Labeled scales (e.g., category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons: what we have learned from genetic variation in taste

Abstract

Direct comparisons of sensory or hedonic perceived intensities across individuals are impossible since we cannot share experiences. However, experiences can be compared indirectly if we can identify a standard assumed to be equal, on average, to groups compared. Sensory standards (i.e., magnitude matching) have proved very useful. Intensity adjectives/adverbs have also been used as standards (e.g., This tastes very strong to me; is it very strong to you?). We argue these labels often refer to experiences of different absolute intensity to the groups of interest making the comparisons invalid. An early solution rested on the assumption that the maximum intensity perceivable was equal for all sensory domains and individuals. Comparisons were then possible because all judgments could be made on a zero to maximum scale. We present data showing this assumption is not true.

Introduction

Variation in sensory or hedonic experience is relatively easy to measure within individuals. But it is extremely hard to measure across individuals or groups because we cannot share one another's experiences. Two psychophysical traditions have led to attempts to provide comparisons of perceived sensory or hedonic intensities across groups. The older tradition depends on scales of various types labeled with adjective/adverb intensity descriptors (e.g., weak, medium, very strong). The newer tradition derives from the work of S.S. Stevens on direct scaling methods. Both depend on the same logic. In order to make comparisons across groups, we must identify some kind of standard that can be assumed to be, on average, equally intense to each group. When comparisons are made through intensity descriptors, the standards are the descriptors themselves. Unfortunately, as we will discuss below, these often fail to reflect equivalent perceived intensities; this makes these scales invalid for across-group comparisons (see also Bartoshuk, 2002). On the other hand, the logic underlying comparisons using direct scaling methods has permitted what we believe to be valid across-group comparisons in some circumstances. Although we know of no stimulus likely to produce the same perceived intensity to all individuals, we can identify stimuli likely to have the same perceived intensity, on average, to particular groups (we need only assume that the modalities to be investigated and the standard modality are not related to one another for those groups).

Given the wide reliance on labeled scales, there would be considerable value in attempting to find ways to alter these scales to make them produce valid across-group comparisons. We believe that increasing insight into our use of intensity descriptors may suggest such ways. These can then be tested against scaling that uses sensory standards. A combination of these approaches may provide the most powerful method of all.