Personalidad y Capacidad Sensorial

8/10/2019 Personalidad y Capacidad Sensorial

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/personalidad-y-capacidad-sensorial 1/8

Ciencia y Tecnología AlimentariaSociedad Mexicana de Nutrición y Tecnología de [email protected] ISSN (Versión impresa): 1135-8122ISSN (Versión en línea): 1696-2443MÉXICO

2007

M. Mata / O. Gonzalez / D. Pedrero / A. Monroy / O. Angulo

CORRELATION BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND DISCRIMINATIVE ABILITY

OF A SENSORY PANEL

Ciencia y Tecnología Alimentaria, julio, año/vol. 5, número 004

Sociedad Mexicana de Nutrición y Tecnología de Alimentos

Reynosa, México

pp. 252-258

Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal

Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx

mailto:[email protected]

http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/



mailto:[email protected]



CORRELATION BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND DISCRIMINATIVE ABILITYOF A SENSORY PANEL

AbstractThe correlation between personality traits and judge performance was studied. The 16-personality factors questionnaire of

Cattell was applied to 200 participants. Judge performance was evaluated following a series of taste and odor tests. Judgeswere then asked to rank basic different taste solutions. Finally, judges discriminated between purified water and sweet

solution (29 mM) using the triangle test. Participant’s health habits (smoking and alcohol consumption) were reported.

Results showed that, out of 200 recruited participants, 66 were found discriminators. No correlations between judge

performance and health habits were found. Two personality traits were correlated to sensory discrimination ability: The

serious type personality was correlated to discriminators, while the experimenting type personality correlated to non-

discriminators. These results suggest the importance of using personality trait tests during sensory judge selection.

ResumenLos rasgos de personalidad y la capacidad discriminatoria de 200 candidatos a jueces sensoriales fueron estudiados. Los

rasgos de personalidad se evaluaron a través del cuestionario de factores de personalidad de Catell y el desempeño de los

jueces se evaluó con pruebas de reconocimiento de olor y de sabor, pruebas de ordenación a diferentes niveles de dulzor y

pruebas discriminatorias entre soluciones de sacarosa al 29 mM y agua purificada, usando la prueba triangular. Algunos

hábitos de salud de los participantes (fumar y consumo de alcohol) fueron reportados. Los resultados mostraron que de los

200 participantes, 66 resultaron ser discriminadores. No se observó correlación entre los hábitos de salud y la capacidad

discriminatoria de los jueces. Dos rasgos de personalidad presentaron correlación con la capacidad discriminatoria de los

jueces: La personalidad ‘ seria’ se correlacionó con jueces discriminatorios en las pruebas sensoriales, mientras que la

personalidad ‘experimentador ’ se correlacionó con candidatos sin capacidad discriminatoria. Estos resultados sugieren la

importancia del uso de pruebas de personalidad en la selección de jueces sensoriales.

Keywords: Personality traits, sensory panel screening, sensory evaluation

Palabras clave: Rasgos de personalidad, selección de panel, evaluación sensorial

CORRELACIÓN ENTRE RASGOS DE PERSONALIDAD Y HABILIDAD DISCRIMINATORIA DE UNPANEL SENSORIAL

Mata, M.1; Gonzalez, O.1; Pedrero, D.2; Monroy, A.1; Angulo, O.1*

1Unidad de Investigación y Desarrollo en Alimentos. Instituto Tecnológico de Veracruz. M.A. de Quevedo 2779,

Veracruz, Ver. 91860. México.2 Pentasensorial S.A. de C.V, Santa Catalina. 313, Col. Del Valle, 03100, Mexico, D.F.

Recibido/Received 05-12-2006; aceptado/accepted 23-02-2007

*Autor para la correspondencia/Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

252

INTRODUCTION

The quality of the sensory attributes of foods playsan important task in product acceptance (Cardello et al.,

2000; Costell, 2002). The food industry applies the sensory

techniques to understand the sensory attributes that would

allow for the product to stay successful in the market as

long as possible. The two big branches in sensory

evaluation are: Consumer testing and analytical testing.

