A comparison between liking ratings obtained under laboratory and field conditions: the role of choice.

The relationship between laboratory and field data was investigated for nine different groupings of 5-7 foods: two main dish groupings, four snack item groupings, and three specific meals. Liking ratings on the nine-point hedonic scale were obtained in an US Army field study and for the same foods in a sensory laboratory. In a subsequent choice simulation laboratory with two food groupings, we offered subjects some choice (three out of six or seven items) among to which foods they would evaluate. The results showed high correlations between lab and field ratings for the snack food groupings (0.58-0.94), but low correlations for the main dishes (-0.05-0.26) and meal components (-0.07-0.41). Correlations between mean field and mean laboratory data improved when laboratory subjects were offered a choice of foods. The ability of laboratory ratings to predict acceptability of foods consumed under realistic conditions appears to depend on the type of food, and may be better for foods used as snacks than for main dishes. Laboratory conditions in which subjects had some degree of choice among foods improved the relationship with the field data. It is important to pay more attention to experimental variables that may improve the validity of sensory laboratory tests.