<%BANNER%>

Assessing the relationships between food and affective items using the hedonic general labeled magnitude scale

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045464/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing the relationships between food and affective items using the hedonic general labeled magnitude scale
Physical Description: 1 online resource (108 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Martin, Brittany
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: affect -- hedonic -- scaling
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Food and affective items are rarely measured using the same scale, but much can be learned about how individuals rate foods among their life experiences by doing so.  Evaluation using the Hedonic general Labeled Magnitude Scale (HgLMS) allowed effective comparison of food and nonfood items. This scale ranges from the strongest disliking of any kind ever experienced (-100) to the strongest liking of any kind ever experienced (+100),and is personalized to individuals.  The main objective of this study was to compare food and affective items using theHgLMS and to search for relationships between these items. Three hundred twenty-eight participants answered a questionnaire containing 179 items relating to foods and affective experiences using the HgLMS.    Results were analyzed using SPSS.  Amalgamative groups of both foods and affective items were formed conceptually then tested for internal consistency using Reliability Analysis (Cronbach Alpha).  Groups were correlated to individual smell and food related affect variables using Linear Regression.  Results showed most groups were statistically significant for the smell and food related variables.    Participants were divided into “Foodie” and “Nonfoodie” groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed for positive groups, the Foodie mean was significantly higher and for negative groups the Foodie mean was significantly lower. Thus, Foodies have a stronger liking for foods than do Nonfoodies, and they rate affective items more intensely than do Nonfoodies.  Individuals who get great pleasure from food are thus affectively more reactive.    Overall, results show food and nonfood items can be effectively rated on the HgLMS. Affective liking is often highly correlated to liking for foods.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Brittany Martin.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Sims, Charles A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045464:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045464/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing the relationships between food and affective items using the hedonic general labeled magnitude scale
Physical Description: 1 online resource (108 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Martin, Brittany
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: affect -- hedonic -- scaling
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Food and affective items are rarely measured using the same scale, but much can be learned about how individuals rate foods among their life experiences by doing so.  Evaluation using the Hedonic general Labeled Magnitude Scale (HgLMS) allowed effective comparison of food and nonfood items. This scale ranges from the strongest disliking of any kind ever experienced (-100) to the strongest liking of any kind ever experienced (+100),and is personalized to individuals.  The main objective of this study was to compare food and affective items using theHgLMS and to search for relationships between these items. Three hundred twenty-eight participants answered a questionnaire containing 179 items relating to foods and affective experiences using the HgLMS.    Results were analyzed using SPSS.  Amalgamative groups of both foods and affective items were formed conceptually then tested for internal consistency using Reliability Analysis (Cronbach Alpha).  Groups were correlated to individual smell and food related affect variables using Linear Regression.  Results showed most groups were statistically significant for the smell and food related variables.    Participants were divided into “Foodie” and “Nonfoodie” groups. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed for positive groups, the Foodie mean was significantly higher and for negative groups the Foodie mean was significantly lower. Thus, Foodies have a stronger liking for foods than do Nonfoodies, and they rate affective items more intensely than do Nonfoodies.  Individuals who get great pleasure from food are thus affectively more reactive.    Overall, results show food and nonfood items can be effectively rated on the HgLMS. Affective liking is often highly correlated to liking for foods.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Brittany Martin.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Sims, Charles A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045464:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FOOD AND AFFECTIVE ITEMS USING THE HEDONIC GENERAL LABELED MAGNITUDE SCALE By BRITTANY MARTIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMEN T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Brittany Martin

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my supervisory committee: Dr. Charles Sims, Dr. Linda Bartoshuk, and Dr. Henrietta Logan. I especially thank Dr. Sims for serving as my major advisor and for giving me the opportunity to pursue my graduate degree. I also thank Dr. Bartoshuk for her constant support and help from start to finish. I thank all of my lab mates: Elizabeth Gardner, R achel Glintz, and Jamila Lepore for their support. Thank you Eric Dreyer for helping me with the ballot design, for figuring out how to put the ballot in Compusense, and for helping me run my Dr. Asli Odabasi for your encouragement and for having a seemingly magical ability to direct me to the exact source I need when I have a question! I also thank the Sensory Lab workers who helped administer the questionnaire. I thank all of my participan ts for having the patience to answer such a long and thought provoking questionnaire. Thank you Adriana Matheus for helping me recruit participants and Dr. Maurice Marshall for allowing me to recruit from his class. Finally, I thank my fianc Michael and my parents Tammy and Ron for their never ending love and support.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 Introduction to Gustation, Olfaction, and Flavor ................................ ...................... 13 The Tastants ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Gustation Mechanism ................................ ................................ ....................... 15 Olfaction ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 16 Olfaction mechanism ................................ ................................ ................. 17 Olfactory receptor cells ................................ ................................ .............. 17 Odor detection ................................ ................................ ........................... 18 Odor hedonics ................................ ................................ ............................ 18 Pleasantness of Odors and Tastes ................................ ................................ .. 19 Flavor ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20 Differences in Taste Ability ................................ ................................ ..................... 21 Sensory Evaluation ................................ ................................ ................................ 22 Early Sensory Evaluation Methods ................................ ................................ ... 23 Just noticeable difference ................................ ................................ .......... 23 Nine po int scales ................................ ................................ ....................... 23 Magnitude estimation ................................ ................................ ................. 24 Modern Sensory Evaluation ................................ ................................ ............. 25 Visual analogue scale ................................ ................................ ................ 25 Labeled magnitude scale ................................ ................................ ........... 25 General labeled magnitude scale ................................ ............................... 26 Hedonic general labeled magnitude scale ................................ ................. 27 Neuroscience of Hedonics ................................ ................................ ...................... 28 Pleasure as a Currency for Emotion ................................ ................................ ....... 29 Using Scales to Compare Food and Nonfood Items ................................ ............... 30 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................ ................................ ................ 31 Participant Recruitment ................................ ................................ ........................... 31 Sensory Laboratory ................................ ................................ ................................ 31 Questionnaire Design ................................ ................................ ............................. 31

PAGE 5

5 Statistical Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 35 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ............... 37 Creating Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 37 Affect Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 38 Food Groups ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 41 Mean Graphs ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 42 M .......................... 44 Correlations Using Groups: Smell Related Affective Items ................................ ..... 45 The Worst ................................ ............................. 46 Smelling Your Favorite Meal ................................ ................................ ............ 47 Smelling Your Favorite Flower ................................ ................................ ......... 47 Correlations Using Groups: Food Related Affective Items ................................ ...... 48 Finding a Great Restaurant ................................ ................................ .............. 49 Getting Invite d to Dinner with Friends ................................ .............................. 49 Making up a Tasty New Recipe ................................ ................................ ........ 50 Going to the Grocery Store ................................ ................................ ............... 50 Trying New Exotic Foods ................................ ................................ .................. 50 A Disappointing Meal ................................ ................................ ....................... 51 Eating Your Favorite Food and Eating Your Least Favorite Food .................... 51 Correlations Using Groups: Dichotomous Variables ................................ ............... 52 Being By Yourself ................................ ................................ ............................. 53 Speaking in Front of an Audience ................................ ................................ .... 54 Beer ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 54 Dark Chocolate ................................ ................................ ................................ 55 Correlations Using Variables: Eating Your Favorite Food ................................ ...... 56 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 94 APPENDIX A HGLMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 97 B SAMPLE BLOCK RANDOMIZATION OF ALL VARIABLES ................................ ... 98 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 103 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 108

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Participant demographics. ................................ ................................ .................. 58 4 2 Affect groups wit h their included variables and variable mean ratings. .............. 59 4 3 Foods groups with their included variables and variable mean rating s ............... 62 4 4 Foodi e and nonfoodie groups with average group mean and significance. ........ 67 4 5 Smell affect variables correlated with groups ................................ ..................... 68 4 6 Food related affect variables correlated to groups. ................................ ............. 69 4 7 Dichotomous variables correlated to groups. ................................ ..................... 71 4 8 Correlating e ating your favorite food with groups. ................................ .............. 8 4

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Rat ing of variables with their r espective means. ................................ ................. 63 4 2 Being by yourself (positive) correlated with High fat savory ............................... 73 4 3 Being by yourself (positive) correlated with High fat sweet ................................ 73 4 4 Being by yourself (positive) correlated with Sweet ................................ ............. 74 4 5 Being by yourself (positive) correlated with Alcohol ................................ ............ 74 4 6 Being by yourself (positive) correlated with Amusement/Excitement .................. 75 4 7 Being by yourself (positive) correlated with Anger/Anxiety ................................ 75 4 8 Being by y ourself (positive) correlated with Disgust/Fear ................................ ... 76 4 9 Being by y ourself (positive) correlated with Guilt/Shame ................................ .... 76 4 10 Being by y ourself (positive) correlated with Health related ................................ 77 4 11 Being by y ourself (positive) correlated with Satisfaction/Contentment ............... 77 4 12 Being by y ourself (positive) correlated with Sensory pleasure ........................... 78 4 13 Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with High fat savory .............................. 78 4 14 Being by yourself ( negative) correlated with High fat sweet ............................... 79 4 15 Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Sweet ................................ ............ 79 4 16 Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Alcohol ................................ .......... 80 4 17 Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Amusement/Exciteme nt ................ 80 4 18 Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Anger/Anxiety ................................ 81 4 19 Being by yourself (negative) correlated with Disgust /Fear ................................ .. 81 4 20 Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Guilt/Shame ................................ .. 82 4 21 Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Health related. ............................... 82 4 22 Being by yourself (negative) correlated with Satisfaction/Contentment .............. 83 4 23 Being by y ourself (negative) corre lated with Sensory pleasure .......................... 83

PAGE 8

8 4 24 Eating your favorite food correlated with Watching your favorite TV show ......... 85 4 25 Eating your f avorite food correlated with Smelling your favorite meal ................ 85 4 26 Eating your favorite food correlated with Watching a really funny movie ............ 86 4 27 .................... 86 4 28 Eating your favorite food correlated with Finding a great restaurant ................... 87 4 29 Eating your favorite food correlated with Getting a good grade .......................... 87 4 30 Eating your favorite food correlated with Listening to your favorite music .......... 88 4 31 Eating your favorite food correlated with Getting a great deal on something ...... 88 4 32 Eating your favorite food correlated with Gett ing invited to dinner with friends ... 89 4 33 ... 89 4 34 E ating your favorite food correlated with Going to a fun party with friends ......... 90 4 35 Eating your favorite food correlated with Making up a tasty new recipe. ............ 90 4 36 Eating your favorite food correlated with Accomplishing an important goal ........ 91 4 37 Eating your favorite food correlated with Successfully solving a very difficul t problem ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 91 4 38 been about a hobby ................................ ................................ ............................ 92 4 39 Eating yo ur favorite food correlated with Eating your least favorite food ............ 92 4 40 ever eaten ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 93 4 41 .. 93

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for th e Degree of Master of Science ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP S BETWEEN FOOD AND AFFECTIVE ITEMS USING THE HEDONIC GENERAL LABELED MAGNITUDE SCALE By Brittany Martin May 2013 Chair: Charles Sims Major: Food Sci ence and Human Nutrition Food and affective items are rarely measured using the same scale, but much can be learned about how individuals rate foods among their life experiences by doing so. Evaluation using the Hedonic g eneral Labeled Magnitude Scale ( HgLMS) allowed effective comparison of food and nonfood items. This scale ranges from the strongest disliking of any kind ever experienced ( 100) to the strongest liking of any kind ever experienced (+100) and is personalized to individuals. The main ob jective of this study was to compare food and affective items using the HgLMS and to search for relationships between these items. Three hundred twenty eight participants answered a questionnaire containing 179 items relating to foods and affective experie nces using the HgLMS. Results were analyzed using SPSS. Amalgamative groups of both foods and affective items were formed conceptually then tested for internal consistency using Reliability Analysis (Cronbach Alpha). Groups were correlated to individ ual smell and food related affect variables using Linear Regression. Results showed most groups were statistically significant for the smell and food related variables.

