Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014) 152–159

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

An alternative way to uncover drivers of coffee liking: Preference

mapping based on consumers’ preference ranking and open comments
Paula Varela ⇑, Julián Beltrán, Susana Fiszman
Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de Alimentos, Agustín Escardino 7, 46980 Paterna, Valencia, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In classic consumer science, liking has generally been measured with the 9-point hedonic scale. In recent
Received 4 December 2012 years, signal detection procedures where consumers rank products in terms of preference have been
Received in revised form 6 March 2013 used, together with an R-index that measures the distance in preference. Ranking has been found to
Accepted 6 March 2013
be friendlier for consumers, being a more ‘‘natural’’ exercise than scaling. However, scaling has the advan-
Available online 13 March 2013
tage of quantifying liking, resulting in data sets that can be treated further, for example through prefer-
ence mapping, together with sensory data from a trained panel or from consumers. Preference mapping is
Keywords:
very useful for product development and as a communication tool.
Coffee
Preference mapping
This study compared two preference mapping approaches, one using a data set from hedonic scaling
Open comments plus intensity questions and the other using preference ranking data coupled with open comments.
9-Point hedonic scale Preference ranking tests plus open comments by consumers proved a very promising method as it pro-
Preference ranking duced very similar internal preference map results to ‘‘traditional’’ preference mapping from liking scales.
R-index This quicker and easier method in terms of practical implementation has the added advantage of eliciting
drivers of liking and disliking directly from consumers, as these cannot be obtained through attribute
intensity assessment or by using a trained panel.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The increasing quantity and variety of food products appearing
on the market is making consumers more demanding about their
purchases (Clemons, 2008). It is not enough to find out how much
consumers like a product, their opinions and the variety of their
needs must be carefully studied (Chrea et al., 2011; Onwezen
et al., 2012); there are no universally liked odors or tastes, one per-
son may dislike what another person likes (Moskowitz & Bernstein,
2000). Consumers may present differentiated preference patterns
for some products because of their different hedonic responses,
forming groups with shared hedonic patterns. This is known as
consumer segmentation. In some foods, considerable variations
in taste, intensity of flavor or sensory profile can lead to a segmen-
tation of consumers. These variations can be intrinsic to the prod-
uct, such as sharp, crunchy apples versus sweet, mealy ones
(Jaeger, Andani, Wakeling, & MacFie, 1998) or may be due to
changes in formulation that modify the sensory properties, as in
milk desserts that vary in flavor and texture (Ares, Giménez, Barre-
iro, & Gámbaro 2010) or low and high intensity chocolates (Janu-
szewska & Viaene, 2001).
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 963 900 022; fax: +34 963 636 301.
E-mail address: pvarela@iata.csic.es (P. Varela).
Coffee is a product that can be drunk on its own or mixed with
others (milk, sugar, condensed milk, etc.), making it a typical seg-
mented product for which groups with well differentiated con-
sumption patterns can be identified. Bitterness is generally
considered a negative attribute in food, yet many individuals enjoy
a certain amount of bitterness in products such as coffee, beer, or
dark chocolate (Harwood, Ziegler, & Hayes, 2012). Cristovam, Rus-
sell, Paterson, and Reid (2000) found differences between men’s
and women’s preferences for six blends of different coffee bean
varieties in cappucino coffees.
Internal or external preference mapping approaches can be ap-
plied to understanding these kinds of consumer preference pat-
tern. Preference mapping is a group of methods for investigating
consumers’ hedonic responses to a set of products through multi-
variate statistical mapping methods (Næs, Brockhoff, & Tomic
2010). In internal preference mapping the sensory profile of the
products is related to liking ratings from a representative sample
of consumers, using only consumer data to determine consumer
preference patterns, and to build a map representing the prefer-
ence space. Afterwards, the sensory description is linked by
regressing it onto the consumer map (Ares, Varela, Rado, & Gimé-
nez 2011). Internal preference mapping has been identified as
advantageous for marketing actionability and new product creativ-
ity as the preference space is created on the basis of consumers’ re-
sponses alone (MacFie, 2007; van Kleef, van Trijp, & Luning 2006).

0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.03.004
 P. Varela et al. / Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014) 152–159
This technique reveals the main factors underlying the consumers’
liking, providing the main preference directions that separate con-
sumers with different liking patterns (consumer segments) and
linking them to product characteristics (Ares, Gimenez, & Gam-
baro, 2006; Lê & Ledauphin, 2006; Parente, Manzoni, & Ares,
2011; Thompson, Drake, Lopetcharat, & Yates, 2004).
The most common way to collect data for preference maps is to
measure consumer liking through acceptance tests, using 9-point
hedonic scales and presenting the samples in a monadic sequence.
This type of test makes it possible to apply parametric statistical
analysis and directly compare data across studies. Although these
scales make it possible to assess the degree of liking quantitatively,
they are not very intuitive for consumers, as although the values on
the scale are the same, the consumers may not all have the same
values when they work out a scoring pattern. This will vary inter-
nally with the previous experience of each panelist, who will intu-
itively tend to compare samples, and the distance between the
points will respond to each consumer’s ‘‘internal scale’’ (Lawless
& Heyman, 2010). The multidimensional representation of prod-
ucts and consumers in an internal preference map is generally ob-
tained via PCA of a matrix of products x consumers, the data being
the hedonic score derived of the scaling exercise. The obtained map
allows the visualization of the samples that received the highest
hedonic scores together with the consumers that preferred them:
the vectors indicate liking directions for each consumer. After-
wards, the sensory description is linked by regressing it onto the
consumer map (Varela, in press).
