Variations in consumer acceptance, sensory engagement and method practicality across three remote consumer-testing modalities

Abstract

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become challenging for sensory scientists to conduct in-person sensory tests, particularly large central location tests. Sensory literature comparing central location and home use tests shows no clear consensus about how each methodology affects sample ratings and panelist engagement. Research on instructional delivery suggests that the most effective method of increasing engagement involves interactive video conferencing. The objective of this study was to compare three methods of remote consumer testing regarding sample acceptance, sensory engagement, and method practicality. Eighty-four participants rated five chocolate-chip cookie products on a 9-pt hedonic scale in each of three methods: 1) a live (synchronous) Zoom session, 2) an asynchronous video-guided session, and 3) a fully written protocol session. Results showed no significant differences in sample liking pattern across the methods used. Engagement scores approached the limit of significance for the Active Involvement dimension, indicating panelists were least likely to feel distracted, zoned out or lose interest in the written protocol method. There were no significant differences in the time spent on the test by the panelists across the three methods. Asynchronous methods showed to be most suitable in terms of the convenience of the time of day at which the tests were completed, but showed no significant differences in other aspects of method practicality. Overall, a written protocol method of remote consumer testing is recommended, as it is less time-consuming for researchers while providing similar acceptance and engagement as other methods.