PAGE 10

10 varian ce (ANOVA) showed for pos itive groups, the Foodie mean was significantly higher and for ne gative groups the Foodie mean was significantly lower. Thus, Foodies have a stronger liking for foods than do Nonfoodies, and they rate affective items more intensely than do Nonfoodies. Individuals who get great pleasure from food are thus affectively more reactive. Overall, results show food and nonfood items can be effectively rated on the HgLMS. Affect ive liking is often highly correlated to liking for foods.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Positive and negative exp er iences are common throughout life. Food and eating, which are integral parts of the human enterprise, are tied to affect. Foods and experiences can have positive or negative affect, and differences be tween wha t is liked and disliked varies between individuals. Scales can be used t o measure affect. The Hedonic g eneral Labeled Magnitude Scale (HgLMS) measures affect on a scale ranging from the strongest disliking of any kind ever experienced ( 100) to the strongest liking of any kind ever experienced (+100). The top and bottom anchors on this scale are personalized to individuals, meaning each rticipant anchors tend to be unrelated to fo od, and thus both food and affect items are measured in the context of pleasure (Bartoshuk and others 2003). The HgLMS is sup erior to category scales because it allows participants to pick a representative number for their feelings based on their personal anchors. Conversely, the 9 point hedonic sca le has no context other than it s labels (like slightly, like moderately, like extremely, etc ) and cannot make valid across group comparisons (Cox and others 2001). Unpublished data shows the HgLMS can create v alid across group and within subject comparisons. Food and nonfood items are rarely assessed on the same scale. One re cent study did measure both on a scale analagous to the HgLMS, the g eneralized Degree of Liking Scale (gDOL S ). However, the purpose of this study was not to compare food and nonfood items directly but to use these items to define whether or not an individual

PAGE 12

12 others 2013). Direct comparison of food and affect items can lead to a broader picture of how individuals rate the se items in their lives. D irect comparison can also show how liking for specific affect items can be correlated to liking for specific foods, and vice versa. This type of r esearch has never been conducted before. The purpose of this study is to directly compare the liking of food and nonfood items using the HgLMS. The information gathered from this study will be useful in understanding how individuals rate life exper iences and foods, a nd will correlate liking or disliking of groups of affect and foods items to one a nother. This data may predict if liking or disliking for a certain variable will influence liking or disliking for another. of food and nonfood items on the HgLMS. It was hypothesized that foodies would rate both food and affective items more intensely (i.e. more po sitive or more negative) than would nonfoodies. This information is of intere st to psychophysicist s and food scientists, and may a lso be useful in food marketing. Using the HgLMS enables variables to be easily broken down into both positive and negative responses. This allows variabl es to be assessed dichotomously. Dichotomous as sessment can show which variables show wide variation in their hedonic value to different participants, and how these participants differ from one another in their response to other food or affect categories.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction to G ustation, Olfaction, and Flavor The experience of eating foods is influenced by all five senses: Hearing, sight, touch, taste, and smell (Lawless and Heymann 1999). The m ost important of these senses with regard to food are taste and smell. Taste, known scientifically as gustat ion, is the perception of ta ste sensation on the tongue. The widely accepted basic taste qualities are sweet, salty, sour, and bitter; umami, a savory taste, is still debated upon as a fifth basic taste (Bellisle 1999). The Tastants Salty tastants are forme d from two charged particles: a positively charged cation and a negatively charged anion. The most common and the saltiest tastant is table salt, NaCl. Sodium is necessary for humans to survive. Chlori de deficiency has been show n to mimic sodium deficiency; infants who were accidentally fed a chloride free formula developed a lifelong preference for salty foods (Stein and others 1996). Saltiness perception is not static; a reduced sodium diet increases the perception of saltines s over time (Bertino and others 1982). Thus, a dietary reduction in sodium will lead individuals to label some foods they formerly found enjoyable as being too salty. Sour tastants are acids, which biologically occur when the number of hydrogen ions in a solution exceeds the number of hydroxide ions. While most individuals enjoy sour tastes at a low level, high concentrations of acids are inedible and will cause damage to body tissues. Bitter perception varies based on genetics as will be discussed later Bitter genes are located on three chromosomes: 5, 7, and 12. The bitter gene family in

PAGE 14

14 which there are 25 members, is Tas2r. However, most specific bitter receptors are still unknown. Many bitter compounds are poisonous, which is why indiv iduals te nd to reject strongly bitter foods However, some bitter tasting foods are very healthful, including many vegetables. Bitter perception is also dependent on female hormone levels. Bitterness sensitivity is at its height for women during pregnancy, and s ignificantly diminishes after menopause (Duffy and others 1998). Sweet taste come s from sugars, which are simple carbohydrates. Glucose is the main energy source of most living things o n Earth. There are only two sweet receptors: Tas1r2 and Tas1r3. The se two receptors form a heterodimer which was initially thought to be responsible for all sweet perception (Bartoshuk 2012). This differs from the bitter receptors, where there are many Tas2r receptors which respond to a multitude of bitter compounds. Th is sweet heterodimer has a complex shape, so a variety of sweeteners with various chemical structure s can bind at different places on the heterodimer. While different sweeteners interact with disparate areas of the heterodimer, the receptor produces the same signal for every sugar. Thus, every sweetener, including artificial sweeteners, should all produce the same sweetness. However, a simple taste test will show that this is not the case. A genetic study inv olving the Tas1r3 receptor may provide a pot ential answer as to why this is: t he Tas1r3 receptor was reported to have the ability to function alone, and only responds to large concentrations of sucrose (Zhao and others 2003). These findings could explain the difference we perceive between true and artificial sugars. Liking and disliking for three tastants is present from birth. Human brains are hardwired to enjoy sweet sensations and to reject bitter and strong sour tastants. The

PAGE 15

15 salty receptor is not mature at birth and develops in infancy, at w hich time infants will begin to enjoy dilute salty solutions. These hardwired taste affects were shown by Steiner, whose newborn subjects sweet followed by suckling. Sour tastants resulted in a pouting fac e. Bitter tastants elicited spitting, mouth gaping, and dry heaving (Steiner 1973). Gustation M echanism Taste perception occurs through a sequence of events. First, mastication breaks down food into smaller molecules. These molecules are dissolved in s aliva, which reaches the taste bud through a taste pore. Taste buds are located in specialized papillae on the tongue surface. The three major papillae involved in taste are fungiform, foliate, and circum vallate (Lawless and Heymann 1999). Fungiform pap illae are locate d on the anterior of the tongue and reach a maximal diameter of 1 millimeter. Each fungiform papilla contains approximately six taste buds (Bartoshuk 2012). Foliate papillae are located on the sides of the tongue at the point where the to ngue is attached, and circumvallate papillae form an inverted V at the back on th e tongue. T aste buds are also found on the larynx, orolarynx, epiglottis, upper esophagus, palate (Bachmanov and Beauchamp 2007) and the gut (Hass and others 2010). All t aste nerve fibers were once believed to be c onnected on one end to receptors and to nerve fibers on the other end. The nerve fibers were thought to bring taste information directly to the brain. H owever, some receptors were found on cells which do not direct ly synapse with nerve fibers (Herness 2005). There are three different types of taste bud cells, each of which parlays different taste qualities. Type I cells do not have synapses and may respond to salts; very little is known about these. Type II cells respond to bitter, sweet, and umami. They have receptor sites but no

PAGE 16

16 synapses. Type III cells mediate saltiness and sourness and behave typical to the model, with a receptor site as w ell as a synapse (Chaudhari and Roper 2010 ). Taste cells are constantl y regenerated and have a lifespan of about one week. This explains why the taste system can recover quickly from dama ge such as a burnt tongue, and why the elderly are able to taste Taste receptor cells are located inside taste buds. Taste stimuli inte ract with taste receptors, and a neural message is created. These messages are carried to the brain by the th ree cranial nerves involved in taste: The facial nerve (VII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (IX), and the vagus nerve (X) (Lawless and Heymann 1999) Taste information leaves the taste buds via the cranial nerves and travels through the medulla and thalamus before reaching the primary area for taste processing, the cortex (Bartoshuk 2012). The insular cortex is the primary processing area for taste and is also the first part of the cortex which receives taste information. The orbitofrontal cortex is also involved as it is able to integ rate taste with other related entities : Temperature, smell, and touch. Olfaction Olfaction occurs when odor molec ules are detected by olfactory receptors in the mucosa. Only volatile, small, hydrophobic molecules have the potential to be smelled However, not all molecules which meet these criteria can be smelled (Herz 2012). Volatile molecules sniffed through th e nostrils result in orthonasal olfaction. This can be thought of as the normal smell of foods. Foods release volatiles during mastication; these volatiles are forced up behind the palate and enter the nasal cavity from the rear. This is called retronas al olfaction. Mastication breaks down the food matrix in the mouth and on the tongue. Maximum flavor intensity occurs near the

PAGE 17

17 moment of swallowing, at the border of the back of the tongue and the soft palate (Buettner and others 2002). The overall flavo r characteristic of foods is derived from retronasal olfaction (Bachmanov and Beauchamp 2007). Olfaction mechanism For olfaction to occur, air which is sniffed into the nasal cavity passes over ridges called turbinates. These add turbulence, which cause a small amount of air from each sniff to pass through the olfactory cleft; the air then reaches the olfactory epithelium. Olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) are located on the olfactory epithelium. Dendrites on the OSN have olfactory receptors on the ir ti ps. When an odorant interacts with olfactory receptors, a signal cascade occurs, the end product being an action potential which is transmitted from the OSN to the olfactory bulb. For an action potential to be generated, seven or eight odor molecules mus t be bound to a receptor. Approximately forty action potentials must be generated before the sensation of smell occurs. Humans have nearly 20 million OSNs (Herz 2012). Olfactory receptor cells Olfactory sensory neurons are regenerated approximately once every 28 days. However, temporary anosmia, or lack of ability to smell, can be caused by head trauma, sinus infections, and sinonasal diseases such as polyps (Herz 2012). In rare cases, head trauma can lead to permanent anosmia. Specific anosmia can als o occur; this is likely a genetic inability to smell specific compounds. One of the most common specific anosmia s is to androstenone, a steroidal musk compound approximately half of the population is anosmic to. However, androstenone sensitivity was expe rimentally induced in half of individuals who initially were anosmic to it via repeated exposure (Wysocki and others 1989).

PAGE 18

18 Olfactory receptor cells are the only sensory cells w hich are directly connected to the brain. Despite being directly connected to the brain, OSNs are some of the slowest axons in the body. There is a lag time of almost half a second between sniffing and an odorant being registered in the brain (Herz 2012). Th is does not include the time it takes to react to a scent, which makes olfa ction a very slow sensation. Conversely, the visual cortex processes sight data almost instantaneously. Like taste, odors often have a feel in addition to a smell (Herz 2012). For example, menthol has a cooling feel while horseradish has a burning feel. This is because the trigeminal nerve (Cranial Nerve V) innervates the nasal cavity. Odor detection Olfactory detection thresholds are dependent upon a number of factors. One is the length of th e carbon chain of a molecule: t he longer the carbon chain, t he easier the molecule is to detect (Herz 2012). Females have lower detection thresholds than do males, particularly when ovulating. Despite common belief, olfactory sensitivity does not increase during pregnancy (Cameron 2007). Olfactory sensitivity ha s been shown to increase throughout the day, with short decreases in sensitivity after food is consumed (Goetzl and others 1949). Detection thresholds increase as individuals age because cell death exceeds the rate olfactory receptor cell regeneration. Od or hedonics Odor hedonics can measure how much individuals enjoy particular smells. Overall, indiv iduals like odors they are familiar with. Ratings of odor pleasantness form a linear relationship with odor liking (Herz 2012). It is clear most olfactory affect is learned. There is disagreement as to whethe r any smells are innately liked or disliked. Conditioned preferenc e may play a role. Odor liking or disliking can be conditioned in

PAGE 19

19 babies by the p ositive or negative reactions of adults to the same od or. Positive or negative consequences associated with an odor may also be a factor in conditioning. Conditioned preference is supported by infant research, which shows infants do not find the smells of feces or sweat disgusting (Engen 1982). Infants als o like odors better if they were exposed to them in utero. This includes stro ng, distinctive smells such as tobacco, alcohol, and garlic (M e nella and Beauchamp 1991, 1993). Cultural differences exist in what is considered an acceptable smell. For examp le, most Westerners enjoy cheese, an often strong smelling food. However, many Asians find cheese to have an unpleasant smell, but will eat natto, a fermented soybean dish many Westerners find noxious. Learned taste aversion is an olfactory phenomenon. When an individual or animal becomes sick after ingesting a specific substance, they will often refuse to eat this substance in the future. However, this conditioned aversion is due to the smell of the food, not the taste (Bartoshuk and Wolfe 1990). Memor ies arising from odor cues are distinct in their emotionality. When individuals are asked to list emotions associated with a memory, they l ist more emotions related to olfaction than to others senses (Herz 1998, Herz and others 2004). Emotions are also m ore intense when they were linked to smell rather than the other senses. Individuals report a stronger feeling of being transported back to the original moment with odor memories than with memories elicited by others senses. Pleasantness of Odors and Tast es The pleasantness of food odors can change depending upon whether an individual is satiated. For example, after eating until full, a formerly pleasant smell such as cheese or chocolate may become unpleasant, while the perceived pleasure of

