http://www.wine-economics.org/workingpapers/AAWE_WP36.pdf
They did a blind taste test of the following five items:
- Duck liver mousse, specifically: "Mousse de Canard" (Trois Petits Cochons, New York, NY)
- Spam, specifically: "Spam" (Hormel Foods Corporation, Austin, MN)
- Dog food, specifically: "Canned Turkey & Chicken Formula for Puppies/Active Dogs" (Newman's Own® Organics, Aptos, CA)
- Pork liver pâté, specifically: "Pâté de Campagne" (Trois Petits Cochons, New York, NY)
- Liverwurst, specifically: supermarket liverwurst (D’Agostino)
Subjects significantly disliked the taste of dog food compared to a range of comestible meat products with similar ingredients.The bad news for gourmets:
Subjects were not better than random at identifying dog food among five unlabeled samples.As the researchers noted:
These two results would seem to be paradoxical. Why did the 72% of subjects who ranked sample C as worst in terms of taste not guess that sample C was dog food?Go read the short paper for more details of the testing protocol and experiment.
One possibility is that slight differences in appearance and texture skewed the guesses. While the distribution of guesses failed a Chi-Squared test of statistical significance, 44% (8) of subjects incorrectly chose liverwurst (sample E) as the dog food. As the texture of samples had been equalized with a food processor, it is possible that subjects were attempting to discern which sample was dog food based on taste, not texture. The explanation we find more compelling, however, is that subjects were primed to expect dog food to taste better than it does. As we assured subjects that the experience would not be disgusting, they might have excluded the worst-tasting sample from their guesses.
At the organization's website there are more delectable research papers to dip into and enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment