - Stieger, Markus

AU - Schlich, Pascal

AU - Jager, Gerry

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - In the ‘classic’ Temporal Dominance (TD) method, panellists are instructed to select a dominant attribute, which remains dominant until another attribute is selected. This procedure does not allow recording ‘no dominance (ND)’. ND periods can occur because of indecisive selection behaviour due to hesitation or uncertainty about attribute selection and time needed to switch from one attribute to another. ND periods may create noise in TD data. ND can be recorded implicitly using a ‘Hold-down’ procedure, where panellists actively hold down the attribute button that is perceived dominant, but release it when no longer dominant. The ‘Hold-down’ procedure allows subjects to report indecisive behaviour simply by not holding down a button. This study compared the ‘classic’ and ‘Hold-down’ TD methodologies. One hundred and thirty-seven participants evaluated four dark chocolates in two sessions, one for sensory (TDS) and one for emotion (TDE) evaluations. Participants employed either classic (n = 68) or Hold-down (n = 69) TD following a between subjects design. Similar dominance rates and dynamic evolutions of attributes during consumption were observed for both methods. ND durations between attribute selections were shorter than 1 s during sensory and emotion evaluations. Such short ND durations unlikely reflect periods of true hesitation, but rather reflect the time needed to switch between dominant attributes. No evidence is found for Hold-down TD outperforming classic TD in terms of sensitivity and discrimination ability. In conclusion, irrespective of the conceptual likelihood regarding the occurrence of ‘no dominance’ periods, the present study failed to demonstrate moments of hesitation using the ‘Hold-down’ procedure.

AB - In the ‘classic’ Temporal Dominance (TD) method, panellists are instructed to select a dominant attribute, which remains dominant until another attribute is selected. This procedure does not allow recording ‘no dominance (ND)’. ND periods can occur because of indecisive selection behaviour due to hesitation or uncertainty about attribute selection and time needed to switch from one attribute to another. ND periods may create noise in TD data. ND can be recorded implicitly using a ‘Hold-down’ procedure, where panellists actively hold down the attribute button that is perceived dominant, but release it when no longer dominant. The ‘Hold-down’ procedure allows subjects to report indecisive behaviour simply by not holding down a button. This study compared the ‘classic’ and ‘Hold-down’ TD methodologies. One hundred and thirty-seven participants evaluated four dark chocolates in two sessions, one for sensory (TDS) and one for emotion (TDE) evaluations. Participants employed either classic (n = 68) or Hold-down (n = 69) TD following a between subjects design. Similar dominance rates and dynamic evolutions of attributes during consumption were observed for both methods. ND durations between attribute selections were shorter than 1 s during sensory and emotion evaluations. Such short ND durations unlikely reflect periods of true hesitation, but rather reflect the time needed to switch between dominant attributes. No evidence is found for Hold-down TD outperforming classic TD in terms of sensitivity and discrimination ability. In conclusion, irrespective of the conceptual likelihood regarding the occurrence of ‘no dominance’ periods, the present study failed to demonstrate moments of hesitation using the ‘Hold-down’ procedure.

KW - Chocolates

KW - Dynamic sensory measurements

KW - No dominance duration time

KW - Temporal Dominance of Emotions (TDE)

KW - Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS)

U2 - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.008

DO - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.008

M3 - Article

VL - 71

SP - 332

EP - 342

JO - Food Quality and Preference

JF - Food Quality and Preference

SN - 0950-3293

ER -