| Nicolas et al.(2010) demonstrated that the data obtained from a 'words only' 9-point hedonic scale, which was subsequently converted to numbers was entirely different from a 'numbers only' 9-point hedonic scale. This experiment used a protocol called rank-rating, which reduces errors of forgetting in an intensity rating task (Jeon, O'Mahony & Kim, 2004; Kim & O'Mahony, 1998; Koo, Kim & O'Mahony, 2002; Lee. H-J., Kim, K-O. & O'Mahony, M., 2001; Metcalf & Vickers, 2002; Park, Jeon, O'Mahony & Kim, 2004). In this protocol, a judge is able to re-taste stimuli as often as desired and review and alter his scores as often as is required. Thus, a judge can re-check, in case he forgets the intensity of stimuli or the scores given to stimuli tasted earlier in the experimental session. He can avoid the problem of giving a higher score to one of two stimuli, when that stimulus was actually perceived as less intense than the other (or vice versa). With rank-rating judges make fewer such errors than with a serial monadic protocol, where a judge merely continues tasting stimuli without re-tasting as a check. This latter protocol would be more suited to a calibrated instrument. Recently, Colyar, Eggett, Steele, Dunn and Ogden (2009) showed that rank-rating was not only advantageous for intensity measurements but also for hedonic comparisons. The Nicolas et al.(2010) experiment was criticized because they did not use a serial monadic protocol, which is generally used in the food industry. However, this protocol elicits memory confusions, which reduces statistical power.;In response to this criticism, I repeated the experiment using both the rank-rating and serial monadic protocols, as part of my thesis research. I found that the same effect happened; the data from 'words only' and 'numbers only' protocols did not agree. The critics were wrong. Furthermore, the serial monadic protocol induced memory errors. To rebut the critics further, my experiment was performed not only in English but also in Mandarin Chinese with the same result.;As a development of this research, I noted the work of Yao, Lim, Tamaki, Ishii, Kim and O'Mahony (2003), who performed a cross-cultural study that assessed toothbrushes on a 'words only' and 'numbers only' version of the 9-point hedonic scale. They found that consumers in Japan and Korea used a smaller range of scores than American consumers. This causes obvious problems for multi-national corporations. It was noted that the effect was greater for a 'words only' scale than a 'numbers only' scale. It was hypothesized that in Japan the effect was due to a general reluctance to express extremes on the scale; in Korea the effect was caused by an extreme reluctance to use the term 'extremely'.;As a part of my thesis research, I traveled to China to repeat this experiment in Mandarin Chinese, and tested Americans in Davis. Interestingly, although the Chinese did suffer from a reluctance to use the ends of the scale, it was not as strong an effect as for the Koreans and Japanese. Their responses were more in the direction of the Americans with less reluctance to use the terms 'very much' and 'extremely'. It would appear that there are differences in using the 9-point hedonic scale, especially the 'words only' version, between the East Asian cultures. |