PAGE 20

20 nonfood odors is unchanged (Cabanac 1979). Similarly, drinking a sweet juice until full will not affect liking for a salty stimulus, but the liking for a different sweet stimulus will be lower than it would be on an empty stomach. However, these observations may not be valid cross culturally (Moskowitz and others 1975). Flavor Flavor is the amalgamation of retronasal olfaction and taste. Minorly, orthonasal olfaction, mouthfeel, trigeminal sensations, and appearance can also contribute to an of flavor (Rozin 1982). Flavor processing is supported by the caudal orbitofrontal cortex, which integrates input from both taste and retronasal components (de Araujo and others 2003). Thus, flavor exists as a unified sense only because it is constructed cognitively from the two sensory systems it originates from (Prescott 1999). Because of this complex unification, retronasal olfaction is often confused with taste. For example, an individual with a cold may complain of not being However, this statement is false as they can still taste the basic tastants (sweet, salty, sour, and bitter) but lack the normal intensity of flavor they are accustomed to due to their inability to perceive the odors retronasally (Rozin 1982). Retronasal olfaction and taste can intensify one another. Some experts believe v olatiles which smell sweet increase the perception of sweetness despite having no taste themselves For example, strawberry volatiles enhance sweetness quality while peanut butter volat iles do not (F rank and Byram 1988). Like only intensifies like so the perceived s altiness of a salt solution would not be enhanced by the addition of strawberry volatiles

PAGE 21

21 Differences in Taste Ability There are substantial taste sensitivity differences amongst individuals, particularly in regard to bitter compounds. The first to discover this was A.L. Fox. In 1932, Fox and a lab mate accidentally tasted phenylthiocarbamide (PTC), and found they had differences in ability to taste the compound (Fox 193 2). Some individuals found the compound tasteless (nontasters), while other s found it strongly bitter ( tasters). This eventually led to the understanding that taste ability is influenced by genetics. Less ability to taste bitter compounds is indicative of an individual possessing two recessive alleles for bitter, later found out to be located on chromosome 5 (Blakeslee and Salmon 1931, Reed and others 1999). PTC is no longer used t o determine taste sensitivity because it is toxic (Wheatcroft and Thornb urn 1972). Instead a chemical relative 6 n propylthiouracil (PROP) is often used to test taste. However, PROP is a drug used to treat hyperthyroidis m. Although only a fraction of the medicinal dosage of PROP is used to test ta ste, some individuals may not wish to use it due to its drug status. Both PTC and PROP contain an N C=S group, which exhibits bitter qualities. Early on, taste r status research utilized category scales to determine taste sensitivity. A major issue with these types of scales was that a given descriptor (e.g., strong or weak) could denote different actual perceived intensities to different individuals (Bartoshuk and others 2004). This diminished the po wer of the category scale. Many differences in perception are due to genetics. Some individuals can b e classified as supertasters: i ndividuals who experience the most intense taste sensations.

PAGE 22

22 In the United States, about 25% of the population can be classified as supertasters. Supertasting was discovered during PROP studies. More current work has shown supertasting is general and affects virtually all taste experiences. The general Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) was developed by Bartoshuk and others to allow for valid across group comparisons. Supertasters perceive more intense se nsations fo r all basic taste qualities when compared to nontasters and medium tasters. For example, the perceived sweetness of sucrose is higher for supertasters than nontasters (Bartoshuk and others 1978). Supertasters tend to have the most fungiform pa pillae. Thus, other oral sensations such as oral burn from spicy foods or oral touch from fats are also experienced as being more intense by supertasters This is because fungiform papillae are innervated with nerve fibers which detail oral touch and tri geminal sensations as well as taste. Individuals who experience the most intense taste also experience the most intense retronasal olfaction, and thus the highest perceived flavor. Supertasters tend to be pickier eaters than others. Because bitter tastes are more intense for supertasters, they are less likely to enjoy foods which contain bitter compounds, including veget ables. Significantly fewer tasters are smokers and alcoholics, as the strong tastes of these two substances are apparently repugnant to many tasters ( Duffy and others 2006). Sensory Evaluation Sensory evaluation is important to the food industry responses to food products. Without sensory evaluation, manufacturers could not approximate how consumers perceive a pr oduct before putting it on the market (Sidel and others 1981). Companies can also determine if consumer panelists notice a

PAGE 23

23 evaluation (Lawless and Heymann 1998). Other import ant product aspects, such as shelf life and packaging functionality, can also be assessed (Lawless and Heymann 1998). Early Sensory Evaluation Methods Just noticeable difference s just noticeable difference (jnd) scale (Stevens 1960). Created in 1850, this scale measures slight differences between items using an unlabeled scale. Specifically, jnd is the smallest detectable difference between the beginning and secondary level of a sensory stimulus. Error along this scale was incorrectly assumed to be constant, which although false, largely shaped the psychophysical world through the ea rly 1900 s (Stevens 1960). The jnd scale did not take into account th e asymmetry of sensitivity: it is easier to discriminate tastants at similar concentrations near threshold than it is at very high concentrations. With the advent of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the food i ndustry began to grade products, and professional grades assessing th e quality of foods were established (Meilgaard and others 1999). As the field of product quality assurance grew, sensory evaluation became more scientific. Scorecards containing product d escriptions were used to differentiate product grades beginning in t he early 1900 s (Hinreiner 1956). Nine point scales One of the oldest and still most widely used scales is the nine point category scale. This scale was first developed by the United States Natick Laboratories to rate

PAGE 24

24 ns (Jones and others 1955). The original scale had nine labeled points expressing sensory strength, ranging from none (1), slight (3), moderate (5), strong (7), to extreme (9). A variation on this scale is the hedonic nine point scale; this scale ranges from dislike extremely (1), neither like nor dislike (5), to like ext remely (9). One issue with the hedonic nine point scale is the large amount of variability seen between panelists (Sidel and others 1981). Also, nine point scales do not have ra tio pro perties. Thus, when a p anelist rates a product a 6, it does not necessarily mean he likes the product twice as much as one he rates a 3. However, the nine point hedonic scale is still very useful for measuring hedonic response, as it requires v ery little panelist instruction and works well for within subject comparisons. Magnitude estimation Category scales make it difficult for individuals to define the magnitude of sensory differen ces between two products. Stevens and co lleagues developed a scaling met hod based on ratio properties termed magnitude estimation, to address this shortcoming ( Stevens 1957). To use magnitude estimation, panelists assign an initial sensation a numerical value, then rate further sensations based on their intensity compared to the initial value. For example, if a panelist labeled the sweetness of an ini tial solution a 10 and found a second solution to be h alf as sweet, he would rate the second solution a 5. The num bers picked are inconsequential; only the ratio created betwee n the taste sens ations is important. A s with category ratings, magnitude estimation ratios fail to provide valid ac ross subject comparisons to matching taste sensations with other sensations which are not taste related. For ex ample, the strength of a tastant can be com pared

PAGE 25

25 with the loudness of a tone (Stevens 1960). modality the basis for subsequent scales such as the gLMS. These across group comparisons are useful beca use when unrelated standards are used, the data can be separated into taster groups: s upertasters and others. Supertasters will match the intensity of a solution to a louder tone than others Modern Sensory Evaluation Visual analogue scale The advent of modern sensory evaluation dawned wit h the Visual Analogue Scale ( VAS ) The VAS measures sensation on a 100 mm line, with each endpoint being an extreme. For example, a 1969 study by Aitken measured apprehension in fighter pilots based on ten imagined si tuations. One end of the scale was labeled mark on the line to denote how they felt in each situation (Aitken 1969). Scales such as the VAS are valid for within subje ct comparisons as well as across group comparisons when groups are large and randomly assigned (Bartoshuk and others 2003). However, this scale cannot be used to make demographic comparisons (sex, age, etc) because the intensity labels do not refer to the absolute pe rceived intensity of each group Labeled magnitude scale The creation of the Labeled Magnitude Scale (LMS) was a significant breakthrough in sensory scaling. This scale, devised by Green and colleagues in 1993 (Green and others 1993) was simi lar to scales devised by Borg (Borg 1982), Moskowitz ( Moskowitz and Sidel 1971 ), and Gracely ( Gracely and Kwilosz 1988 ) all of which gave category scales ratio properties by re spacing the labels. The LMS is a labeled scale for oral sensations. The scale ranges from a bottom anc top

PAGE 26

26 anchor at The LMS has ratio properties, so an oral sensation rated a 40 should be twice as intense as one rated 20. Oral burn was previously assumed to be similar amongst all individuals. However, this is not true, as taste buds a re encompassed by nerve fibers which parley oral burn (Finger and others 1994). The number of taste buds an individual has is related to PROP perception and taster status (Bartoshuk and others 1994). Oral burn is stronger for supertasters than for nontas ters. Thus, the LMS is not a viable means to compare participant perceptions for taste General labeled magnitude scale The general Labeled M agni tude S cale, or gLMS, was created to address concerns raised by the LMS. The gLMS was stretched to encompass t he maximal imagine d possibility of a sensation as well as the minimal. Thus, the top anchor, 100, (Bartoshuk and others 2003). Valid comparisons can be made across taster grou ps, as the top anchor is thought t o be equal across all groups, so long as the top anchor is not relate d to taste. To ensure participants understand how to correctly use the scale, they are often asked to rate the intensity of a series of items which have an intuitive orde r. For example, three statements commonly used are the loudness of a whisper, the loudness of a conversation, and the loudest sound ever heard. If these three items are not rated in this ascending order, an individual likely does not un derstand how to use the gLMS.

PAGE 27

27 The word imaginable was removed from the top anchor of the gLMS because it detracts from universality (Snyder and others 2008). While there is some correlation between imagined and experienced sensations, the ter m imaginable creates problems due to the differences in the imaginations of individuals, and removing this term makes the scale stronger (Snyder and others 2008). The new top anchor is C urrently, the gLMS is the most powerful sensory tool allowing valid between group comparisons (Bartoshuk and others 2004). This scale best reflects the effects bitter compounds such as quinine produce, which can also be linked to fungiform papillae density (Bartoshuk and others 2003). The gLMS is a valuable measure of absolute intensities of sensations among and between groups. Hedonic general labeled magnitude scale The hedonic general labeled magnitude scale, or HgLMS, measures hedonic responses to foods and affective experiences. Created by Bartoshuk and c olleagues in 1997 and modified as the gLMS was modified this scale i s an improvement on the 9 point hedonic scale. It is specifically a hedonic gLMS scale created for the hedonic evaluation of foods; the HgLMS essentially takes two gLMS scales and places them together. This scale is personalized by individuals, with Z ero is neutral, and n o ot her anchors are used on this scale. The HgLMS gives good across group comparisons for taster groups because an sliking is rarely food related (Bartoshuk and others 2006). Because of this the HgL MS allows valid across group and within subject comparisons for food preferences (Kalva 2009) As this scale is relati vely novel in the

PAGE 28

28 sensory world, it requires more verb al instructions to ensure panelists understand how to use it The HgLMS and scales with similar labels are improvements over the hedonic nine point scale and other category scales M any individuals do not use the e nd point s (1 and 9) on the hedonic nine point scale, creating what is referred to as the ceiling effect. Hedonic labeled sc ales eliminate this effect because they are continuous; participants are more likely to make marks throughout the scale (Cardello and others 2008). A recent study showed the HgLMS is superior to th e hedonic nine point scale because it limits the ceiling ef fect and creates stronger correlations when comparing demographics such as gender and foodie status (Kalva 2009) showed i ndividuals who experience more intense taste sensations also experience greater liking and disliking for their favorite and least favorite foods. Her study also found significant positive cor relations between liking for food and music as individuals who rated the variable Listening to Your Favorite Music highly also rated Eating Your Favorite food highly. Rating of food s from memory using the HgLMS was shown to be highly correlated with HgLMS ratings of the same foods when they were tasted in a panel session. Thus, rating from memory with the HgLMS is likely an efficacious way to assess food products (Kalva 2009). Neuro science of Hedonics The orbitofrontal cortex is the part of the brain which link s sensory and motor information, resulting in goal oriented behavior and emotional processing (Rolls 1999). Specifically, the medial and lateral areas of the orbitofrontal cor tex may act together to create behaviors which modify end goal oriented behavior; eating is one of these behaviors (Kringelbach 2005). Neuroimaging studies show the orbitofrontal cortex

PAGE 29

29 exhibits the hedonic value for both abstract secondary reinforcers, s uch as money, as well as primary reinforcers, such as eating (Kringelbach and Rolls 2004). When the orbitofrontal cortex is damaged patients often exhibit flat affect, inappropriate social behavior, and trouble making decisions (Rolls and others 1994). Signals most individuals take for granted, such as interpreting vocal and facial expressions, are impaired in individuals with frontal lobe damage (Hornak and others 1996). Similarly, when individuals process angry faces, a sign that social behavior is li kely inappropriate the orbitofrontal cortex is activated (Schnider 2003). Brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex has been related to pleasantness ratings for food eaten to satiety (Kring elbach and others 2003). Up to now, intensity ratings cannot be correlated with activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, as shown in stud ies using both taste and odor (d e Arujo and others 2003, Anderson and others 2003). Pleasure as a Currency for Emotion Cabanac asserts pleasure is the common curr ency of with high intensity and high he If disparate emotions have a common currency, it is pleasure (Ramirez and Cabanac 2003). Rating foods from memory, as is done in our study, involves rating the pleasure elici ted from experiences. The HgLMS is the ruler by which these nonsimilar items can be assessed I n this case pleasure related to food and affective experiences is measured on the same scal e, and the pleasure felt is th Under this theory, it is intuitive that foods and nonfoods could be compared to one another.