Another option for building a preference map is to use a differ-
ent preference test, as a preference ranking to measure hedonic
appreciation. These tests present all the samples together and
the consumers rank them by preference. The data obtained are
ordinal. The disadvantage of this is that the preference ranking of
the samples is not comparable from one experiment to another.
The advantage is that they are simpler and more natural for con-
sumers (Hein, Jaeger, Carr, & Delahunty, 2008; Lawless & Hey-
mann, 2010). Conceptually, ranking samples by preference has
been recognized as a very simple task (Meilgaard, Civille, & Carr,
2006). However, some authors have identified it as a complicated
one if there are many samples and many parameters to be as-
sessed, as this leads to tiredness and to not rating the last samples
in the same way as the first ones (Moskowitz, 2005). Apart from
being more natural and in general easier for consumers, another
advantage of the ranking procedure is from a practical point of
view, the shorter time of the test; setting up a ranking procedure
is definitely shorter and easier than rating the same number of
samples, where only one tray with all the samples is given to the
consumers, instead of having to follow a design and changing trays
between tastings. The limitation of this technique is that it gives no
indication of the size of the differences. This can be solved in part
by analyzing the data with the R-index, which explains the proba-
bility of choosing one sample rather than another (Brown, 1974;
Hye Seong & van Hout, 2009). Ordinal data could be analyzed via
multifactorial analysis (MFA) to obtain a preference map. (MFA)
permits analyzing several tables of variables, obtaining maps that
allow studying the relationship between the observations, the vari-
ables and tables, which can be of different types (Escofier & Pagès,
1984).
Generally, for preference mapping purposes, consumers are
only asked about their liking for the products and the description
of these is obtained with a trained panel (Parente et al., 2011).
However, some authors have realized that confining the consumers
to assessing acceptibility without allowing them to describe and
express what they feel about the product is a waste of information
that could mean not having to use a trained panel. One of the op-
tions most often used for product description by consumers is to
measure the intensity of attributes, defined by using structured
153
or unstructured scales labeled from ‘‘low’’ to ‘‘high’’. This method
has been much criticized. Kim and O’Mahony (1998) and Meilgaard
et al. (2006) have described various scaling effect and lack of dis-
crimination issues. Other ways to measure consumer perception
include that suggested by Parente et al. (2011), who proposed
building a preference map based on consumers’ responses to a
check-all-that-apply (CATA) question on commercial antiaging
cosmetic creams. Ten Kleij and Musters (2003) proposed analyzing
open-ended questions to complement preference mapping in a
study of mayonnaises, asking the consumers to volunteer words
about the sensations the product aroused in them. Ares et al.
(2010) conducted a similar study with milk-based desserts. How-
ever, none of these studies asked whether the terms employed
were related to liking or disliking, thus losing relevant information
that can give important clues to buying decisions. Symoneaux,
Galmarini, and Mehinagic (2012) conducted a study in which the
untrained consumer panelists, after rating apples on a 7-point he-
donic scale, were allowed to write words freely to indicate their
‘‘likes’’ or ‘‘dislikes’’. Further discussion on the use of open ended
questions or word association techniques for product profiling pur-
poses could be found in Varela and Ares (2012).
The objectives of the present work were to study consumers’
liking patterns for a segmented product (coffee, varying the inten-
sity of the coffee in the samples by adding different amounts of
milk and sugar) through internal preference mapping, comparing
two methods. The study proposes a quick, simple approach, col-
lecting data through preference ranking coupled with open com-
ments, compared with a more classic approach using a 9-point
hedonic scale coupled with intensity questions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample preparation
Six samples were prepared with different proportions of instant
coffee (NescaféÒ, Nestlé España S.A., Barcelona, Spain), white sugar
(Azucarera Ebro S.L., Valladolid, Spain), whole milk (UHT Cremosi-
taÒ, Leite Rio S.L., Lugo, Spain) and tap water (Table 1).
The quantity of instant coffee remained constant at 3.5 g (2
spoonfulls) per 0.20 L cup, the quantity recommended by the man-
ufacturer. The quantities varied were those of the sugar, water and
milk. The concentrations of the six samples finally used were cho-
sen so that they would be quite different from each other, covering
a wide range from ‘‘little milky flavor and not very sweet’’ to
‘‘strong milky flavor and very sweet’’. Samples were selected in a
bench top tasting between the researchers and members of a
descriptive panel (not trained in coffee evaluation, but with sen-
sory training), in order to get samples different enough ranging
in coffee intensity, milky/creaminess and sweetness.
A consumption temperature of around 60 °C was chosen (Lee &
O’Mahony, 2002). Thermos flasks for 1.9 L of liquids (Valira, Reus,
Spain) were used to keep the samples at this temperature until
the test. Water was heated with an electric kettle and milk in a
microwave oven. Previous to the consumer test the preparation
was optimized in order to obtain the final sample mix at 60 °C
Table 1
Sample formulation.