The sensory attributes of a product are measured by using

analytical methodology that implies the formation of a

group of panelists. Panelists are expected to be sensitive

to the stimulus being evaluated and well trained in the

measurement of their attributes either by picking out

differences (Difference tests) or by describing attributes

(Scaling tests) (O’Mahony, 1995). The selection of panelists is done in different ways depending on the

purpose of the research (Pillsbury and Hudson, 1990).

Sometimes, a short screening on product sensitivity might

be sufficient to select a group of panelists. In other cases,

a complete set of tests might be necessary to find out about

life style habits and food frequency consumption (Hough

et al ., 1995). In either case, information related to health,

age and product sensitivity by the panelists has been noted

to be important. Some authors suggest that aspects such as

intelligence, comprehension, concentration and motivation

Cienc. Tecnol. Aliment. 5(4) 252-258 (2007)

www.somenta.org/journal ISSN 1135-8122SOMENTA Sociedad Mexicana de Nutrición

y Tecnología de los Alimentos

CIENCIA Y

TECNOLOGÍA

ALIMENTARIA



253

should be considered upon panel selection (Krum, 1955;

Dawson et al., 1963; Martin, 1973 and Armstrong et al.,

1997). The 16-personality factors questionnaire (16FP)

was designed for basic research in psychology to describe

the short-term personality traits, which predict human

behavior in normal young adults (Setzer, 2000). Henderson

and Vaisey (1970) studied the relationship between

personality traits and judge performance in a non-trained

group. They found a correlation between high motivation

and high discriminatory judging ability. Pangborn and

Solms (1987) found a correlation between motivation, non-

confident , and outgoing personalities, measured by the

16FP, with salt and sugar consumption by consumers.

Similarly, Shepherd and Farleigh (1986) reported a

correlation between anxiety and salt intake. In summary,

it appears that motivation and personality traits play an

important role in consumer behavior. However, judge

performance at a laboratory level has not been studied in

relation to personality traits. In this study, the personality

test of Cattell (Cattell et al ., 1980) was used to test the

personality traits, which were then correlated to judge pe rformance in tast e and odor iden ti fica tion and

discrimination tests.

MATERIALS AND METHODSJudge candidates were invited to participate in the

study by public invitation throughout the Instituto

Tecnológico de Veracruz Campus in Veracruz, Mexico.

Candidates (200) were screened regarding time availability,

frequency of food consumption and motivation.

Information related to health status was also obtained from

the candidates. All participants were asked to take the 16FP

personality questionnaire, which contains 187 questions.Time invested to complete the test was 35-45 min. This

test has been validated for the Mexican population (Cattell

et al ., 1980).

Candidates were asked to identify each of the five

following basic taste solutions: Sucrose (29 mM), Sodium

Chloride (12 mM), Citric acid (2mM), Caffeine (2.5 mM)

and purified water. All reagents were purchased from

Sigma-Aldrich, Mexico. Candidates that identified each

of the stimuli (100% correct answers), were then tested

for odor discriminative ability by using the following

standards: Alcohol, powdered milk, vanilla extract,

peppermint, ground garlic, chocolate, cinnamon, dried

onion, powdered cheese, clove, and coffee. These materialswere obtained from the local market. Candidates with 75%

or more correct answers continued the testing (ASTM,

1981). Candidates were asked to rank the following

samples: Sucrose (29 mM, 43 mM, 58 mM, and purified

water), Sodium Chloride (12 mM, 13.6 mM, 15.3 mM,

and purified water), Citric Acid (2 mM, 2.5 mM, 3 mM,

purified water) and Caffeine (2.5 mM, 3 mM, 3.5 mM,

purified water). Candidates who achieved 70% or more

correct answers were then trained in the mechanics of the

triangle test. This test was used to rate performance

evaluating sensory differences between a sucrose solution

(29 mM) and purified water. Sequential analysis was

applied to discriminate between panelists performance

(Pedrero and Pangborn, 1989).

Statistical analysisData from the personality test were analyzed by chi-

squared ( χ

2

), where the variables were personality traits

frequency between discriminators and non-discriminators.