PAGE 30

30 Using Scales to Compare Food and Nonfood Items Few studies have compared food and nonf ood items on the same scale. A rece nt study by Pickering studied foodies and wine experts (Pickering and others 2013). Liking for 14 nonfood items and 64 food items were measured on a g eneralized Degree of Liking scale (gDOLS) which is analogous to the HgLMS. Individuals were score. The nonfood items were both affectiv ely p ositive and negative; appro ximately half of the items were positive and half of the items were negative. This study was interested in making comparisons between different demographic groups (age, sex, income, etc ) F ood and affective item s are rarely compared on the same scale because researchers in the fields of psychology and psychophysics bel ieved it can not or should not be done. Specific scales were developed to assess emotions, others were developed to assess foods, and the two are almost never mixed. However, the HgLMS has the power to assess both food and affect. If, as Cabanac says, pl easure is the currency of emotion, then degree of pleasure or displeasure is the common denominato r with which all items can be compared The anchors participants chose on the HgLMS can be thought of in the same way a tone is us ed in cross modality matchi ng: estimate the pleasure or displeasure of an unrelated situation. The time to assess food and nonfood items together is now. The HgLMS is a powerful tool which has the abil ity to compare participant liking for unlike items, and much can be le arned when food and affect are measured on the same scale.

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Participant Recruitment The University of Florida Health Science Center Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study p rotocol. Five hundred participants were recruited from FOS 2001 mail. All ages 18 and above were considered for participation. Participants w ere screened based on their willingness to spend thirty minutes answering a questionnaire. Three hundred sixty nine participants completed the questionnaire; the other one hundred thir ty one panelists did not make their appointment. Before beginning the questionnaire, participants read and signed the IRB ap proved consent form Part icipants were compensated for participating in the study. Sensory Laboratory Participants answered the questi onnaire at the Sensory Laboratory at the Food Science and Human Nut rition Department in individual booths with computer workstations. Each work station was equipped with a sensory software program to collect data (CompuSense Five Sensory Analysis Software for Windows, Compusense, Guelph, Canada). Paper scales and a pen cil were kept at each booth so participants could write on and refer back to the top and bottom anchors of their scales for the duration of the questionnaire. Questionnaire Design At the beginning of the session, participants answered a series of demograph ic questions. The de mographic data collected were: g ender, age, height (in feet and inches), weight (in pounds), ethnic background, race, incidence of otitis media (middle

PAGE 32

32 ear infection), vegetarianism, and smoking incidence. Individuals who identified t hemselves as vegetarians were asked to pick their top reason for being vegetarian from a list and to identify which meat products they had eaten in the past month from a checklist. Individuals who said yes to smoking more than 100 cigarettes or approximat ely 5 packs in their entire life were asked a follow up question about their body mass index (BMI). BMI was calculated using the following equation: {[(weight in lbs)/ (height in inches) 2 ]*703} (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases. National Institutes of Health. November 2008). All participants were trained to use the Hedonic general Labeled Magnitude Scale (HgLMS). This scale was used to me asure participants liking or disliking for certain activities, foods, and life events (Bartoshuk and others 2006). The HgLMS strongest disliking of any kind ever 100), with the flexibility for participants to select any integer between the two anchors on this scale. Each participant identified and recorded on a provided paper scale their +100 and 100 experience s. Some examples of these experien ces were given to the participants during training: falling in love, traveling, and spending time with family and friends were given as examples of +100. Being very ill or the death of a loved one were given as examples of 100. The participants 100 experiences remained their top and bottom anchors for the entirety of the questionnaire. Participants

PAGE 33

33 were given the opportunity to take their paper scales with them after they completed the questionnaire so their HgLMS anchors could remain private The HgLMS can be seen in Appendix A Participants were given brief instructions on how to use th e HgLMS; all groups of participants were given identical instructions. Participants were told to keep their sca le in mind while answering the question naire. The example given to demonstrate this was if you like dancing more than apples, Dancing shoul d be given a higher value than A pples using the scale. For negative statements, the example was if you dislike seei ng a roach more than you dislike eating broccoli, Seeing a Roach should be given a more negative value on the scale. Participants were also instructed to give an item a rating of zero if they neither like nor dislike it, and to not agonize over choosing a value but instead to quickly pick a number which they felt was representative and natural before moving on to the next item. Participants were allowed to answer the questionnaire at their own pace. The questionnaire was comprised of 179 items. The major ity of these items were created by doctoral candidate Jennifer Stamps in the Dental Department at the University of Florida. Food and affective items were included which were hypothesized to be both liked and disliked by participants, and of both strong a nd weak intensity. This was so the items in the questi onnaire would create a range of responses on the HgLMS. Items were randomized for each of the five test days in the f ollowing manner: t he list of items was divided into specific foods (65 items) and experiences/activities termed affective items (114 items). These two subsets were then randomized before creating blocks. Ten blocks were formed from these randomized lists, five blocks had 6

PAGE 34

34 food ite ms and 12 affective items four blocks had 7 food ite ms and 11 affective items and one block had 7 food ite ms and 10 affective items Once the 10 blocks were formed, the 17 or 18 stateme nts within each block were randomized. Participants would see one block of questions at a time, and could change answer s to items already rated within each block; however, they were unable to search between blocks or go back to an earlier block to change an answer. Each panelist performing the test on a particular day would receive the same pseudo randomization. True ran domization could not be accomplished in the statistical software used due to the large number of items in the questionnaire. The randomized blocks assessed by participants on the first day of t esting can be seen in Appendix B Once each participa nt finish ed the questionnaire they were given individual verbal instructions for creating their top anchor on the general Labeled Magnitude a bitter solution (0.001 M quinine) (Bartoshuk and others 2004). The gLMS allows HgLMS, participants are able to selec t any integer value between these two values Participants were not given any examples for w hat common 100 anchors are unless they specifically asked. Those who asked were told some common examples are the brightest light ever seen ( usually the sun), the loudest sound they had ever heard, or the most pain they had ever been in.

PAGE 35

35 P articipants th en used their gLMS scale to practice magnitude matching experiences for memory, including the loudest sound ever heard, the loudness of a conversation, the brightness of a dimly lit room, the brightest light ever seen (usually the sun), the loudness of a w hisper, and the brightness of a dimly lit restaurant. After this warm up, the gLMS was used to rate the intensity of a 0.001 M quinine solution. Panelists tasted 5 mL of the quinine solution at room temperature, and rated its intensity using the gLMS to determine taster status. Statistical Analysis Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to a nalyze data. Forty one participants were eliminated from the dataset because they rated either the loudness of a whisper higher than the loudest s ound ever heard or they rated the brightness of a dimly lit restaurant higher than the brightest light ever seen on the g LMS This indicated these individuals were not paying attention during the test, or that they did not understand scaling. These indiv iduals were therefore eliminated from the dataset. The remaining 328 panelists were included in the final data analysis. G roups encompassing several like variables were formed from multiple variables using the Transform Variable Function. Amalgamative groups were formed instead of correlating individual items because more information can be gleaned from comparing groups of similar items than comparing items one on one, as one on one correlations are often dif ficult to interpret. G roups with conceptual cohesiveness are easier to compare to one another. For example, it is fairly easy to interpret a negative correlation between an amalgamative grouping of variables labeled Amusemen t/Excitement and Anger/Anxiety. P articipants who value Amusement/Excitemen t have strong negative

PAGE 36

36 feelings for situations which elicit Anger/Anxiety However, interpreting a negative correlation between Dancing and Losing Your Keys is not as straightforward. The first step to forming amalgamative groups w as to group variables conceptually These groups were tested for efficacy using the Reliability Analysis Function, which is a Cronbach Alpha test. This test measures internal consistency of a group consist ing of multiple variables. The Reliability Analysis function can also state what the Cronbach Alpha would be if a variable was eliminated from a group. Thus, if a variable decreased the Cronbach Alpha of an initial group it was removed, despite that it seemed at first glance fit conceptually with the group Correlations an d regressions were made by graphing a scatterplot using the Chart Builder Function and a correlation line with the coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) was added. Significance and R Values, or correlation coefficients were calculated using the Linear Regres sion function. For the Foodie and Nonfoodie analysis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used. Another method was used to potential ly group the variables, but was ultimately rejected. This was Rotated Component Matrix Factor Analysis, which was use d to ana lyze foods and affective items separately. Allowing SPSS to automatically separate the data into factors led there to be far too many (20+), with some of the factors having only two or three variable s each. This analysis also allows one to manually manip ulate gr oups by specifying how many factors are wanted; from 2 10 factors were tried for affective items and from 2 8 factors for foods. However, all of these analyses produced grou pings which were not conceptually cohesive and which had fairly low level s of significance for many variables. This is why the conceptual groups were ultimately selected conceptually and tested with Cronbach Alpha for cohesiveness.

PAGE 37

37 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Dat a from 328 participants was analyzed Sixty five percent o f the participants were female and 86% were in the most common age bracket for college undergraduates (18 22). Two thirds of participants described themselves as White or Caucasian. The demographic information collected can be found in Table 4 1. None o f the demographic data were used in statistical analysis. For some demographic attribut es, too few participants met an inclusion criterion for analysis. For example, few participants were current smokers (n= 3 ), vegetarians (n= 13), and sufferers of otitis media (n=13), so these variable s were not analyzed. Other demographics, such as gender and BMI were analyzed, but no significant differences were found. Creating Groups The goal of this study was to look for meaningful relationships between liking for foods and affective items and to condense this data into results which were easy to understand. Due to the large nature of this dataset, correlating items individually is a difficult task, and the results are hazy. What does it mean if Black Coffee is si gnificantly correlated with about a Hobby ? I t was thought the best w ay to compare foods and affective items wou ld be to place them in conceptual groups. Each item was placed into only one group. The groups were then tested using the Cronbach Alpha test, which measures inte rnal consistency. This estimate s the reliability of a psychometric grouping. The closer the Cronbach Alpha is to 1.0, the stronger the group is. While several iterations of groupings were te sted using Cronbach Alpha, Table 4 1 shows the food and affective groups which conceptually seemed cohesive and also had high Cronbach Alphas

PAGE 38

38 Affect Groups The chosen affect categories were Amusement/Excitement, Anger/Anxiety, Disgust/Fear, Guilt/Shame, Healt h Related, Satisfaction/Contentment, and Sensory Pleasure. Table 4 2 details the groups, included variables, and the mean participant response for each variable. The Amusement/Excitement group contained items which generally are very joyous, exhilarating, or amusing. The items in this group vary in intensity, but none is mild. In fact, 4 of the top 5 rated variables in this dataset ( The Proudest Moment, and Falling in Love ) were f rom the Amusement/Excitement group. The mean ratings for this group vary from a low of 34.6 (Dancing ) to a high of 90.1 ( The Most Joy You Have Ever Felt ). The Satisfaction/Contentment group also had highly rated variables, but these variables differed f rom those in the Amusement/Excitement group. Initially items such as Sharing an Intimate Moment with Someone You Love and Graduating From High School were thought to be better matches for the Amusement/Excitem ent group, but a Cronbach Alpha test s howed t hese variables took integrity away from the Amusement/ Excitement group, and fit better with Satisfaction/Co ntentment. The Satisfaction/Contentmen t group showed more variation overall than did items in the Amusement/Excitement group. For example, some low rated items including Gardening (0.1) and Cleaning Your House (4.6) were not universally appealing to all individuals, but they still add ed integrity to the Cronbach Alpha grouping of Satisfaction/Contentment Most likely, many participants find performin g thes e tasks satisfying, while some do not.

PAGE 39

39 The Sensory Pleasure group contain ed items which all directly relate to one of the five senses: Taste, smell, touch, sight, or hearing. Items in this group were all positive and were all rated in the middle p ortion of the positive part of the scale. Eating Your Favorite Food had the highest mean variable rating in this group ( 61.4 ) while Smelling Your Favorite Flower had the lowest mean rating ( 24.3 ) The Anger/Anxiety group included i tems which could cause participants frustration or stress. The mo st negatively rated item was The Been ( 74.3) while the highest rated item was ( 29.5). This group had overall similar ratings to the Disg ust/Fear group, which appertain to repugnance and aversion. When the Anger/Anxiety and Disgust/Fear group were experimentally combined into one, the Cronbach Alpha levels decreased and it was decided these variables should be kept separate. The most negatively rated item in this group was ( 63.3) while the highest rated item was Anticipating a Test Result ( 23.2). The Guilt/Sha me group was interesting in its wide range of response mean s, as well as the inclusion of a positively rate d variable in a category which is so negative. The highest rated variable was Speeding (12.3) while the lowest rated was The Guiltiest ( 72.0). Due to the positive mean of Speeding, it was experimentally added to the group Amusement/Exci teme nt to see if it fit better there. However, taking this variable out of the Guilt/Shame group lowered the overall Cronbach Alpha for the Guilt/Shame group, and adding it to the Amusement/Excitement group lowered this though Speeding has a positive mean, many

PAGE 40

40 participants rated this variable negatively, so it fits better in a negative group like Guilt/Sha me than one as positive as Amusement/Excitement. The category Health Relate d included anything pertaining to sickness visits, and death. This was the most negativel y rated of all of the groups with the lowest rated item being The Death of a Loved One ( 93.3), and the highest rated item being Going to the Doctor ( 14.4). While this group contains many variabl es which are also fear related ( Learning You O nly H ave a Few Months to Live, Finding A Suspicious Lump on Your Breast or Testicle ), these items were kept separate from the Disgust/Fear group because t hey specifically pertained to A few of the affect items did not fall into any of the chosen categories. S ix affect related variables were not used: Being by Yourself, Being Defiant to Help Correct an Injustice, Entering a Haunted House, Looking Down From a Great Height, Finding out No and Speaking in Front of an Audience. These variables, with the exception of Finding out No One was Hurt in Your Loved likely did not fit any single group because individuals may have very differe nt opinions of these variables. Being by Yourself is a good example of this. One hundred twelve participants rated this variable as being negative ( 99 to 1), and the mean negative rating was 35 .0 One hundred eighty panelists rated Being by Yourse lf positive (1 to 100), with the mean positive rating being 49 .0 Sixty seven panelists rated this variable as being completely neutral, or 0. This can be contrasted with a variable such as Spending Time with Loved Ones which was universally enjoyed by panelists, meaning no one had a negative or n eutral response. It seems many of the variables which could not be

PAGE 41

41 grouped can be divided into subgroups: i n this example, people who enjoy being by themselves (N=180), those who are indifferent to it (N=67), a nd those who dislike it (N=112). A few dichotomous variables are discuss ed in more detail later. group for a different reason. This variable implies a great am ount of relief and thankfulness which is not conveyed by m any other items in the dataset, except perhaps Having a Reason to Believe a Problem is About to Get Better ; M eeting a Major Deadline on Time; and Learning Your Greatest Wish has Come True However, these variables d id not coalesce well as a single grouping, and the other relief oriented variables fit much better into other groups (Satisfaction/Contentment for the first two and Amusement/Excitement for the third one) than they did as a single group, proven by a Cronba ch Alpha test. Food Groups The foods were more difficult to coa lesce into groups with conceptual sense and high Cronbach Alphas than were the affective items. Only approximately half of the variables (34 of 64) were formed into groups. Groups with their included variables and participant mean r atings for the variables are detailed in Table 4 3. The groups decided upon were High Fat Sweet, Sweet, High Fat Savory, and Alcoho l. Placing food items in these groups was an easier process than grouping the affe ctive item s due to narrow definition of the food groups. Conceptually, i tems in the High Fat Sweet group had to have a large amount of both sugar and fat while the Sweet group should be sweet with no or very little fat. Items in the High Fat Savory group should be fatty without being sweet. The Alcohol group included all items which were alcoholic beverages. The High

PAGE 42

42 Fat Sweet group was the most liked, with the ratings ranging from a high of 41.7 ( Cookies, Cake, or Pastries ) to a low of 28.2 ( Oreo Cooki es ). As a whole, the affect associated with foods and beverages was only moderately intense All foods and beverages were rated between 41.7 ( Cookies, Cake, or Pastries ) and 10.9 ( Black Coffee ). Most of the 64 f ood items were rated positively; only 7 (1 0.9%) were rated negatively. These items were Hot Peppers ( 0.6), Mayonnaise ( 0.8), Vodka ( 1.0), Ginger ( 1.9), Bleu Cheese ( 6.1), Whiskey ( 10.8), and Black Coffee ( 10.9). Conversely, 57 emotion item s (49.6%) were rated negatively, showing particip ants disliked the experimental affect items more than they disliked the foods. Mean Graphs Figure 4 1parts A D show s the means for all of the individual food and affective items presen ted in quartiles. Quartiles were used because it is not possible to pre sent all 17 9 items graphically on one page The top quartile contains mostly affective items, with the exception of the two items Cookies, Cake, or Pastries and Ice Cream The mean variable ratings in this quartile range from a high of 91.0 ( The Most Joy Ever Felt ) to a low of 36.7 ( Making Up a Tasty New Recipe ). The second quartile contained many more food items than the first quartile with the majority of items (76%) being foods. This quartile had means ranging from 36.0 ( Bread ) to 14.1 ( Plain Broccoli, Cooked ). The third quartile contained bo th positive and negative items; 53% of the items were positi ve. Sixty two percent of all items were foods in this quartile; however, 88% of the positively rated items were food while only 33% of the negat ively rated items were food. Of the negatively rated items, the foods were also some of the most mildly rated,

PAGE 43

43 being 7 of the first 9 negatively rated items. Again, this shows affective items were rated more intensely than food items in this dataset. The third quartile had variable mean ratings ranging from a high of 13.3 ( Marshmallow ) to a low of 34.2 ( Taking a Test and Not Knowing How You Performed ). The bottom quartile contained only affective items. These items had ratings ranging from 34.2 ( Getti ng Lost ) to 93.3 ( The Death of a Loved One ). These mean graphs show an interesting trend. Affective items are rated more strongly positively and negatively than food i tems. Both the food and affect variables were created to encompass items which would e licit both mild and intense ratings. Very few affective items were rated neutrally. Some examples are Cleaning Your House (4.6), Gardening (0.1), Looking down from a Great Height ( 4.7), and Speaking in Front of an Audience ( 9.5). However, it is debata ble if these items received a fair ly neutral rating because participants had only a mild liking or disliki ng for them or if participants formed two dichotomous gr oups. Perhaps many participants rated an item quite high or low while only a few gave an ite m a truly neutr al rating This disparity in ratings could at first glance lead to the conclusion that an item is neutral to participants when in fact it is either highly liked or highly disliked. Overall, most of th e affective items elicited intense res po nses. Conversely, the food items were rated much more mildly. Only seven food items were rated negatively, and the mean rating for the most negative food item was only 10.9 ( Black Coffee ). In fact, 52% of foods were rated from 15 t o 15, while only 7 % of affective items were rated in the same range. Thus, affective items in general elicit a more inten se liking or disliking than do food s

PAGE 44

44 Eating Your Favorite Food is a variable which is of spe cial interest in psychophysics and food science. Eating Your Favorite Food had a mean rating of 61.4, which was higher than the mean ratings for any of th e specific food items In this study, a Foodie was defined as a participant whose liking for Eating Your Favorite Food versus The Most Joy You Have Ever Felt was higher than the median. Ever Felt was used for comparison because it was the highest rated variable in the dataset. Foodie analysis was performed using the following calcul ation: ( Eating Your Favorite Food/The Most Joy You Have Ever Felt )*100 The median of this calculation was 70. 0; thus, individuals whose value was larger than 70.0 were labeled Foodies while those whose ratio was less than or equal to 70.0 were labeled Nonfoodies. Because was the highest rated variable, it was thought individuals who were above the median when Eating Your Favorite Food was compared to it had a stronger affective relationship with food than did those who fel l at or below the median. There were 161 Foodies and 167 Nonfoodies in this dataset. Table 4 4 shows the mean ratings of the groups for Foodies and Nonfoodies, as well as the significance from an ANOVA calculation. Foodies and Nonfoodies showed significa ntly different means for their ratings of every group with the exception of Alcohol. For pos itive groups, the Foodie mean group rating was significantly higher than the Nonfoodie rating. F or negative groups the Foodie mean group rating was significantly lower than the Nonfoodie rating All differences found were significant at p value of <.01 Thus, Foodies have a stronger liking for fo ods than do Nonfoodies, and Foodies rate affective items more intensely than do Nonfoodies. Thus, i ndividuals who get great er pleasure from food were

PAGE 45

45 concluded to be more affectively reactive than their counterparts who receive less pleasure from food Foodies feel greater pleasure from positive affective experiences and greater displeasure from negative affective experi ences than do Nonfoodies. Correlations Using Groups: Smell Related Affective Items The questionnaire contained three affective items related to smell: The Worst and Smelling Your Favorite Flower T able 4 5 shows the Pierson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, or R Value of each item when it is correlated with the 11 groups detailed previously. From henceforth, the Pierson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient will be referred to as the CC. A positive CC indicates most participants rate an item positively or negatively using the HgLMS, and then rate a group in the same direction. For example, The Worst correlates positively with the Anger/Anxiety group. Most p articip ants rated both and the variables in the amalgamative group Anger/Anxiety negative ly ( averaging 58.0 and 46.4, respectively) using the HgLMS. Since both items were rated in the same direction (negative), the correlati on is positive. If two items are rated in opposite directions (one is rated positively and one is rated negatively), the CC will be negative. This is the case with the item Smelling Your Favorite Meal and the Disgust/Fear group. Most participants rated Smelling Your Favorite Meal positively and variables in the amalgamative Disgust/Fear group negatively, so the correlation is negative. In this dataset, a CC from 1.0 to .142 or 1.0 to .142 wa s significant at a p value of < .01. Nearly all of the var iables were highly significant, with ma ny having a p value of <.001 The exception is Alcohol. This group did not correlate significant ly with any of the smell items. The se low correlations may be caused by the demographics of the

PAGE 46

46 participants. The mea n age of all participants was 21.5, with the median being 20. The spread on the Alcohol group was larger than the other groups, possibly because some young participants find the often strong and bitter taste of alcohol displeasing and rate it negatively, while others may enjoy the taste of alcohol and rate it positively Some ind ividuals may rate alcohol positively because of its intox icating effects rather than its taste. In this regard, some p articipants rated the component variables of the Alcohol gro up as foods, while others rated them affectively. This could account for the wide spread of data in the Alcohol gro up, which did not correlate highly with any of the smell items. Aside from A lcohol, t he correlation between the other groups and each of the three smell items was highly significant (p value <.001) Each of the variables was a component of an amalgamative group. Smelling Your Favorite Meal and Smelling Your Favorite Flower are components of the Sensory Pleasure group, while The Worst Thing Y is a component of the Disgust/Fear group. To keep these items from correlating with themselves and thus artificially inflating the CC, eac h variable was taken out of its respective group during the analysis. Smelled For Sensory Pleasure wa s the group with the highest CC ( .541). As all of the Sensory Pleasure items relate to positive feelings involving smell, touch, sight, sound, and taste, it makes sense that this group w ould have a highly negative correlation with Individuals who place an emphasis on sensory experiences in their lives would find The more displeasing than those who do not value sensory e xperiences as highly. As had a

PAGE 47

47 moderate high mean negativ e rating ( 58.0), it is clear Sweet, Amusement/Excitement, a nd Satisfaction/Contentment should have a negative uch as Ange r/Anxiety and Disgust/Fear should have a positive CC. Smelling Your Favorite Meal High CCs for Smelling Your Favorite Meal were Sweet (.528), Amusement/Excitement (.597), Satisfaction/Contentment (.529) and Sensory Pleasure (.636) Smelling Yo ur Favorite Meal can be exciting, and these high CC s show individuals who highly value being amused and excited also value the smell of their favorite food. Food has long been a source of contentment, so the Satisfaction/Contentment group logically has a high CC. Smell is the sense most tied to memory and hedonics, so the high CC for the Sensory Pleasure group also makes sense. Sweet is a little more difficult to understand. Why would individuals who like smelling their favorite meal also highly enjoy s weet foods? The word meal implies something which is likely savory rather than sweet, yet the CC for Sweet is quite a bit larger than the CC for the High Fat Savory group (.453). Individuals who strongly favor savory, fatty foods may not value the smell of food as much as those who enjoy sweet foods, thus higher CCs are seen for the Sweet group. In fact, for all three smell items the Sweet CCs we re larger than those of the High Fat Savory and High Fat Sweet groups by at least .075 and as much as .151. P erhaps individuals who enjoy sweets also place more emphasis on the sense of smell in general. Smelling Your Favorite Flower Smelling Your Favorite Flower had low er CCs than the other two smell variables This may partially be because it had a milder part icipant rating compared to The Worst

PAGE 48

48 and Smelling Your Favorite Meal (24.3, 58.0, and 48.8, respectively). The highest rated group was Satisfaction/Contentment (.527), closely followed by Sensory Pleasure (.524) The smell o f f lowers tends to be pleasant, and many individuals likely feel satisfaction when smelling them. The high positive CC (.52 7) shows an individual who rates Smelling Your Favorite Flower highly will likely rate the group of Satisfactio n/Contentment items high ly. The Sensory Pleasure group also had high CCs because go od smells logically correlate with a category espousing pleasantness of the senses. Correlations Using Groups: Food Related Affective Items Eight items in the questionnaire assessed participant s liking for affective items related to food. These were Finding a Great Restaurant, Getting Invited to Dinner with Friends, Making u p a Tasty New Recipe, Going to the Grocery Store, Trying New Exotic Foods, A Disappointing Meal, Eating Your Favorite Food and Eating Your Least Favorite Food Table 4 6 shows correlations between the individual variables and the groups, along with the CC and significance. Once again, some variables are included in the amalgamative groups, and had to be taken ou t of the anal ysis This ensures a variable does not partially correlate with itself artificially inflating the CC. Finding a Great Restaurant and Getting Invited to Dinner with Friends are included in the Amusement/Excitement group; M aking u p a Tasty New Recipe Try ing New Exotic Foods and Eating Your Favorite Food are included in the Sensory Pleasure group; Going to the Grocery Store is included in the Satisfaction/Contentment group; and A Disappointing Meal and Eating Your Least Favorite Food are included in the D isgust/Fear group.

