A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale

Abstract

Schutz and Cardello [Schutz, H. G. & Cardello, A. V. (2001). A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16, 117–159] proposed the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale for measuring food acceptance. The LAM is a line scale anchored at its end points with the phrases “greatest imaginable like” and “greatest imaginable dislike” and uses as intermediate anchors the nine phrases of the traditional hedonic scale. In this study, three hedonic scales were compared, including the widely-used 9-point hedonic scale, the LAM scale, and an 11-point category scale using the LAM’s verbal anchors as category labels. Three groups of consumers ( N = about 100 each) used one of the three scales to evaluate the acceptability of highly liked foods (orange juices, potato chips, cookies, and ice cream, with four samples of each). Scales were evaluated primarily on their ability to show differences in acceptability, the correspondence of acceptance ratings to preference ranking and the correspondence of stated product usage (e.g., purchase of pulp vs. non-pulp orange juice) to the product scoring highest. All three scales performed equally well, with no one scale showing a consistent superiority over another. All three scales were able to differentiate acceptability of the orange juices, chips and cookies. No scale differentiated among the ice creams, which had equal and high acceptability. All scales showed a strong correspondence between liking and preference rankings and also between the product rated highest and the type of product usually consumed, within each of the product categories.