This statistical test was used because the data were

presented as frequency. The Pearson correlation coefficient

was inappropriate for frequency data, therefore, the

correlation between personality traits and judge

per formance was tested by using the coefficient of

contingency (C), given by the formula:

2

2

χ

χ

+

=

N C (1)

where χ

2

is calculated as usual. N is the total number of judges tested. It is important to mention that C never

approached 1. The maximum value reached for the

contingency coefficient (Cmax

) was 0.707, estimated by:

k

k C

1max

−

= (2)

where k is the number of categories in each

dimension (O´Mahony, 1986).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Two hundred interested people responded to thecall, only 143 were recruited based on their interest,

motivation and availability (Dawson et al ., 1963).

Screening was done through verbal interviewing.

Henderson and Vaisey (1970) established rewards

depending on the achievement of the judge through verbal

stimulation and constant communication. In this study, care

Table 1. Some life styles of participants.

Tabla 1. Algunas características del estilo de vida de los participantes.

Characteristic

Male

(%)

Female

(%)

Smoking 22 18

Non-smoking 78 82

Alcohol consumption 48 39

Non alcohol consumption 52 61

Chili eaters 46 38

Non-chili eaters 54 62

SOMENTA ©2007 Mata et al .: Correlation between personality traits...



254

was taken as to motivate the participants by giving sweets

after testing. Out of the 143 subjects, 50 were males (mean

age 25 years) and 93 were females (mean age 25 years).

Similar number of respondents was reported by Gatchalian

et al., (1990) who recruited 200 candidates and selected

102 based on their interest and availability. The next

screening was done through a written questionnaire, in

which food habits and health status information was

requested. Participants were in good health status while

taking part in the study. Two recruited volunteers were

eliminated from the study due to asthma problems and

caffeine intolerance. Participants for sensory testing should

be in good health. Stone and Sidel (1993) have reported

that minor nose infections affect sensory perceptions.

Panelists were asked to avoid smoking and drinking coffee

at least half an hour before testing, since this might affect

sensory perception (Meilgaard et al ., 1999). Life style such

as smoking and alcohol consumption might relate to

sensory discrimination abilities (Bramesco and Setser,

1996; Krut et al., 1961). Therefore, these habits were

reported in this study so as to evaluate its relationship with

judge performance. In this study, 22 % male and 18 %

female were smokers; 78 % male and 82 % female were

non-smokers. So, the majority of the participants were non-

smokers. Alcohol consumption was considered either

taking an occasional alcoholic drink or never taking any

alcoholic drink. 48 % male and 39 % female participants

were alcohol consumers. Approximately the same

percentage was found for chili eaters (Table 1). Food habits

can be important predictors of sensory discrimination.

Lopez and Montesinos (1999) reported alteration in acid,

sweet and sour thresholds of chili eating judges. No

correlations between judge performance and the life style

considered in this study were found.

Personality TraitsThe 16-personality factors questionnaire (16FP) of

Cattell was designed for basic research in psychology to

Personality Factors Definition

Factor A Sizothymia Reserved

Emotional expression Affectothymia Outgoing

Factor B Low intelligence More intelligence

Intelligence High intelligence Less intelligence

Factor C Emotional ego weakness Affected by feelings

Ego High ego strength Emotionally stable

Factor E Submisiveness Submissive

Dominance Dominance or Ascendence Dominant

Factor F Desurgency SeriousImpulsivity Surgency Easy going

Factor G Lack of group acceptance Trusting

Group Loyalty Character Suspicious

Factor H Threctia Timid

Attitude Parmia Venturesome

Factor I Harria Tough minded

Emotivity Premsia Sensitive

Factor L Alaxia Self assured

Credibility Protension Apprehensive

Factor M Praxermia Practical

Cognitive Attitude Autia Imaginative

Factor N Naïveté Forthright

Subtle Shrewdness Shrewd

Factor O Untroubled Adequacy Expedient

Cautiousness Guilt Proneness Conscientious

Factor Q1 Conservativism Conservative

Social Recognition Radicalism Experimenting

Factor Q2 Group Dependency Group dependent

Assuredness Self Sufficiency Self sufficient

Factor Q3 Low Self Sentiment Integration Uncontrolled

Self esteem High Strength or Self Sentiment Controlled

Factor Q4 Low ergic tension Relaxed

Anxiety High ergic tension Tense

Table 2. Definition of 16 personality factors.