Sample Soluble coffee (g/L) Sugar (g/L) Water: whole milk
A 14 0 10:1
B 14 24 10:1
C 14 24 2:1
D 14 64 2:1
E 14 24 1:2
F 14 64 1:2
154 P. Varela et al. / Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014) 152–159
(different heating times depending on the amount of milk). Flasks
were pre-heated with hot water. Temperature variation between
flasks and the maximum time they kept the temperature constant
were determined in a laboratory test previous to the consumer
test. It was verified that samples could be kept in the flasks up to
2 h, however, every 1 h a new batch was prepared. The consumer
tests lasted about 4 h, so four batches of coffee samples were pre-
pared for each session.
2.2. Consumer study
All of the 161 consumers who took part in the study were stu-
dents or staff from the Instituto de Agroquímica y Tecnología de
Alimentos (Paterna, Spain) who consume coffee with milk.
The six samples were prepared and kept in thermos flasks for
1 h. The samples (25 mL) were served in expanded polystyrene
beakers with plastic lids to maintain the temperature throughout
the evaluation session. Still mineral water at ambient temperature
was used to rinse the mouth. The samples were presented to the
consumers in random order, labeled with randomly-generated
three-digit codes. Sensory testing was carried out in the sensory
laboratory of the Institute of Agrochemistry and Food Technology,
equipped with individual booths and built following ISO norms
(ISO 8589, 1988). All sensory testing in our institution is ethically
approved beforehand.
2.2.1. Test 1–9-point hedonic scales and intensity scales
Of the 65 consumers who took part in this test (all aged be-
tween 21 and 66), 22 were men and 43 women.
The samples were presented monadically, labeled with 3-digit
random codes, in a balanced rotated sequence (Williams’ presenta-
tion design). For each sample, the consumers rated their overall lik-
ing on 9-box hedonic scales (from ‘‘1-dislike extremely’’ to ‘‘9-like
extremely’’), and evaluated the intensity of the following seven
attibutes on 9-box intensity scales (from ‘‘1-low’’ to ‘‘9-high’’): col-
or, coffee aroma, coffee flavor, milky flavor, sweetness, bitterness
and body. Attributes were taken from previous consumers test
on similar samples, and are of common use in the beverage indus-
try for consumer tests.
Data acquisition was carried out with Compusense five release
5.0 software (Compusense Inc., Guelph, Ont., Canada).
2.2.2. Test 2 – preference ranking and open comments
The 96 consumers taking part in this test were 31 men and 65
women, from 20 to 67 years of age. They received all 6 samples
at the same time and were allowed to taste them as many times
as they needed. The test was self administered using paper ballots.
The consumers first had to rank the six samples in order of prefer-
ence, from most liked to least liked, ties allowed. They were also
asked to write as many words or phrases as they needed to explain
why they liked some of the samples more, or less. The open com-
ments were not linked to any sample in particular, but were in-
tended rather as ‘‘general associations’’ to likes or dislikes. For
this part of the test, two rectangular areas were allocated at the
two ends of the space for writing in the codes for the preference
ranking. It was explained to the consumers that they did not have
to describe any sample in particular but rather to give a general
explanation. Nevertheless, if they wanted to say something about
a particular sample in the open comment space they could, making
reference to the codes.
2.3. Data analysis
2.3.1. 9-Point hedonic scales and intensity scales
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the consumers’
overall liking scores, considering consumer and sample as sources
of variation. Mean ratings were calculated and significant differ-
ences were checked using Fisher’s LSD test (p < 0.05). The con-
sumer assessment results were analyzed with SPSS software
(SPSS for Windows release 13.0, Copyright SPSS Inc.).
2.3.1.1. Preference mapping – principal nalysis. Internal preference
mapping was carried out using principal component analysis
(PCA) of the correlation matrix of individual consumer liking data,
using XLSTAT (XLSTAT version 2008.6.8, Addinsoft). To relate the
preference patterns to the drivers, the intensities of the attributes
measured were mapped as supplementary variables.
2.3.2. Preference ranking and open comments
R-index: The order in which each consumer ranked the samples
was assigned scores from one for least-liked to six for the most-
liked sample. When consumers indicated an equal liking for more
than one sample, an intermediate score was assigned (for instance,
if two samples tied for the top liking slot they were each assigned a
score of 5.5).
The R-index was calculated from the sum of the ranking scores
for each sample, using the response matrix method (O’Mahony,
1992) with the Excel spreadsheet program (MicrosoftÒ Office
2003).
The terms associated with like or dislike that the consumers had
written in the open comments boxes were separated and analyzed
independently. The connectors were removed and the synonyms
grouped together. The grouping procedure was performed inde-
pendently by the three researchers who authored this study, con-
sidering personal interpretation of the meaning of the words and
word synonymy as determined by a Spanish dictionary. After indi-
vidually evaluating the data, a meeting of the researchers was
undertaken in order to check the agreement between their
classifications.
The frequency of each term for each sample was then counted.
Terms with less than 1% of mentions were considered to appear
with a low frequency and were not included in the study.
2.3.3. Preference mapping – MFA
Internal preference mapping of the preference data was carried
out using multiple factor analysis (MFA) with XLSTAT software in
order to study the relations between the consumers’ comments
and their preferences for the samples.
