There are various techniques that have been developed for food sensory research on children, but there is little consensus on the most effect approach and questions to use. This slide share explores such issues.

1. A child’s job is to play, we should let them...
Or should we?
Pamela Wong
Direction First
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

2. Background
Sensory food research on children

Little consensus in literature on the most effective research approach and question types to
use
There are various techniques that have been developed for food sensory research on children, but there is little consensus on the
most effect approach and questions to use. Some examples include:

Pair-wise question approaches, where children are asked to choose a favourite between 2 options before drilling down to
more graduated questions.

Questionnaire scale lengths have been tested extensively – Should we be using 2, 3, 5, 7 or 9pt scales? Balanced or
unbalanced?

The language used on the scale points has also been debated, and whether we should label every scale point.

Picture type scales such as traffic light inspired facial scales and star scales have also been considered among others.
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

3. Background
Sensory food research on children

Consensus that children require specialised research approaches

Children respond to research in more limited ways than adults and tend
to:






Have difficulty understanding and following instructions, interpreting abstract symbols and
pictures,
Have limited linguistic and numeracy skills, and shorter attention spans,
Rate new ideas or foods positively because they are excited about the novelty, or
Rate ideas or foods they know positively because they are familiar with them.
It has been suggested that by combining familiar things with new things, marketers may be
able to produce more appealing products for kids (e.g. green tomato sauce)
As a result of these limitations, researchers need to adapt ways to ask
questions
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

4. Background
Today’s children live in a digital world...

Children are exposure to more products, ideas and technology than
previous generations...

Average internet use 30 to 60 mins per day, less TV, radio

90% play video/computer games

Use several technologies simultaneously (e.g. Surfing & SMS)

Multi-tasking with media technology is cognitively demanding (e.g.
driving and texting)

We know children respond to research in more limited ways, but
are we underestimating the digital native’s capabilities?
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

5. Background
Questionnaire scales in food sensory research

There are many different types of question scales used in food
sensory research, and the standard 9pt scale (below) is the most
widely used scale for measuring food liking in adults.

However, this language...“I dislike it extremely”....”I like it
extremely”...”neither like nor dislike it”...is not easily understood by
children, and it doesn’t label every scale point
1
Dislike
extremely
2
3
4
5
Neither
like nor
dislike
6
7
8
9
Like
extremely
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

6. Background
Questionnaire scales in food sensory research
1. P&K liking scale for children

Developed by Peyram and Kroll (USA) for semi-literate children
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Super
bad
Really
bad
Bad
Just a
little bad
Maybe
good or
maybe
bad
Just a
little
good
Good
Really
good
Super
good
Uses child-oriented
language and labels
every scale point
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

7. Background
Because language is sometimes difficult for children, researchers have ‘kidified’ words
by using scales such as the P&K scale.

The P&K scale was designed for semi-literate children (Kroll 1990)

Language is child-oriented and all the scale points are labelled for clarity.

But, is this what kids really mean in 2010?

In using this scale it would be important to adapt the language to the
vernacular.

Some kids at school today are using the word “random” to mean something is
really bad or really good, or “sick” to describe something as really cool. So we
have to be careful with language.
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

8. Background
Questionnaire scales in food sensory research
2. Facial scale for children
•
Expressions represent degree of dislike or like
Angry, Sad or Dislike?
•
Perhaps more applicable today due to widespread use of
emoticons?
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

9. Background
Because reading or language may be a barrier, research has been conducted with the
use of picture scales, such as the facial scale.

Expressions on faces or cartoons represent the degree of like or
dislike...(Child: “Why would I be sad about chocolate?”)

The scale has a long history of use in food sensory research on children, but
has been criticised due to it’s emotional element because kids respond to the
pictures based on what they show (sad/happy), rather than what they represent
–dislike or like.

Perhaps more merits to this scale than currently recognised, however –
growing recognition of the role of emotions in decision making.

Also, the widespread use of emoticons by children might make facial scales
more relevant today. However, their meanings are open to interpretation and
would require further investigation.
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

10. Background
Questionnaire scales in food sensory research
3. Star scale for children

Number of stars represent degree of dislike or like
Dislike a lot
Like a lot
Rewarding
stars for more
liked products
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

11. Background

Researchers have also looked at what children do at school...


This star scale has been recommended above others by food sensory specialists
and has been used in Australian firms for many years.

Stars represent grades/rewards, similar to those that are awarded at school for
good work.


And ask them to mark how much they like things using a reward type system
(Child: “Do I still get my money if I don’t like it?)
However, we should be cautious that using this scale we don’t place children in a
school classroom where they may tend to acquiesce.
So what about what they do when at play?
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

12. The Study
Research Objectives

Which types of questions would perform best with
children?

Would interactive or computer/video game inspired
methods create a world that was as immersive, leading
to better quality data?