PAGE 49

49 As with the smell related affective i tems, the Alcohol g roup was not significant for most of the food related items, with the exception of Trying New Exotic Foods Individuals who enjoy eating exotic foods may also be interested in exp erimenting with drinking different alcohols. Perhaps trying an alcoholic beverage from a different culture along with exotic food is pleasurable for adventurous individu als. The four items in the Alcohol group are generic ( Beer, Drinking a Great Glass of Wine, Whiskey and Vodka ), and could encompass a participant liking for trying new alcohols, perhaps from exotic locales. This may have cause d the significant association between Trying New Exotic Foods and Alcohol. Finding a Great Restaurant Finding a Gr eat Restaurant had high CCs with the Sensory Pleasure group (.675), as well as the Satisfaction/Contentment group (.547). The CC for Sensory Pleasure sligh tly exceeded the CC f or Amusement/Excitement Finding a Great Restaurant likely correlated well wit h the Sensory Pleasure group because food and eating ar e integral components of Sensory Pleasure. T hus someone who values eating will likely highly value an establishment where good food is served. Getting Invited to Dinner with Friends Getting Invited to Dinner with Friends is highly correlated with the Sati sfaction/Contentment (.527), Amusement/Excitement (.590), and Sensory Pleasure (.595) groups The senses are often stimulated when an individual thinks about a food the y will consume, leading to an im agined sensory experience The inclusion of the Getting Invited to Dinner with Friends is certainly amusing, and it may also create social contentment in individuals.

PAGE 50

50 Making u p a Tasty New Recipe Making u p a Tasty New Recipe yielded high CCs with the Amusement/Excitement (.504), Sensory Pleasure (.515), and Satisfaction/Contentment (.515) groups. Thus, a strong liking f or creative cooking amused, satisfied, or created pride in participants The high Sensory Pleasure correlation connotes a liking for the sensory components of this variable: t he senses are stimulated both while the food is being prepared as well as when it is consmed. Going to the Grocery Store Going to the Grocery S tore had lower CCs overall than the other items. Along with Alcohol, the High Fat S weet and Health Related groups we re also not significant. These results could be due to the mild response participants gave this variable, with the mean rating bein g 18.4. The hig hest CCs were with the Sensory Pleasure (.360) Satisfaction/Contentment (.354) and Amusement/Excitement (.321) groups. Thu s, participants who enjoy Going to the Grocery store find the act moderately amusing and satisfying. The significant CC with the Se nsory Pleasure group is like ly due to the sensory experience of being in a grocery store, as well as participant thoughts of preparing and eating the surrounding food while grocery shopping Trying New Exotic Foods The highest CC for Trying New Exotic Food s was for the Satisfaction/Contentment (.400) group. The moderate correlation between the Satisfaction/Contentment group and Trying New Exotic Foods showed liking for trying new foods is linked to liking for satisfying experiences. Trying New Exotic Foods was not significantly correlated with the variable Health Related, meaning how an individual

PAGE 51

51 rated Trying New Exotic Foods could not predict their dis like for the Health R elated variables, as a whole. A Disappointing Meal A Disappointing Meal correlated n egatively with Sensory Pleasure ( .457) and Amusement/Excitement ( .442) while it correlated positively with Anger/Anxiety (.428). An individual who is disappointed by a meal may feel angry, annoyed, or frustrated by the experience. This is likely why th is variable had a highly positive CC with the Anger/Anxiety group Likewise, a person who is an avid appreciator of the sensory pleasures of food may be more affected by A Disappointing Meal than someone who is n ot. An individual who places a strong emph asis on being amused may also be more negatively affected by a meal which disappoints. Eating Your Favorite Food and Eating Your Least Favorite Food Eating Your Favorite Food has high positive correlations with the Amusement/Excitement (.519) and Sensory Pleasure (.533) groups Individuals who rate d eating their fav orite food high also rate d the items in the A musement/Excitement group high Eating Your Favorite Food can be easily associated with the items included in the Amusement/Excitement group becau se Eating Your Favorite Food is likely an exciting activity for those who greatly enjoy food. Eating Your Favorite Food also has a high sensory value, which explains the high CC with the Sensory Pleasure group. Eating Your Least Favorite Food is similar; it correlated positively with Anger/Anxiety (.474) and Disgust/Fear (.512) and negatively with Amusement/Excitement ( .460) and Sensory Pleasure ( .465). Overall, positive food related affect ive items tended to correlate positively with the Amusement/Ex citement, Sensory Pleasure, and Satisfaction/Contentment groups.

PAGE 52

52 For most, eating is a pleasant and pleasurable activity, which is why the food related affective items had higher CCs with these groups. Negative food related affective items tended to have higher CCs with Anger/Anxiety and Disgust/Fear. It is reasonable to say the thought of eating food which disgusts ( Eating Your Least Favorite Food ) or disappoints ( A Disappointing Meal ) participants will likely addition ally annoy or anger them Strong correlations between a group and an item show one could potentially be used as a predictor for the other. The higher the CC value is, the more an item and a group correlate, and the more effectively an item can be used to predict the general response to a group of items or vice versa. Aside from Alcohol, the group which tended to have lower CCs than the others was Health Related. While this group was signif icantly correlated to every variable aside from Trying New Exotic Foods the food related affecti ve variables may not be as good of pre dictors for participant rating for the Health Related group as these variables are for other groups, with the exception of Alcohol. Correlations Using Groups: Dichotomous Variables As discussed previously, som e variabl es were dichotomous, meaning many individuals rated a variable positively while many others rated it negatively. Two affective items and two food ite ms were assessed dichotomously: Being by Yourself, Speaking in Front of an Audience, Beer and Dark Chocol ate Participant responses of responses of 1 to were not included in this analysis. Table 4 7 shows how the p ositive and negative factions of these dichotomous variables correlated with the groups.

PAGE 53

53 Being b y Yourself Being by Yourself was discussed at length previously This variable was also chosen to be r epresented graphically with its positive and negative com ponents correlated to each of the groups are seen in Figures 2 through 21. The overall mean rating for this variable was 14.3 ; the mean negative rating was 35.0 and the mean positive rating was 49.0. Being By Yourself (Positive) significantly correlated with the High Fat Sweet, Sweet, Amusement/Excitement, Satisfaction/Contentment, and Sensory Pleasure groups. All of these correlations were positive. Thus, the more individuals liked being alone, the more they also liked sweets. Those who like being al one also enjoy amusing and satisfying activities. This is interesting, bec ause it may be thought those who give a high rating to Being by Yourself would not be as interested in social engagements, but many of the Amusement/Excitement and Satisfaction/Cont entment variables involve enjoyment while being amongst others. Individuals who enjoy being alone rated the groups pertaining to social enjoyment highly positive. Thus, those who enjoy being alone are not necessarily asocial in nature. Being b y Yoursel f (Negative) did not significantly correlate with any of the groups. This is als o of interest, as some may believe a disliking for being alone connotes a penchant for Anger/Anxiety. However, this is not the case with the participants in this study It m ay also be assumed that individuals who rate Being b y Yourself negatively would rate groups such as Amusement/Excitement or Satisfaction/Contentment higher because they contain highly social variables but this was not the case in this study

PAGE 54

54 Speaking in F ront of an Audience The mean rating for Speaking in Front of an Audience was 9.4. Speaking in Front of an Audience (Negative) had a mean of 39.4 while Speaking in Front of an Audience (Positive) had an mean of 32.4. Speaking in Front of an Audience (Po sitive) did not significantly co rrelate with any of the group s. Speaking in Front of an Audience (Negative) significantly correlated with the Sweet, Amusement/Excitemen t, Anger/Anxiety, Disgust/Fear, Guilt/Shame, Health Related, and Sensory Pleasure group s. The correlations for Sweet, Amusement/Excitement, and Sensory Pleasure were negative while the correlations for Anger/Anxiety, Disgust/Fear, Guilt/Shame, and Health Related were positive. The significant CCs for Anger/Anxiety, Disgust/Fear, and Guilt /Shame for Speaking in Front of an Audience (Negative) are par ticularly pertinent. This shows the more an individual dislikes Speaking in Front of an Audience the more anxiety, fear, and shame they are likely to feel. This is especially interesting as t here was no correlation for any of these variables with Speaking in Front of an Audience (Positive) which means that the level of anxiety, fear, or shame individua ls in this study experienced cannot be predicted from how much they enjoy Speaking in Front of an Audience Beer Beer was the most dichotomous variable in this study The overall mean for this variable was 0.0, while Beer (Positive) had a mean rating of 36.0 and Beer (Negative) had a mean of 49.2. Beer (Positive) correlated significantly with every group except Guilt/Shame. Beer (Negative) correlated s ignificantly with every group except High Fat

PAGE 55

55 Savory and High Fat Sweet. Beer was originally included in the Alcohol group, so Beer was removed from this group so CCs were not artificially infl ated The Guilt/Shame group was of interest for Beer That Beer (Positive) correlated significantly with every gr oup except for Guilt/Shame showed liking for Beer has no bearing on the guilt or shame a person feels. However, the Guilt/Shame variable ha d the highest CC for any group (.428) other than Alcohol for Beer (Negative) This strong positive correlation shows the more a person dislikes Beer, the more guilt and shame they f eel. As mentioned previously some individuals may have evaluated alcohol s more akin to affective items than foods. Perhaps some individuals who strongly dislike beer do so for a moralistic reason rather than for taste. This may explain why disliking for Beer highly significantly correlated with Guilt/Shame. Dark Chocolate Da rk Chocolate had an overall mean of 19.8 while Dark Chocolate (Positive) had a mean of 37.5 and Dark Chocolate (Negative) had a mean of 28.4. Dark Chocolate (Positive) correlated significantly with every group except Alcohol, while Dark Chocolate (Negati ve) only correlated significantly with Sweet; this correlation wa s negative. Perhaps one r eason some individuals do not like Dark Chocolate is because it is bitter and not necessarily sweet. Thus, individuals who like Sweet more will dislike Dark Chocola te more. However, individuals who rated Dark Chocolate positively also rated the Sweet group high Dark C hocolate does come in different forms, and they may taste quite different from one another. For example, Dark Chocolate with a high pe rcent chocolat e (70 80%) is quite bitter and not very sweet. Dark C hocolate from a c ommercial producer such as s

PAGE 56

56 nearly as sweet as milk chocolate. Thus, individuals may have different experiences with dark chocol ate, and may rate it accordingly. Correlations Using Variables: Eating Your Favorite Food Eating Your Favorite Food is of interest to food scientists and psychophysic i sts. This variable is included in the Sensory Pleasure group and is rated highly, wit h a mean participant re sponse of 61.4. In this section, individual affective variables were correlated to Eating Your Favorite Food to ascertain which items this variable was highly associated with Results are shown in Table 4 8 and Figures 24 41. Surp risingly some of the items most highly associated with Eating Your Favorite Food were not food related. In fact, three of the top four most highly correlated variables ( Watching Your Favorite TV Show Watching a Really Funny Movie and A Full Sound s Sleep ) we re not food related. All 18 of the variables included in this section had a CC greater than.350 or less than .350. Many of the variables which were also part of the amalgamative Sensory Plea sure group had high CCs with Eating Your Favorite F ood : L istening to Your Favorite Music, Smell ing Your Favorite Meal, Making u p a Tasty New Recipe, Trying New Exotic Foods and Smelling Your Favorite Flower This makes sense, as items which correlate highly with one another should logically create a coh esive group. Two of the other variables which correlated highly to Eating Your Favorite Food also involved the senses but were a part of the Amusement/Excitement group: Watching Your Favorite TV Show and Watching a Really Funny Movie Perhaps because the se variables are sense related they exhibit high CCs with Eating Your Favorite Food Other variables which were in the Amusement/Excitement group and correlated highly with Eating Your Favorite Food were Finding a Great Restaurant Going to a Fun Party

PAGE 57

57 wi Been About a Hobby, Getting Invited to Dinner with Friends, and Finding a Great Restaurant All of the positive variables which correlated highly with Eating Your Favorit e Food had mean r atings within a relatively narrow range. The highest mean variable rating was for Accomplishing an Important Goal (70.6) while the lowest mean variable rating was for Making u p a Tasty New Recipe (36.7). The negative variables occupied a similar range, with the highest rated being Eating Your Least Favorite Food ( 46.3) and the lowest rated being ( 63.3). The mean variable rating for all of the 15 positive variables correlated with Eating Your Favorite Food was 54.1. The mean of the mean variable rating s for the three negative variables correlated with Eating Your Favorite Food was 56.0. Thus, i t seems many of the variables which highly correlated with Eating Your Favorite Food had mean ratin gs in the moderate high range on both the positive and negative sides of the HgLMS.