The data were placed in order in three tables: sample prefer-
ences by consumer, frequency of like comments by sample and fre-
quency of dislike comments by sample. The consumers’
preferences were taken as the main active variable and the fre-
quency of like comments and frequency of dislike comments as
supplementary variables.
2.3.4. Cluster analysis and comparison of MFA and PCA clusters
Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was performed to identify
groups of consumers with different preference patterns for each
study. This analysis was performed on standardized liking scores,
using Euclidean distances and Ward’s method as the agglomera-
tion criterion. The decision to adopt a three-cluster solution was
taken on observing the liking or preference scores for the three
groups in order to find meaningful liking patterns that discrimi-
nated between groups. To confirm that the clusters differed from
each other, the mean liking or mean preference per sample was
calculated, a one-way ANOVA was carried out and the Friedman
test for preference ranking and Fisher’s LSD for liking ratings were
applied as post hoc tests.
After obtaining the clusters the individual consumers belonging
to the different groups were identified and they were represented
with different symbols on the already plotted preference maps, for
better graphical visualization of the segmentation.
 P. Varela et al. / Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014) 152–159 155

3. Results The ‘‘body’’ attribute presented fewer statistically significant in-

ter-sample differences but proved a conceptually complex param-
3.1. Overall liking and attribute intensity eter, as it was interpreted positively in some cases as ‘‘intense
flavor’’ and negatively in others as ‘‘watery’’.
The ANOVA showed that there were significant differences be-
tween samples, both in overall liking and in the intensities of the 3.2. Preference ranking and open comments
different attributes assessed (Table 2). The samples were perceived
as quite different in the intensity of all the attributes, showing that The R-index showed the probability of one coffee being chosen
those selected were representative of a quite wide flavor space that rather than another (Table 3). Table 4 shows the terms given in the
provoked different reactions in consumers. comments for each sample and the percentage of mentions for
Sample A was the least liked, followed by sample B (Table 2). each term within the total for that category (like or dislike). Com-
These coffees were prepared with little or no sugar and with little ments that appeared with a lower frequency than 1% were ex-
milk (Table 1). The consumers gave these two samples medium to cluded from the analysis. The like comments excluded were dark
high intensity ratings for color, coffee aroma, coffee flavor and bit- color, natural flavor, typical, appearance, creamy flavor, texture,
terness and low intensity ratings for milky flavor, sweetness and comfortable, winter, breakfast, and delicate flavor. The dislike com-
body. ments excluded were dark color, artificial flavor, toasted flavor,
Sample D was the best-liked overall. This sample was prepared artificial aroma, ‘‘I don not drink coffee like this’’, untypical, creamy
with a large quantity of sugar and a medium milk content (Table 1). flavor, intense color, artificial texture, soluble coffee, sour, dilluted
The consumer assessment of attribute intensity scored coffee aro- coffee, unpleasant, milky aroma, strange color, sweetener flavor,
ma, coffee flavor, milky flavor and body as having intermediate gritty and fatty.
intensity, sweetness as high intensity and bitterness as low inten- The probability of sample A being preferred to any of the others
sity compared with the other samples. This sample was preferred was always below 30% (column A) and it was the coffee with the
to others with a greater quantity of milk (E and F). Interestingly, lowest preference percentage, it was not preferred to any other
the consumers noticed a more intense milky flavor in sample D (Table 3). This coffee was prepared with no sugar and little milk.
than in C, though both had the same quantity of milk but D con- Most of the consumers’ comments on it were negative and it was
tained more sugar. In the same way, sample E was perceived as sig- the sample that attracted the greatest number of negative com-
nificantly sweeter than C, though both contained the same amount ments, particularly ‘‘poor body’’, ‘‘bitter’’ and ‘‘little sugar’’. How-
of sugar but sample E was prepared with more milk. This shows ever, this least-preferred sample also attracted some ‘‘like’’
that in fact, even when attributes are to be rated individually, pan- comments, such as ‘‘coffee flavor’’ and ‘‘less sweet’’, showing that
elists with no previous training unconsciously assess a set of fac- there were consumers who liked it.
tors globally (Lawless & Heymann, 2010). The different The only sample that B was preferred to was A (R-index 70.8%).
ingredients also interacted in the flavor profile, as well as providing The sole difference between the two was that B was prepared with
different textures that influenced overall perception. slightly more sugar, so on comparing these two samples, the con-
Samples C, E and F did not present significant differences in sumers opted for the coffee that they perceived as being sweeter.
overall liking (Table 2). As with sample A, ‘‘dislike’’ comments such as ‘‘poor body’’ and
‘‘bitter’’ were predominant but there were also some ‘‘like’’ com-
ments such as ‘‘coffee flavor’’ and ‘‘less sweet’’.
Table 2 At the opposite extreme, sample D was preferred to all the oth-
Mean liking for the samples evaluated (hedonic scale 1–9) and assessment of ers (all the preference percentages lay between 54% and 89.9%).
attribute intensity (intensity scale 1: low to 9: high). This coffee was prepared with more sugar than A or B and an inter-
Attribute Sample mediate level of milk. This was the sample with the greatest num-
ber of ‘‘like’’ comments, particularly ‘‘right sweetness’’, ‘‘foamy’’,
A B C D E F
‘‘coffee flavor’’ and ‘‘milk flavor’’. The ‘‘dislike’’ comment was ‘‘too
Overall liking 2.3a 3.1b 4.1c 5.3d 3.8c 4.3c sweet’’.