Tabla 2. Definición de los 16 factores de personalidad.

Cienc. Tecnol. Aliment. 5(4) 252-258 (2007) ISSN 1135-8122 ©2007 SOMENTA



judges are screened since stimuli memorizing, as well as

sensory description are desirable (Dawson et al ., 1963).

Basic taste perceptionWhen judges were asked to identify basic tastes

(sweet, salty, sour and bitter), 96 % identified the sweet

taste, whereas only 77 % identified the salty taste solution

(10 mM). Bitter and sour stimuli were identified 87 % and

88 % respectively (Figure 1). The selection criterion used

in this study was 100 % correct answers, meaning that

candidates should have identified all basic tastes correctly

255

describe the short-term personality traits, which will predict

human behavior in normal young adults (Setzer, 2000).Table 2 provides definition for the 16 personality factors

evaluated in this study. All participants were requested to

answer the 16FP questionnaire. The most common

personality traits found in participants were: Intelligence

(Factor B), Superego (Factor C), Impulsivity (Factor F),

Cognitive attitude (Factor M), Subtlety (Factor N),

Consciousness (Factor O), Social Status (Factor Q1), Self

esteem (Factor Q3) and Anxiety (Factor Q4). Intelligence

is an important personality trait to consider when sensory

Figure 2. Percentage of correct responses during odor identification test.

Figura 2. Porcentaje de respuestas correctas durante la prueba de identificación de olores.

8182

83

8788

90

92

9596 96 96

97

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

C o

r r e c t r e s p o n s e s ( % )

Peppermint Clover Milk Vanilla Garlic Onion Cheese Yoghurt Cinnamon Chocolate Coffee Alcohol

Figure 1. Percentage of correct responses during taste identification test.

Figura 1. Porcentaje de respuestas correctas durante la prueba de identificación de sabores.

77

87 88

96

0

20

40

60

80

100

C o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s ( % )

Salty Bitter Sour Sweet




to be considered for the next screening test. Hough et al .,

(1995) used 65 % correct answers as screening criteria;

they selected 141 out of 226 candidates representing 62

% of the total candidates. In our study, even though the

criterion was stricter (100 % correct answers), a greater

percentage (77 %) of candidates were selected. In this study,

from 143 participants, 110 were selected by this test.

Odor discriminationDuring odor discrimination, subjects were more

prone to identify cinnamon, chocolate, coffee and alcohol

stimuli. Confusing stimuli were peppermint, garlic, onion

and clove (Figure 2). Subjects achieving more than 75 %

correct answers were selected (ASTM, 1981). From 110

candidates, 102 were selected using this test. Dawson et

al . (1963) reported that previous experience of the judge

with the stimuli is a good predictor of the discriminatory

ability. No information was collected from the participants

as to their previous experience with these odor substances.