Could we make being a part of research a more fun and
enjoyable experience, like playing a game?
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

13. Research Methodology
Over 500 Australian children aged between 7 and 10 years old participated in the online
study (June 2010) over 3 stages:
 Stage 1: N=97

 Traditional
questionnaire
We tested 3 different approaches and 4
questionnaire scales

 Essentially a plain, ‘black
& white’ questionnaire
placed online
All question scales were rotated within each stage to
avoid positional bias, and the questions remained
the same across the stages.

At each stage, we asked children about how much
they liked different foods and flavours, which were
also rotated.

Warm-up questions were also asked to ensure kids
had a chance to learn how to use the questionnaire
scales.
 Non-interactive, no Flash
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

14. Research Methodology
Stage 1: Traditional
The traditional
questionnaire was
essentially, a plain ‘black and
white’ questionnaire placed
online.
It was non-interactive and
had no Flash elements.
Dislike a lot
Like a lot
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

15. Research Methodology
Over 500 Australian children aged between 7 and 10 years old participated in the online
study (June 2010):
 Stage 1: N=97
 Stage 2: N=167
 Traditional
questionnaire
 Interactive
questionnaire
 Essentially a plain, ‘black
& white’ questionnaire
placed online
 Graphically enhanced
audio-visually interactive
question scales

 Non-interactive, no Flash
 Flash technology on GMI
Interactive


The next was an
interactive approach,
where question scales
were enhanced by audiovisual elements.
Each of the interactive
scales had matching
visual and sound effects.
This was designed using
Flash Technology on GMI
Interactive
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

16. Research Methodology
Over 500 Australian children aged between 7 and 10 years old participated in the online
study (June 2010):
 Stage 1: N=97
 Stage 2: N=167
 Stage 3: N=248
 Traditional
questionnaire
 Interactive
questionnaire
 Interactive & gaming
questionnaire
 Essentially a plain, ‘black
& white’ questionnaire
placed online
 Graphically enhanced
audio-visually interactive
question scales
 Avatar-like character
 Non-interactive, no Flash
 Flash technology on GMI
Interactive
 Graphically enhanced
audio-visually interactive
question scales
 Flash technology on GMI
Interactive
And finally, an interactive and gaming approach, where kids had to create a character as they would
in a role playing computer game before being launched into an simulated world.
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

17. Research Methodology
Stage 3: Interactive & Gaming
http://vimeo.com/84559582
Please Visit this link if you
would like to view an
example of the interactive
gaming!
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

18. Findings
Which scale performed the best?

All 4 question scales performed similarly in terms of discriminating power and range of
scale used:


We thought that there would be more discrimination and range in responses on scales
adapted especially for children, such as the star, facial or P&K scales, and we thought that
these scales would perform best.


To compare the scales, we looked at the results from Stage 1, the traditional questionnaire
format, as there were no interactive or gaming elements to distract.
Using different measures of scale performance, we found that each question scale performed
equally in discrimination power and range, which was surprising.
Even a slight advantage to the standard liking scale for adults
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

19. Findings
8
7
6
Taste of Lemon
Taste of Cinnamon
Taste of Peanut Butter
Gingerbread
Wholegrain savoury snack
Orange Colour
Taste of Mint
Honey
Green Colour
Savoury snack
Milk
Bread
Water
White choc half coat
Double choc half coat
Taste of Chocolate
5
4




Stage1Star
Stage1Smiley
Stage19pt
Stage1P&K
Ice Cream
Mean liking/9
9
Results shown here are the liking scores for the products in the traditional questionnaire.
We chose foods and flavours that we thought would produce a range of positive, neutral and negative responses.
Ice cream and chocolate as expected were well liked, whilst lemon and cinnamon were disliked.
These responses were similar across the 3 stages of research, indicating there was little influence from the use of different
approaches.
 The interactive and gaming elements appeared to have little influence on these results, which is POSITIVE because the fun
elements didn’t affect the core results. So ice cream wasn’t liked more just because it was a question asked while their
10
9
11
12
7
1
8
13
2
6
5
16
15
17
character stood on 14 beach..3
the 4
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

20. Findings
Which approach was the easiest and most
fun?

Kids found each approach and scale
easy and fun to use

E
A
S
Y
F
U
N
P&K
P&K
Visual scales were generally seen as
easier and even more fun to use
P&K
Standard
Standard
Standard
P&K
P&K
P&K
Standard
Standard
Standard
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

21. Findings
Why did children rate everything as fun?

Were these results affected by the tendency for
children to acquiesce?

Were the scales in fact, not as fun as we
expected them to be for these kids?

These children spent up to an hour a day on the
internet...

What we thought was an engaging and fun
environment may not be as exciting as where
they play
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

22. Findings
1. Consistency of responses

A number of consistency questions
were used to check whether children
were paying attention at different
stages during the questionnaire.

The first question was about how many
brothers and sisters they had.

Most children answered these
questions consistently at the beginning
and end of the questionnaire at every
stage.
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

23. Findings
2. Ability to follow instructions

The second consistency question was to
see if they were paying attention to
instructions. We asked them to click on
a particular point on the scale....

However, the fun elements were
somewhat distracting...


When children were asked to follow
instructions in the interactive (stage 2)
and interactive-gaming stage (stage 3),
they didn’t follow instructions (more
failed this exercise) and there were
more inconsistent answers
Perhaps kids struggle with instructions
when distracted? Children appeared to
play with their answers.
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

24. Next steps

Type of question scales used in children’s research may be less
important...
 Whilst scales have been debated extensively, they are only one
aspect of the research approach


All scales performed as well as each other
Perhaps we need to move beyond scale research, and explore
asking children to make choices
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

25. Next steps

Researchers may need to investigate other ways to gather better
quality information from children...

Technology has progressed to enable collection of better depth
of information, such as through online discussion boards and
communities

Technology is progressing to enable collection of different types
of information, such as biometric data (recognition of the role of
emotions in decision making).
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

26. Next steps

If a child’s job is to play, should let them?

Problem with acquiescence in children may be avoided by being
online

But, did we introduce new research effects?

Interactive and gaming elements distracted from the main focus

Children played with their answers when we created a playful
environment, which may not be what we want in research
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

27. References
Balogh,M., 2002.Cracking the kids marketing code, B&T, 2002 [http://www.bandt.com.au/articles/03/0C00FC03.asp,
accessed 22.01.10]
Brand, J.,Borchard, J. And Holmes, K. 2009. Interactive Australia, 2009.National Research prepared by Bond University for
the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia.
Bryant, J. A., Weinberg, L., Levine, B., Jacobs, D. and Massoudian, M., 2009. Inspiring Change: Innovative Methods and
Integrated Advertising. Online Research, Part 1, ESOMAR 2009.
Cape, P. 2009. Questionnaire Length, fatigue Effects and Response Quality Revisited. Survey Sampling International.
Chambers, E IV. 2005. Conducting Sensory Research with Children: A Commentary. J. Sensory Studies. 20: 90-92.
Cooper, H., 2002. Designing successful diagnostic scales for children. Presented at Ann. Mtg. Institute o f Food
Technologists, Anaheim, CA, June 15-19.
Covey, N., 2007. Connected Kids: Trends in Youth Gaming. ARF Youth Council, 21 August, 2007. The Nielsen Company.
Cranmer, S. and Ulicsak, M., 2010. Gaming in Families, Final Report, Futurelab, United Kingdom.
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

28. References
C&R Research, 2009. YouthBeat, KidzBeat Magazine Winter.
Damasio, 1994. Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain.
Fliegelman, A., Metx, P., and McIlrath, M., 2004. The ABC’s of Conducting Effective Market Research with Kids. C&R
Research. Published in Media Research Club of Chicago (MRCC), June 2004.
Franco, C., 2010. Popular Online Games: new insight from European Research, WARC
Geraci, J.C. 2004. What Do Youth Marketers Think About Selling to Kids? Harris Interactive. Published in Media Research
Club of Chicago (MRCC), June 2004.
Gladwell, M., 2001. The Tipping Point, Abacus, London, UK.
Guinard, J.X., 2001. Sensory and consumer testing with children. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 11(8), 273–283.
Kroll, B. J., 1990. Evaluating rating scales for sensory testing with young children. Food Technology, 44, 78–86.
Nairn, A., 2009. Protection or Participation? Getting research ethics right for children in the digital age, ESOMAR
Congress.
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

29. References
Lawless, H. T., Popper, R. And Kroll, B. J. 2010. A comparison of the labelled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category
scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale. Food Quality and Preference 21 (2010): 4-12.
Popper, R., & Kroll, J. J., 2005. Issues and viewpoints conducting sensory research with children. Journal of sensory studies,
20(1), 75–87. Also published in Food Technology, May 2003 Vol 57:5, 60-65.
Popper, R. And Kroll, J.J. 2003. Conducting Sensory Research with Children. Food Technology, Vol. 57:5, 60-65.
Schraidt, M.F., 2009. Testing with Children: Getting Reliable Information from Kids. Peyram & Kroll Research Corporation
(http://www.pk-research.com/paper_15.html, accessed April, 2010)
Sleep, D. And Puleston, J., 2009. Leveraging interactive techniques to engage online respondents, Engage Research and GMI
Interactive.
Solomon, D. and Peters, J., 2005. Resolving Issues in children’s research. Young Consumers, Quarter 4, World Advertising
Research Center, 68-73.
Ubrick, B. (2002). Kids have great taste: An update to sensory work with children. Presented at Ann. Mtg. Institute of Food
Technologists, Anaheim, CA, June 15-19.
Zeinstra, G.G, Koelen, M.A., Colindres, D., Kok, F.J.. de Graaf, C., 2009. Facial expressions in school-aged children are a
good indicator of ‘dislikes’, but not of ‘likes’. Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009): 620–624.
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

30. Thank You
Lets Connect!
Erica van Lieven
Managing Director
November 2013
www.directionfirst.com
Linked in: au.linkedin.com/in/ericavanlieven/
Twitter:
@erica_dfirst
Email: erica.vanlieven@directionfirst.com
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010