Color intensity 7.4c 7.0c 5.2b 5.2b 3.3a 3.4a
Coffee aroma intensity 5.3e 5.0d 4.4cd 4.1bc 3.5ab 3.4a
Second only to D in the preference ranking was F. This coffee
Coffee flavor intensity 6.2c 5.9c 5.1b 4.7b 3.6a 3.5a was prepared with an intermediate level of sugar and a high level
Milky flavor intensity 2.0a 2.2a 4.4b 5.2c 6.0d 6.0d of milk. D and F contained the same amount of sugar but different
Sweetness intensity 1.7a 2.8b 3.5c 6.4e 4.3d 6.7e amounts of milk. In their preferences for these two coffees, the
Bitterness intensity 7.3e 6.0d 5.0c 3.4a 4.1b 2.8a
consumers showed that for the same level of sweetness they pre-
Body intensity 3.0a 3.5ab 4.1bc 4.7cd 4.4cde 4.4cde
ferred the sample with a less milky flavor. D and F were the sam-
Identical letters indicate no significant difference according to Fisher’s LSD test. ples with the highest probability of being preferred and were the

Table 3
R-index calculated from the preference ranking for each sample. The percentage indicates the probability of choosing that sample rather than the others.

Sample vs R-index (%) Sample vs R-index (%) Sample vs R-index (%)

A B 29.2 C A 84.9 E A 81.2
C 15.1 B 71.5 B 68.8
D 10.2 D 26.3 C 51.2
E 18.8 E 48.8 D 29.4
F 13.4 F 33.4 F 35.4
B A 70.8 D A 89.8 F A 86.6
C 28.5 B 83.1 B 77.9
D 16.9 C 73.7 C 66.6
E 31.2 E 70.6 D 45.9
F 22.1 F 54.1 E 64.6
156 P. Varela et al. / Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014) 152–159

Table 4 quadrant of the PCA map was empty of consumers. Sample D

Like and dislike comments mentioned by the consumers for each sample. Number of was the best-liked by the largest group and sample A was generally
mentions, proportion of each (%) and total mentions per sample.
rejected by most of the consumers. The other samples exhibited
Comments Coffee sample intermediate behavior, with a certain degree of segmentation. In
A B C D E F %a order to try to study this phenomenon, given that the groups were
Like comments not as obviously separate in the PCA, HCA was used to group the
Right sweetness 1 2 13 37 13 35 26.9 consumers by liking pattern.
Coffee flavor 3 4 6 10 7 6 9.6 Three clusters with different liking patterns were obtained
Milky flavor 0 0 3 13 3 14 8.8
(Fig. 1, Table 5). Cluster 1 (n = 41) preferred samples F, D and E,
Soft flavor 1 2 3 9 6 11 8.5
Good flavor 0 1 4 9 4 12 8.0 with ‘‘body’’, ‘‘sweetness intensity’’ and ‘‘milky flavor intensity’’
Well-balanced 0 1 2 8 5 8 6.4 as the drivers, and disliked an intense coffee flavor and aroma
Strong body 0 1 4 5 4 4 4.8 and a darker color. Cluster 2 (n = 13) showed a marked preference
Right bitterness 1 1 3 3 5 0 3.5 for sample D, somewhat less preference for sample F, and disliked
Foamy 0 0 0 11 0 1 3.2
the other coffees. This preference pattern was particularly driven
Less sweet 3 5 2 0 0 0 2.7
Coffee aroma 1 2 0 2 1 2 2.1 by sweetness. The third cluster (n = 11) was made up of consumers
Pleasing 0 1 2 2 0 1 1.6 who preferred the coffees they perceived as being stronger (‘‘bit-
Light color 0 0 0 2 1 3 1.6 terness intensity’’, ‘‘coffee flavor intensity’’, ‘‘color intensity’’ and
Not bitter 0 0 1 2 1 2 1.6
‘‘aroma intensity’’). In particular, this group preferred sample C,
Good aroma 0 0 1 2 2 1 1.6
Intense 1 1 0 2 0 1 1.3 followed by B.
The way I drink it 0 0 1 2 1 0 1.1 Although the clusters obtained were small in terms of the num-
Total 11 21 45 119 53 101 93.3 ber of consumers, the idea of this analysis was not to infer an
Dislike comments actionable market strategy (for that, clusters of around 50 consum-
Poor body 33 24 3 0 4 1 20.8 ers would be needed) but rather to help in understanding the pref-
Bitter 38 20 2 1 1 0 19.8 erence landscape. For this purpose, the HCA was indeed helpful.