Ranking testTable 3 shows the results for ranking taste solutions

at three different concentrations and water. When judges

were asked to rank four sweet solutions in an ascending

order, the first solution (Sucrose 29 mM) and the last

solution (Water) were given in a correct order by 91 % of

the judges. Second and third samples were placed in a

correct order by 86 and 84 % of the judges. The sweet

solution was perceived correctly with the highest

percentage (91 %). However, not all judges were able to

perceive the samples in a correct order, not even at the

highest level used in this study. Using the sour solution,

the water solution presented the highest (94 %) number of

correct answers (water was used in all fours basic tastes

ranking). The percentage of correct responses for the other

three levels of sour concentration varied from 56 % to 79

%. For the bitter taste, water was correctly identified by

79 % percent of the judges. Salty samples were the most

difficult solutions to rank as samples were misplaced in

256

Personality Traits 2 C

Factor A Reserved 0.0317

Emotional expression Outgoing 0.0968

Factor B More intelligence 1.1109

Intelligence Less intelligence 0.0060

Factor C Affected by feelings 0.2327

Ego Emotionally stable 3.3840

Factor E Submissive 1.0713

Dominance Dominant 0.0952

Factor F Serious 4.7118 0.3283Impulsivity Easy going 2.0909

Factor G Trusting 0.0635

Group Loyalty Suspicious 0.0758

Factor H Timid 2.7525

Attitude Venturesome 1.0638

Factor I Tough minded 0.0074

Emotivity Sensitive 2.0066

Factor L Self assured 2.5827

Credibility Apprehensive 0.0056

Factor M Practical 0.5405

Cognitive Attitude Imaginative 0.0590

Factor N Forthright 0.6743

Subtle Shrewd 0.3203 Factor O Expedient 0.4038

Cautiousness Conscientious 0.0056

Factor Q1 Conservative 0.0189

Social Recognition Experimenting 5.1404 0.5323

Factor Q2 Group dependent 0.0496

Assuredness Self sufficient 0.3749

Factor Q3 Uncontrolled 1.0318

Self Esteem Controlled 0.5289

Factor Q4 Relaxed 2.7905

Anxiety Tense 0.1564

Table 3. Personality traits, chi squared ( 2) and contingency coefficient (C).

Tabla 3. Rasgos de personalidad, chi-cuadrada ( 2) y coeficiente de contingencia (C).




more than 50 % of the cases, making these results for salty

taste a probable subject of a more profound study. Only

66 subjects out of 102 were accepted by this ranking test.

Discriminatory ability was chosen according to the ASTM

manual (ASTM, 1981) that establishes 70 % correct

answers as a criterion of acceptance. Henderson and Vaisey

(1970) suggested that sensory discrimination is an ability

that requires both a high degree of concentration and

memory.

Discriminatory testsTriangle tests using 29 mM sucrose and water were

used to discriminate among the 66 judges. Three sessions

consisting of four trials (12 replicates) were applied to each

participant. Pedrero and Pangborn, (1989) suggested that

the training should be started with at least twice as many

panelists as required for product testing. All subjects were

able to discriminate the stimuli in this study.

Correlation

Calculated χ 2

for each of the personality traits

relating to judge performance are given in Table 3. The

contingency coefficient was calculated only when there

was a significant χ 2

value. In this study, the personality

trait that correlated well with high discrimination

performance of judges was desurgency, which represents

a serious type person (Contingency coefficient = 0.3283).

The personality trait that correlated with bad judge

performance was radicalism that is an experimenting

person (Contingency coefficient = 0.5323). None of the

other personality traits seemed to be correlated to judge

257

performance. There have been a number of studies

reporting correlation between judge performance and

personality, however since none of them used the 16PF

questionnaire, no comparison can be made with the results

from this study. Henderson and Vaisey (1970) used the

short version of the personality research form (PRF) to

evaluate the personality traits of a group of people as a

way of predicting judge performance.

They found a direct relationship between

nurturance and aggression scores and intensity of flavor difference ratings; a negative relationship between

autonomy, harmavoidance and impulsivity and degree of

flavor difference. The latter trait (impulsivity) correlation

was attributed to the tedious nature of the task, which could

have been avoided by motivation. The 16PF questionnaire

measures impulsivity, divided into desurgency and

surgency. Only surgency (Serious-type personality) showed

a correlation with high judge performance in our study.

Even consumer behavior has been predicted by

personal ity traits. Pangborn and Solms (1987) reported

a correlation between salt consumption and

cheerfulness, psychotic, doubtful and extroversion traits

in consumers.It appears from our study that two personality trait

factors may influence judge performance. That is, the

serious type personality describes discriminators, whereas

experimenting (radicalism) type personality represents

non-discriminators. It seems that personality traits may play

an important role in sensory tests, judge performance and

consumer behavior. This is a topic that deserves further

investigations.

91

8684

91

78

46 47 46

79

70

50

60

94

79

56

63

0

20

40

60

80

100

C o r r e c t r e s p o n s e

s ( % )

Sweet Salty Bitter Sour

Water

Conc. +

Conc. ++

Conc.+++

Figure 3. Percentage of correct responses when ranking water against three different taste concentration.

