The document summarizes research into different methods and scales for conducting sensory food research with children. It found that while interactive and gaming elements made the research more fun, they also distracted the children and led to less consistent responses. The researcher concluded that more work is needed to develop methods that gather high-quality information from children in a way that reflects how they engage with digital technologies.

1. A child’s job is to play, we should let them...
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
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
 Researchers have adapted methods to ask them questions in
simpler ways
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
 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
 Standard liking scale for adults
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Dislike Neither Like
extremely like nor extremely
dislike
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 Really Bad Just a Maybe Just a Good Really Super
bad bad little bad good or little good good
maybe good
bad
Uses child-oriented
language and labels
every scale point
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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
• Essentially a plain, ‘black
& white’ questionnaire
placed online
• Non-interactive, no Flash
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

11. Research Methodology
Stage 1: Traditional
Dislike a lot Like a lot
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

12. 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 • Graphically enhanced
& white’ questionnaire audio-visually interactive
placed online question scales
• Non-interactive, no Flash • Flash technology on GMI
Interactive
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

13. Research Methodology
Stage 2: Interactive
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

14. 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
• Essentially a plain, ‘black • Graphically enhanced questionnaire
& white’ questionnaire audio-visually interactive • Avatar-like character
placed online question scales • Graphically enhanced
• Non-interactive, no Flash • Flash technology on GMI audio-visually interactive
Interactive question scales
• Flash technology on GMI
Interactive
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

15. Research Methodology
Stage 3: Interactive & Gaming
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

16. Findings
Which scale performed the best?
 All 4 question scales performed similarly in terms of
discriminating power and range of scale used
 Slight advantage to the standard liking scale for adults
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

17. Mean liking/9
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ice Cream
14
Taste of Chocolate
4
Double choc half coat
Findings
3
White choc half coat
9
Water
11
Bread
12
Milk
7
Savoury snack
1
Green Colour
8
Honey
13
Taste of Mint
2
Orange Colour
2010
6
Wholegrain savoury snack
5
Gingerbread
16
Taste of Peanut Butter
15
Taste of Cinnamon
Stage19pt
Stage1Star
Stage1P&K
17
Taste of Lemon
Stage1Smiley
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE

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

19. 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

20. Findings
1. Consistency of responses
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

21. Findings
2. Ability to follow instructions
 Fun elements were somewhat
distracting...
 Didn’t follow instructions
 More inconsistent answers
 Perhaps kids struggle with
instructions when distracted?
AMSRS NATIONAL CONFERENCE
2010

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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