Little sugar 13 9 2 0 6 0 9.6
Flavorless 9 6 2 0 2 0 6.1
Too sweet 0 0 0 7 1 11 6.1 3.4. Internal preference map based on preference ranking and open
Too much coffee flavor 7 6 1 0 0 0 4.5
comments
Strong flavor 8 5 1 0 0 0 4.5
Does not taste like coffee 5 3 2 0 3 0 4.2
Weird or strange flavor 1 1 0 0 4 5 3.5 Fig. 2 is the preference map based on the preference ranking
Milky flavor 0 0 1 1 6 3 3.5 and positive and negative comments. It shows the MFA-generated
Little milk 5 4 0 0 0 0 2.9 distribution of the samples, consumers and ‘‘like’’ and ‘‘dislike’’
Smelly 1 2 0 0 1 0 1.3
Irritating 1 1 0 1 0 1 1.3
terms. In the MFA, the first two factors accounted for 74.48% of
Burnt flavor 1 0 0 0 2 0 1.0 the variability in the data; the samples with most sugar (D and
Acidic 1 1 1 0 0 0 1.0 F) were correlated with positive values of the first factor, those
Total 123 82 15 10 30 21 90.1 with least sugar (A and B) clustered on the upper right quadrant
a
Percentage of mentions in relation to the total number of like or dislike com- of the map and samples C and E, with an intermediate sugar con-
ments respectively. tent, presented intermediate behavior.
The consumers were again segmented into three groups (Ta-
ble 5): the first and most numerous (n = 62) preferred samples F
ones to receive the most ‘‘like’’ comments, the main ones being and D, the smaller second group (n = 21) preferred D and the third
‘‘right sweetness’’ and ‘‘milky flavor’’. group (n = 13) preferred the more intense samples (B and E). These
Samples C and E showed intermediate preference levels. The R- three groups were similar to those found on the scale-based inter-
index for the C–E pair was close to 50%, although there was a slight nal preference map.
preference for coffee E rather than C (E vs C = 51.2%). Both were Most of the liking comments were grouped on the left side of
prepared with an intermediate quantity of sugar, but coffee E con- the preference map (upper and lower quadrants), close to samples
tained a greater quantity of milk. Comparison between pairs D–F D and F. As with the R-index, this shows that the consumer popu-
(more sugar) and C–E (intermediate sugar level) showed that pref- lation as a whole displayed a greater preference for these samples
erences for the samples were determined by sweetness, as D and F than for others. The dislike comments clustered in the lower and
were preferred to C and E. When the pairs C–D (intermediate quan- right part of the map, where the least-preferred samples were
tity of milk) and E–F (high quantity of milk) were compared, the located.
latter were preferred (D vs C = 73.7%, F vs E = 64.6%). The samples
that were furthest apart in terms of the probability of one being
chosen rather than the other were A–D (D vs A = 89.8%). 4. Discussion
The more general comments, hedonic rather than descriptive,
such as ‘‘good flavor’’, ‘‘well-balanced’’, ‘‘pleasing’’, ‘‘good aroma’’, 4.1. Overall liking and attribute intensity
‘‘the way I drink it’’ or ‘‘smelly’’ indicate that consumers often rate
the samples on a complex sum of attributes. In general, the overall liking scores were quite low (2.3–5.3),
which was attributable to the formulation of the samples (Table 2).
To make them easier to prepare repeatedly, soluble coffee was cho-
3.3. Internal preference map based on hedonic scaling data sen for this study, but even if many of the consumers drank soluble
coffee for breakfast, most of them were expecting to evaluate ma-
In the internal preference map obtained from principal compo- chine coffees because they were consuming them away from home
nents analysis of the liking data (Fig. 1), the two principal compo- (as commented by many of the participants). For this reason, they
nents explained 62.71% of the variance. Larger groupings of penalized the samples. However, the interest of this work is not
consumers were observed towards the negative values of the first really to predict how products would actually perform in the mar-
component and the positive values of the second. The lower right ket but rather to compare two methodologies, so the focus of this
 P. Varela et al. / Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014) 152–159 157

Fig. 1. Consumer internal preference map obtained from liking ratings and intensity ratings. (A) PCA map of the consumers’ liking ratings and grouping as determined by
HCA. (B) Map of the samples and sensory attributes. The attributes were used as supplementary variables in the construction of the map.

4.2. Preference ranking and open comments – comparison with the

Table 5 overall liking data
Preference patterns of the three clusters identified by HCA for each of the preference
mapping methods. Average ranking and mean liking score of each sample across
Comparing the results of the preference ranking test and the
consumers in each cluster (Friedman test for preference ranking and Fisher’s LSD for
liking ratings).
open comments with the acceptability test using the hedonic scale
(liking data), it was found that the liking ranking of the samples
Sample
was the same: D was the best-liked sample, followed by a group
A B C D E F made up of F, E and C, and the least-liked coffees were B and A.
Liking rating (1: least liked, 9: most liked) The R-index results were very similar to those of the hedonic
Cluster 1 (n = 41) 3.1a 3.1a 5.0b 6.6c 6.0bc 7.1c scale but discriminated better, as seen in samples F, E and C. This
Cluster 2 (n = 13) 2.0a 2.8b 3.4b 5.6d 3.2c 4.1c agreed with the point made by O’Mahony (1992): that data ob-
Cluster 3 (n = 11) 2.4ab 4.3cd 5.5d 2.6ab 3.4bc 1.6a
tained by ranking (R-index) ought to show greater dispersion than
Preference ranking (1: least liked, 6: most liked) those obtained with an assessment scale. Cliff, King, Scaman, and
Cluster 1 (n = 62) 1.3a 1.9a 3.5b 5.0c 4.1bc 5.0c
Cluster 2 (n = 21) 2.5ab 3.6b 4.0bc 5.3c 1.4a 4.0bc
Edwards (1997) compared data obtained by ranking (R-index) with
Cluster 3 (n = 13) 3.5abc 4.8c 3.5abc 2.3ab 4.4bc 2.2a data from a hedonic scale. Although the two methods were inter-
preted very differently by the consumers, the results of the two
analyses were highly correlated (r = 0.98).