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 1. Participant demographics. Gender Male 116 Female 212 Age 18 22 281 23 29 28 30 55 13 55+ 6 Ethnic background Hispanic 70 Non Hispanic 258 Race White or Caucasian 217 Black or African American 30 Native American, Alaska Native, Aleutian 0 Asian/Pacific Islander 54 Other 27 Incidence of ear infection No 225 Yes, but not serious 68 Yes, requir ed antibiotics more than once 22 Yes, required tubes in ears 13 Vegetarianism No 315 Yes 13 Smoking (more than 100 cigarettes in entire life) No 307 Yes 21 If yes to smoking, how much do you now smoke Every day 3 Some days 8 N ot at all 10

PAGE 59

59 Table 4 2. Affect groups with their included variables and variable mean ratings. Affect group with cronbach alpha Included variables Variable mean rating Amusement/ Excitement .822 Learning your greates t wish has come true Your proudest moment Falling in love hobby Going to a fun party with friends A new baby being born into your family Experiencing a natural won der Watching a really funny movie Getting invited to dinner with friends Going to Disney World Watching your favorite TV show Watching your favorite team win Making a new friend Finding a great restaurant Riding a roller coaster Dancing 90.1 83 .6 81.3 80.7 64.5 57.1 57.1 54.7 53.9 50.9 47.0 46.0 45.0 44.3 44.2 43.8 37.5 34.6 Anger/Anxiety .705 Getting cut off in traffic Getting lost Taking a test and not knowing how you performed Not under standing what those around you are talking about Not getting something you really wanted Losing your keys The end of an important, special relationship 29.5 32.5 34.2 34.2 37. 6 40.2 41.3 65.6 74.2 74.3 Disgust/Fear .768 Anticipating a test result A disappointing meal Gaining 5 pounds Seeing a roach Seeing a poisonous snake Not knowing which important choice to make Eating your least favorite food Having a d eadline which seems impossible to meet Being unable to control an important aspect of your life 23.2 29.0 30.1 39.7 42.5 44.4 46.9 48.5 53.5 58.0 6 3.3

PAGE 60

60 Table 4 2 Continued. Affect group with cronbach alpha Included variables Variable mean rating Guilt/Shame .832 Speeding know The shyest yo Telling a lie Talking badly about a friend Being disrespectful supposed to Being made fun of by others Your most embarr assing moment Watching a community suffer through a natural disaster Breaking an important promise to a loved one When someone important to you hurts your feelings The guiltiest y 12.3 16.3 27.5 35.8 36.4 41.9 43.7 46.2 48.1 51.8 53.6 56.2 58.3 60.9 66.0 67.2 70.1 72.0 Health related .744 Going to the doctor Going to the dentist Taking medication daily Finding a suspiciou s looking mole or spot on your body Getting a dental cavity Being in a minor car accident Getting the flu Getting bad news from your doctor Being diagnosed with diabetes Finding a suspicious lump in your breast or testicle Being in a major car ac cident Learning a relative has a terminal illness Being diagnosed with cancer Learning from your doctor that you have only a few months to live The death of a loved one 14.4 18.2 20.7 42.9 45.2 46.0 50.9 67.2 73.1 75.6 75.9 85.7 91.0 91.6 93.3

PAGE 61

61 Table 4 2 Continued Affect group with cronbach alpha Included variables Variable mean rating Satisfaction/ Contentment .849 Spending time with loved ones Sharing an intimate moment with someone you love Accomplishing a n important goal Getting a good grade Catching up with someone special Successfully solving a very difficult problem Graduating from high school Meeting a major deadline on time Your most intense spiritual experience Get ting a great deal on something Learning a new skill Reading a very interesting book Satisfying your curiosity Having a reason to believe a problem is about to get better Losing 5 pounds Creating a p iece of artwork Meditating or praying Getting dressed and ready for your day Going to the grocery store Working at your job Cleaning your house Gardening 81.2 80.5 70.6 63.7 62.0 61.6 56.6 56.1 54.9 50.5 49.2 46.3 45.2 45.1 44.9 42. 4 34.5 29.1 28.5 18.7 18.4 17.9 4.6 0.1 Sensory pleasure .825 Eating your favorite food Listening to your favorite music Smelling your favorite meal Getting/giving a hug Getting a massage Watching a beautiful sunset Making up a tasty, new recipe Trying new, exotic foods Smelling your favorite flower 61.4 58.1 48.8 48.7 48.1 44.7 36.7 27.2 24.3

PAGE 62

62 Table 4 3 Foods groups with their included variables and variable mean rating Food group with cronbach alpha Included variables Variable mean rating High fat savory .771 Lasagna Spaghetti with marinara sauce Beef steak Fried food Peanut butter Cheddar cheese Chips Smoked meat Butter Ranch dressing Sausage Sour cream Mayonnaise Bleu cheese 32.9 31.3 29.1 27.8 25. 3 23.3 23.1 19.6 16.1 12.9 12.8 9.7 0.8 6.1 High fat sweet .836 Cookies, cake, or pastries Ice cream Sweets, candy Milk chocolate Oreo cookies 41.7 40.6 33.7 31.4 28.2 Sweet .742 Orange juice Apples Fresh, ripe strawberries Su gar Bananas Honey Fruit roll ups Sugar sweetened drinks Marshmallow Grape jelly Jello 30.3 28.9 26.8 25.6 25.2 20.1 18.9 18.8 13.3 10.8 10 Alcohol .810 Drinking a great glass of wine Beer Vodka Whiskey 15.5 0.1 1 10.8

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4 1. Rat ing of variables with their respective means. A) To p quartile 91.0 83.6 81.3 81.2 80.7 80.5 71.8 70.6 64.5 63.7 62.0 61.6 61.4 58.0 57.1 57.1 56.6 56.1 54.9 54.7 53.9 50.9 50.5 49.2 48.8 48.7 48.1 47.0 46.3 46.0 45.2 45.1 45.0 44.9 44.7 44.3 44.2 43.8 42.4 41.7 40.6 37.5 36.8 36.7 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 The most joy you've ever felt Learning your greatest wish has come true Your proudest moment Spending time with loved ones Falling in love Sharing an intimate moment with someone you love Finding out no one was hurt in your loved one's accident Accomplishing an important goal The most enthusiastic you've ever been about a hobby Getting a good grade A full, sound night's sleep Catching up with someone special Eating your favorite food Listening to your favorite music The funniest joke you've ever heard Going to a fun party with friends Successfully solving a very difficult problem Graduating from high school Meeting a major deadline on time A new baby being born into your family Experiencing a natural wonder Watching a really funny movie Your most intense spiritual experience Getting a great deal on something Smelling your favorite meal Getting/giving a hug Getting a massage Getting invited to dinner with friends Learning a new skill Going to Disney World Reading a very interesting book Satisfying your curiousity Watching your favorite TV show Having a reason to believe a problem is about to get better Watching a beautiful sunset Watching your favorite team win Making a new friend Finding a great restaurant The most inspired you've ever been by a lecture Cookies, cake, or pastries Ice cream Riding a roller coaster Fresh, ripe strawberries Making up a tasty, new recipe

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 1. Rat ing of variables with their respective means. B) Second quartile 36.0 34.6 34.5 33.7 32.9 31.4 31.3 30.3 29.1 29.1 28.9 28.5 28.2 27.8 27.2 26.0 25.3 25.2 24.3 23.3 23.0 21.9 21.2 20.7 20.4 20.1 19.9 19.8 19.6 19.1 18.9 18.8 18.7 18.7 18.4 17.9 17.0 16.5 16.1 16.0 15.4 14.5 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.1 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 Bread Dancing Losing 5 pounds Sweets, candy Lasagna Milk chocolate Spaghetti with marinara sauce Orange juice Beef Steak Creating a piece of artwork Apples Meditating or praying Oreo cookies Fried food Trying new, exotic foods Sugar Peanut butter Bananas Smelling your favorite flower Cheddar cheese Chips Mint Strawberry yogurt Whipped Cream Garlic Honey Dark chocolate Smoked meat Ketchup Fruit roll-ups Sugar sweetened drinks Olive oil Going to the grocery store Working at your job Lemon flavor Salt Butter Baked salmon Drinking a great glass of wine Cinnamon Black beans Cashews Being by yourself Plain broccoli, cooked

PAGE 65

65 Figure 4 1. Rat ing of variables with their respective means. C) Third quartile 13.3 12.9 12.8 12.3 11.3 10.8 10.0 9.7 9.3 9.1 7.9 7.5 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.3 6.3 4.6 4.2 2.9 2.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.9 4.7 6.1 9.5 10.8 10.9 14.0 14.4 16.2 18.2 20.7 23.2 27.4 29.0 29.5 30.1 32.5 34.2 -50.00 -30.00 -10.00 10.00 30.00 50.00 Marshmallow Ranch dressing Sausage Speeding Onions Grape jelly Jello Sour cream Soy sauce Pecan pie Raw carrots Black pepper Curry Portabella mushrooms Lychee Whole milk Dill pickles Cleaning your house Mustard Grapefruit juice Collard greens Celery Gardening Beer Hot peppers Mayonnaise Vodka Ginger Looking down from a great height Bleu cheese Speaking in front of an audience Whiskey Black coffee Entering a haunted house Going to the doctor Needing someone else's help Going to the dentist Taking medication daily Anticipating a test result A disappointing meal Forgetting an old friend's name Gaining 5 pounds Getting cut-off in traffic Taking a test and not knowing how you performed

PAGE 66

66 Figure 4 1. Rat ing of variables with their respective means. D) Bottom quartile 34.2 35.8 36.4 37.6 39.7 40.2 41.3 41.9 42.5 42.9 43.3 43.7 44.4 45.2 46.0 46.2 46.9 48.1 48.5 50.9 51.7 51.9 53.5 53.6 56.2 58.0 58.3 60.9 63.3 65.6 66.0 67.2 67.2 70.1 72.0 73.1 74.2 74.3 75.6 75.9 85.7 91.0 91.6 93.3 -100.00 -80.00 -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 Getting lost The shyest you've ever been Telling a lie Not understanding what those around you are talking about Seeing a roach Not getting something you really wanted Losing your keys Blurting out something you shouldn't have Seeing a poisonous snake Finding a suspicious looking mole or spot on your body Wanting something you can't have Talking badly about a friend Not knowing which important choice to make Getting a dental cavity Being in a minor car accident Being disrespectful Eating your least favorite food Getting caught doing something you're not supposed to Having a deadline which seems impossible to meet Getting the flu Being made fun of by others Having to use a really dirty bathroom Being unable to control an important aspect of your life Hurting someone's feelings Your most embarassing moment The worst thing you've ever smelled The most jealous you've ever been Watching a community suffer through a massive natural disaster The most disgusting thing you've ever eaten The most annoyed you've ever been Breaking an important promise to a loved one Getting bad news from your doctor When someone important to you hurts your feelings The most ashamed you've ever been of yourself The guiltiest you've ever felt Being diagnosed with diabetes The end of an important, special relationship The angriest you've ever been Finding a suspicious lump in your breast or testicle Being in a major car accident Learning a relative has a terminal illness Being diagnosed with cancer Learning from your doctor that you have only a few months to live The death of a loved one