Figura 3. Porcentaje de respuestas correctas durante la prueba de ordenación comparando agua contra tres concentraciones de cada sabor.




258

REFERENCES

Armstrong, G.; Mclleen, H.; Mcdowell, D.; Blair, I. 1997.

Sensory analysis and assessor motivation: can

computers make a difference?. Food Quality and

Preference 8 (1), 1-7.

ASTM. 1981. Guidelines for the sensory and training of

sensory panel members, STP 758. Special Technical

Publication of the American Society for Testing and

Material. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA.

Bramesco, N. P.; Setser, S. C. 1996. Salivation of sensory

panelist: effects of selected psychophysiological

factors. Journal of Sensory Studies 11, 69–79.

Cardello, A. V.; Schutz, H.; Snow, C.; Lesher, L. 2000.

Predictors of food acceptance, consumption and

satisfaction in specific eating situations. Food

Quality and Preference 11 (3), 201-216.

Cattell, B. R.; Weber, H.; Tatsuoka, M. T. 1980.

Cuestionario de 16 factores de la personalidad,

México, Ed. Manual Moderno, Mexico.

Costell, E. 2002. A comparison of sensory methods inquality control. Food Quality and Preference 13 ,341-353.

Dawson, E. H.; Brogdon, J. L.; Mcmanus, S. 1963. Sensory

testing of differences in taste. Food Technology 17(10), 39-41, 43-44.

Gatchalian, M. M.; Leon, S. Y.; Yano, T. 1990. Quantified

approach to sensory panelist selection. Food

Quality and Preference 2 , 233-241.

Henderson, D.; Vaisey, M. 1970. Some personality traits

related to performance in a repeated sensory task,

Manitoba, Canada. Journal of Food Science 17,

39-44.

Hough, G.; Martinez, E.; Contarini, A.; Barbieri T.; VegaM. J. 1995. Selection of assessors based on their

skill in identifying basic tastes in low concentration

solutions. Journal of Sensory Studies 10, 1–14.

Krum, J. K. 1955. Truest evaluations in sensory panel

testing. Food Enginering 27 (7), 74-82.

Krut, L. H.; Perrin, M. J.; Bronte-Stewart, B. 1961. Taste

perception in smokers and non-smokers. British

Medical Journal, 5223, 384-387.

López, C. A.; Montesinos, K. 1999. Comparación de los

umbrales de sabor entre asiduos consumidores y

no consumidores de chile. Taste threshold

comparison between frequent chili pepper

consumers and non-consumers. SENSIBER

Symposium Proceedings. Mexico.

Martin, S. L. 1973. Selection and training of sensory

judges. Food Technology 22-26.

Meilgaard, M. C.; Civille, G. V.; Carr, B. T. 1999. Factors

influencing sensory verdicts. Sensory Evaluation

Techniques, 3rd Ed. Boca Raton, New York.

O´Mahony, M. 1986. The Contingency coefficient. En

Sensory Evaluation of Food: Statistical Methods

and Procedures. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.

O’ Mahony, M. 1995. Sensory measurement in food

science: fitting methods to goals. Food Technology

49 (4), 72,74, 76-78, 80-82.

Pangborn, R. M.; Solms, J. 1987. Food acceptance andnutrition. Academic Press. London.

Pedrero, D. L.; Pangborn, R. M. 1989. Evaluación sensorial

de alimentos. Métodos Analíticos. Ed. Alhambra,

México.

Pillsbury, R. K.; Hudson, M. J. 1990. Method for

establishing and training a descriptive flavor

analysis panel. Food Technology 12, 78-84.

Setzer, H. A. 2000. Cuestionario de 16 factores de la

personal idad (16FP). Catálogo 200 pruebas

ps icol óg ic as . 16 Personality Factors

Questionnaire: Catalogue-200 psychological tests.

Manual Moderno, Mexico.

Shepherd, R.; Farleigh, A. 1986. Attitudes and personalityrelated to salt intake. Appetite 7, 343-353.

Stone, H.; Sidel, J. 1993. Sensory Evaluation Practices.

Academic Press Inc. London.


Documents

Personalidad y Capacidad Sensorial