While the ranking method is useful for observing consumer pref-
work was liking patterns rather than ‘‘absolute’’ liking rating
erences for the samples, it cannot identify the presence of segments,
values.
as the R-index value shows the preference probability across all the
Looking at the interaction between mean liking for the samples
consumers. Inviting the consumers to comment on what they like
and the intensity of their attributes, in general it was found that
and dislike about the samples contributes relevant information,
the samples with more sugar and a medium to high milk content
making it possible to find out which attributes are more important
were liked the most and the more bitter ones, with less sugar, were
for consumer preferences and even to study which attributes may
the least liked. The ‘‘body’’ attribute was rated as least intense in
be appreciated by some consumers but not by others.
the samples that were liked the least, which is coherent in that
their formulation contained the least milk, the ingredient that im-
parts most body to these beverages. There was no correlation be- 4.3. Internal preference maps
tween intensity of color and overall liking, which could mean
that as these products do not have an intense ‘‘coffee color’’, this The sample groupings in the preference spaces were very simi-
attribute is less important in defining the liking for them. However, lar with both data collection methods, and in both cases the HCA
the least liked products were rated highest in color intensity, in segmented the samples into three groups.
line with the fact that the general population preferred milder As well as the already mentioned advantage of ranking tests
coffees. being easy for the consumers to carry out, with the added use of
Overall liking and attribute intensity assessment tests have the the open comments, this test gave more information than the
advantage of producing results that are comparable between intensity scales and possibly even than the hypothetical use of a
experiments. However, their main disadvantage is that they aver- trained panel, since consumers generated the attributes they
age out the likings of all the consumers and do not take into ac- thought important for the samples evaluated. These comments
count that there are consumers who prefer the samples that are made it possible to see whether the same characteristics were
generally liked the least, and vice versa. desirable or otherwise for one consumer or another. Although
158 P. Varela et al. / Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014) 152–159
Fig. 2. Consumer preference map obtained from ranking and open comments. (A) MFA map of the consumers’ preference rankings with segmentation by HCA. (B) Map of the
samples with open ‘‘like’’ and ‘‘dislike’’ comments. The comments were used as a supplementary variable in the construction of the map.
not mentioned as often, the presence of liking comments close to
the coffees that were less liked by the general population and of
dislike comments close to those that were generally most liked
clearly shows that what constituted a negative attribute for some
consumers was what others with different preference patterns
liked flavor. For example, for sample B, ‘‘strong flavor’’ appeared
as a like comment, while ‘‘too much coffee flavor’’ was mentioned
as dislike comment; also, what some consider the ‘‘right bitter-
ness’’ can be a ‘‘weird flavor’’ for others. Consumers also elicited
attributes such as ‘‘foamy’’, among others, which had not been in-
cluded in the attribute intensity scales but turned out to be of
interest to the consumers – and obviously may be to manufactur-
ers as well.
In the study performed by Symoneaux et al. (2012), scale-based
preference mapping methods with samples description realized by
a trained panel provided very similar data to preference mapping
based on the consumers’ comments, with the extra advantage that
the consumers gave their own drivers of liking. Allowing consum-
ers to comment freely has the advantage over CATA (check-all-
that-apply) (Parente et al., 2011) that it does not omit drivers of
liking that may be important to consumers but the researcher
did not take into account. Hein et al. (2008) compared three con-
sumer acceptance methods (9-point hedonic, labeled affective
magnitude and unstructured line scales) and two consumer prefer-
ence methods (best–worst scaling and preference ranking), con-
cluding they were comparable in terms of implementation and
easiness to perform for consumers, and reached similar conclu-
sions. The hereby presented method for better understanding con-
sumers’ segmentation and drivers of liking obtained results in line
with those previous works, getting ‘‘the best of both worlds’’: gath-
ered consumer hedonic response via a more natural test as prefer-
ence ranking is, and obtained rich descriptive information by
allowing consumers to freely comment on likes and dislikes.
5. Conclusions
Choosing a product is a complex action that may on occasion
even be external to the item itself (price, culture, tradition, family
habits, etc.). Attribute rating scales ask the consumer about charac-
teristics that may interest the researcher but may not interest the
consumer as much, if at all. A preference ranking test plus open
comments is not just quick and easy to administer: because they
are allowed to say openly which characteristics drive their likes
and dislikes, with no restrictions or preconceived ideas about attri-
butes, the consumers unconsciously evaluate all the characteristics
that decide them to choose one product rather than another in a
more intuitive and global way.
This study shows that very similar results to those obtained
with ‘‘traditional’’ internal preference mapping can be obtained
by using preference ranking accompanied by open comments.
The limitation of this work is the low number of consumers, as it
was intended as an initial exploration in order to propose this
method. Further research with other products would be desirable
to validate its use.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Economy
and Competitiveness for financial support (AGL2009-12785-C02-
01), for the Juan de la Cierva contract awarded to author Paula
Varela and for the Geronimo Forteza contract awarded to author
Julián Beltrán. The authors also would like to thank Mary Georgina
Hardinge for assistance with translating and editing the English
version of this paper.
References
Ares, G., Gimenez, A., & Gambaro, A. (2006). Preference mapping of texture of dulce
de leche. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 553–571.
Ares, G., Giménez, A., Barreiro, C., & Gámbaro, A. (2010). Use of an open-ended
question to identify drivers of liking of milk desserts. Comparison with
preference mapping techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 286–294.
Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G., & Giménez, A. (2011). Identifying ideal products using
three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external
preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 22, 581–591.
Brown, J. (1974). Recognition assessed by rating and ranking. British Journal of
Psychology, 65, 13–22.
Chrea, C., Melo, L., Evans, G., Forde, C., Delahunty, C., & Cox, D. N. (2011). An
investigation using three approaches to understand the influence of extrinsic
 P. Varela et al. / Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014) 152–159
product cues on consumer behavior: An example of Australian wines. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 26, 13–24.
Clemons, E. K. (2008). How information changes consumer behavior and how
consumer behavior determines corporate strategy. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 25, 13–40.
Cliff, M. A., King, M. C., Scaman, C., & Edwards, B. J. (1997). Evaluation of R-indices
for preference testing of apple juices. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 241–246.
Cristovam, E., Russell, C., Paterson, A., & Reid, E. (2000). Gender preference in
hedonic ratings for espresso and espresso-milk coffees. Food Quality and
Preference, 11, 437–444.
Escofier, B., & Pagès, J. (1984). L’analyse factorielle multiple: Une méthode de
comparaison de groupes de variables. In R. R. Sokal, E. Diday, Y. Escoufier, L.
Lebart, & J. Pagès (Eds.), Data analysis and informatics III (pp. 41–55).
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Harwood, M. L., Ziegler, G. R., & Hayes, J. E. (2012). Rejection thresholds in chocolate
milk: Evidence for segmentation. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 128–133.
Hein, K. A., Jaeger, S. R., Carr, B. T., & Delahunty, C. M. (2008). Comparison of five
common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference, 19,
651–661.
Hye Seong, L., & van Hout, D. (2009). Quantification of sensory and food quality: The
R-index analysis. Journal of Food Science, 74, 57–64.
Jaeger, S. R., Andani, Z., Wakeling, I. N., & MacFie, H. J. H. (1998). Consumer
preferences for fresh and aged apples: A cross-cultural comparison. Food Quality
and Preference, 9, 355–366.
Januszewska, R., & Viaene, J. (2001). Sensory segments in preference for plain
chocolate across Belgium and Poland. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 97–107.
Kim, K., & O’Mahony, M. (1998). A new approach to category scales of intensity I:
Traditional versus rank-rating. Journal of Sensory Studies, 13, 241–249.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and
practices (2nd ed.). New York: Springer (Chapter 9).
Lee, H. S., & O’Mahony, M. (2002). At what temperatures do consumers like to drink
coffee?: Mixing methods. Journal of Food Science, 67, 2774–2777.
MacFie, H. J. H. (2007). Preference mapping and food product development. In H. J.
H. MacFie (Ed.), Consumer-led food product development (pp. 407–433).
Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
Meilgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (2006). Sensory evaluation techniques.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
159
Moskowitz, H. R., & Bernstein, R. (2000). Variability in hedonics: Indications of
world-wide sensory and cognitive preference segmentation. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 15, 263–284.
Moskowitz, H. R. (2005). Thoughts on subjective measurement, sensory metrics and
usefulness of outcomes. Journal of Sensory Studies, 20, 347–362.
Næs, T., Brockhoff, P. B., & Tomic, O. (2010). Statistics for sensory and consumer
science. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
O’Mahony, M. (1992). Understanding discrimination tests: A user-friendly
treatment of response bias, rating and ranking R-index tests and their
relationship to signal detection. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 1–47.
Onwezen, M. C., Reinders, M. J., van der Lans, I. A., Sijtsema, S. J., Jasiulewicz, A.,
Guardia, M. L., et al. (2012). A cross-national consumer segmentation based on
food benefits: The link with consumption situations and food perceptions. Food
Quality and Preference, 24, 276–286.
Parente, M. E., Manzoni, A. V., & Ares, G. (2011). External preference mapping of
commercial antiaging creams based on consumers’ responses to a check-all-
that-apply question. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, 158–166.
Symoneaux, R., Galmarini, M. V., & Mehinagic, E. (2012). Comment analysis of
consumer’s likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A
case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 59–66.
ten Kleij, F., & Musters, P. A. D. (2003). Text analysis of open-ended survey
responses: A complementary method to preference mapping. Food Quality and
Preference, 14, 43–52.
Thompson, J. L., Drake, M. A., Lopetcharat, K., & Yates, M. D. (2004). Preference
mapping of commercial chocolate milks. Journal of Food Science, 69, 406–413.
van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2006). Internal versus external
preference analysis: An exploratory study on end-user evaluation. Food Quality
and Preference, 17, 387–399.
Varela, P., & Ares, G. (2012). Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and
consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food
Research International, 48, 893–908.
Varela, P. (2013). Application of multivariate statistical methods during new
product development. In: D. Granato & G. Ares (Eds.), Mathematical and
statistical methods in food science and technology. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell
(in press).