PAGE 67

67 Table 4 4 Foodie and nonfoodie groups with their average group mean and significance. Group Foodie average Nonfoodie average Significance High fat savory 23.7 13.2 .000 High fat sweet 42.6 27.6 .000 Sweet 27.3 16.4 .000 Alcohol 1.0 0.9 .983 Amusement/Excitement 61.5 51.8 .000 Anger/Anxiety 51.2 41.7 .000 Disgust/Fear 38.4 32.2 .000 Guilt/Shame 50.6 42.9 .000 Health related 63.0 56.0 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment 48.6 40 .1 .000 Sensory pleasure 53.1 35.7 .000

PAGE 68

68 Table 4 5. Smell affect variables correlated with groups Variables Group Correlation coefficient Significance ever smelled High fat savory .327 .000 High fa t sweet .345 .000 Sweet .471 .000 Alcohol .078 .157 Amusement/Excitement .495 .000 Anger/Anxiety .459 .000 Disgust/Fear .514 .000 Guilt/Shame .412 .000 Health related .422 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .446 .000 Sensory pleasure .541 .000 Smelling your favorite meal High fat savory .453 .000 High fat sweet .453 .000 Sweet .528 .000 Alcohol .009 .872 Amusement/Excitement .597 .000 Anger/Anxiety .469 .000 Disgust/Fear .413 .000 Guilt/Shame .433 .000 Health related 385 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .529 .000 Sensory pleasure .636 .000 Smelling your favorite flower High fat savory .298 .000 High fat sweet .233 .000 Sweet .384 .000 Alcohol .016 .770 Amusement/Excitement .434 .000 Anger/Anxiety .309 .000 Disgust/Fear .332 .000 Guilt/Shame .371 .000 Health related .239 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .527 .000 Sensory pleasure .524 .000

PAGE 69

69 Table 4 6. Food related affect variables correlated to groups. Variable Group Correlation coefficie nt Significance Finding a great restaurant High fat savory .350 .000 High fat sweet .362 .000 Sweet .390 .000 Alcohol .110 .047 Amusement/Excitement .590 .000 Anger/Anxiety .423 .000 Disgust/Fear .396 .000 Guilt/Shame .377 .000 Healt h related .348 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .547 .000 Sensory pleasure .675 .000 Getting invited to dinner with friends High fat savory .409 .000 High fat sweet .387 .000 Sweet .461 .000 Alcohol .003 .959 Amusement/Excitement .586 .000 An ger/Anxiety .440 .000 Disgust/Fear .400 .000 Guilt/Shame .394 .000 Health related .371 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .527 .000 Sensory pleasure .595 .000 Making up a tasty new recipe High fat savory .310 .000 High fat sweet .212 .000 Swe et .338 .000 Alcohol .030 .587 Amusement/Excitement .504 .000 Anger/Anxiety .286 .000 Disgust/Fear .263 .000 Guilt/Shame .311 .000 Health related .184 .001 Satisfaction/Contentment .515 .000 Sensory pleasure .515 .000 Going to the groc ery store High fat savory .228 .000 High fat sweet .120 .030 Sweet .285 .000 Alcohol .115 .038 Amusement/Excitement .321 .000 Anger/Anxiety .228 .000 Disgust/Fear .165 .003 Guilt/Shame .173 .002 Health related .093 .093 Satisfaction/ Contentment .354 .000 Sensory pleasure .360 .000

PAGE 70

70 Table 4 6. Continued. Variable Group Correlation coefficient Significance Trying new exotic foods High fat savory .227 .000 High fat sweet .151 .006 Sweet .206 .000 Alcohol .189 .001 Amusemen t/Excitement .312 .000 Anger/Anxiety .152 .006 Disgust/Fear .142 .010 Guilt/Shame .209 .000 Health related .052 .349 Satisfaction/Contentment .400 .000 Sensory pleasure .344 .000 A disappointing meal High fat savory .280 .000 High fat s weet .306 .000 Sweet .356 .000 Alcohol .035 .525 Amusement/Excitement .442 .000 Anger/Anxiety .428 .000 Disgust/Fear .394 .000 Guilt/Shame .329 .000 Health related .304 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .340 .000 Sensory pleasure .457 .0 00 Eating your favorite food High fat savory .492 .000 High fat sweet .419 .000 Sweet .498 .000 Alcohol .007 .901 Amusement/Excitement .519 .000 Anger/Anxiety .435 .000 Disgust/Fear .302 .000 Guilt/Shame .392 .000 Health related .346 .001 Satisfaction/Contentment .454 .000 Sensory pleasure .533 .000 Eating your least favorite food High fat savory .277 .000 High fat sweet .318 .030 Sweet .325 .000 Alcohol .011 .847 Amusement/Excitement .460 .000 Anger/Anxiety .474 .0 00 Disgust/Fear .512 .000 Guilt/Shame .386 .000 Health related .391 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .377 .000 Sensory pleasure .465 .000

PAGE 71

71 Table 4 7. Dichotomous variables correlated to groups. Variable Group Correlation coefficient Significance Being by yourself (positive) High fat savory .171 .027 High fat sweet .255 .001 Sweet .253 .001 Alcohol .193 .013 Amusement/Excitement .333 .000 Anger/Anxiety .146 .060 Disgust/Fear .162 .037 Guilt/Shame .153 .050 Health related .1 82 .019 Satisfaction/Contentment .291 .000 Sensory pleasure .302 .000 Being by yourself (negative) High fat savory .040 .698 High fat sweet .110 .285 Sweet .109 .289 Alcohol .063 .537 Amusement/Excitement .113 .193 Anger/Anxiety .193 .058 Disgust/Fear .017 .871 Guilt/Shame .154 .131 Health related .069 .501 Satisfaction/Contentment .009 .926 Sensory pleasure .038 .715 Speaking in front of an audience (positive) High fat savory .045 .621 High fat sweet .071 .432 Sweet .059 518 Alcohol .040 .658 Amusement/Excitement .176 .051 Anger/Anxiety .080 .381 Disgust/Fear .012 .894 Guilt/Shame .112 .216 Health related .053 .558 Satisfaction/Contentment .178 .048 Sensory pleasure .101 .267 Speaking in front of an aud ience (negative) High fat savory .078 .299 High fat sweet .118 .114 Sweet .209 .005 Alcohol .078 .297 Amusement/Excitement .225 .002 Anger/Anxiety .255 .001 Disgust/Fear .367 .000 Guilt/Shame .333 .000 Health related .247 .001 Satisfa ction/Contentment .154 .039 Sensory pleasure .202 .007

PAGE 72

72 Table 4 7. Continued. Variable Group Correlation coefficient Significance Beer (positive) High fat savory .396 .000 High fat sweet .267 .001 Sweet .316 .000 Alcohol .404 .000 Amuseme nt/Excitement .424 .000 Anger/Anxiety .359 .000 Disgust/Fear .252 .001 Guilt/Shame .144 .067 Health related .336 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .247 .001 Sensory pleasure .329 .000 Beer (negative) High fat savory .231 .012 High fat sweet .211 .022 Sweet .344 .000 Alcohol .610 .000 Amusement/Excitement .323 .000 Anger/Anxiety .318 .000 Disgust/Fear .310 .001 Guilt/Shame .428 .000 Health related .384 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .377 .000 Sensory pleasure .334 .000 Dark chocolate (positive) High fat savory .298 .000 High fat sweet .354 .000 Sweet .367 .000 Alcohol .128 .050 Amusement/Excitement .389 .000 Anger/Anxiety .444 .000 Disgust/Fear .392 .000 Guilt/Shame .491 .000 Health related .382 .000 Satisfaction/Contentment .390 .000 Sensory pleasure .499 .000 Dark chocolate (negative) High fat savory .240 .034 High fat Sweet .184 .106 Sweet .344 .002 Alcohol .132 .251 Amusement/Excitement .167 .144 Anger/Anxiety .126 .271 Disgu st/Fear .212 .063 Guilt/Shame .119 .299 Health related .225 .047 Satisfaction/Contentment .071 .538 Sensory pleasure .245 .031

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4 2. Being by yourself (positive) correlated with High fat savory Figure 4 3. Being by yourself (positive ) correlated with High fat sweet

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4 4. Being by yourself (positive) correlated with Sweet Figure 4 5. Being by yourself (positive) correlated with Alcohol

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4 6. Being by yourself (positive) correlated with Amusement/Excitement Figure 4 7. Being by yourself (positive) correlated with Anger/Anxiety

PAGE 76

76 Figure 4 8. Being by y ourself (positive) correlated with Disgust/Fear Figure 4 9. Being by yourself (positive) correlated with Guilt/Shame

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4 10. Being by yourself ( positive) correlated with Health r elated Figure 4 11. Being by y ourself (positive) correlated with Satisfaction/Contentment

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4 12. Being by y ourself (positive) correlated with Sensory pleasure Figure 4 13 Being by yourself (negative) correlated with High fat savory

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 14. Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with High fat sweet Figure 4 15. Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Sweet

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4 16. Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Alcohol \ Figure 4 17. Being by y o urself (negative) correlated with Amusement/Excitement

PAGE 81

81 Figure 4 18. Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Anger/Anxiety Figure 4 19. Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Disgust/Fear

PAGE 82

82 Figure 4 20. Being by y ourself (negative) correla ted with Guilt/Shame Figure 4 21. Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Health related.

PAGE 83

83 Figure 4 22. Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Satisfaction/Contentment Figure 4 23. Being by y ourself (negative) correlated with Sensory ple asure

PAGE 84

84 Table 4 8. Correlating eating your favorite food with groups. Variable Item Item mean rating Correlation coefficient Significance Eating your favorite food Watching your favorite TV show 45.0 0.577 .000 Smelling your favorite meal 48.8 0.575 .000 Watching a really funny movie 50.9 0.549 .000 62.0 0.509 .000 Finding a great restaurant 43.8 0.507 .000 Getting a good grade 63.7 0.488 .000 Listening to your favorite music 58.1 0.481 .000 Getting a great deal on s omething 49.2 0.468 .000 Getting invited to dinner with friends 47.0 0.412 .000 heard 57.1 0.409 .000 Going to a fun party with friends 57.1 0.386 .000 Making up a tasty new recipe 36.7 0.386 .000 Accomplishing an important goal 70.6 0.370 .000 Successfully solving a very difficult problem 56.6 0.369 .000 r been about a hobby 64.5 0.352 .000 Eating your least favorite food 46.9 0.425 .000 ever eaten 63.3 0.426 .000 smelled 58.0 0.446 .000

PAGE 85

85 Figure 4 24. Eating your favorite food correlated with Watching your favorite TV show Figure 4 25. Eating your favorite food correlated with Smelling your favorite meal

PAGE 86

86 Figure 4 26. Eating your favorite food correlated with Watching a really funny movie Figure 4

PAGE 87

87 Figure 4 28. Eating your favorite food correlated with Finding a great res taurant Figure 4 29. Eating your favorite food correlated with Getting a good grade

PAGE 88

88 Figure 4 30. Eating your favorite food correlated with Listening to your favorite music Figure 4 31. Eating your favorite food correlated with Getting a great deal on something

PAGE 89

89 Figure 4 32. Eating your favorite food correlated with Getting invited to dinner with friends Figure 4 heard

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4 34. Eating your favorite food correlate d with Going to a fun party with friends Figure 4 35. Eating your favorite food correlated with Making up a tasty new recipe

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4 36. Eating your favorite food correlated with Accomplishing an important goal Figure 4 37. Eating your favorite f ood correlated with Successfully solving a very difficult problem

PAGE 92

92 Figure 4 been about a hobby Figure 4 39. Eating your favorite food correlated with Eating your least fav orite food

PAGE 93

93 Figure 4 ever eaten Figure 4 smelled

PAGE 94

94 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Assessing ratings of food s and nonfood affective items using the HgLMS created a portrait of how participants rate items in their lives. Individuals tend to rate affective items more intensely positive and negative than food i tems. Individuals who are shows individuals who get greater pleasure from food are also affectively more reactive than those who get less pleasure from food. Foodies feel greater pleasure from positive affective experien ces and greater displeasure from negative affective experiences than do Nonfoodies. Eleven amalgamative groups were created to encompass as many variable s as possible. F our groups were foods and seven group s were affective groups. The food groups were Hi gh Fat Savory, High Fat Sweet, Sweet, and Alcohol. The seven affective groups were Amusement/Excitement, Anger/Anxiety, Disgust/Fear, Guilt/Shame, Health Related, Satisfaction/Contentment, and Sensory Pleasure. Significant correlations betw een the three smell items in our study and the amalgamative groups with the exception of Alcohol show smell is a sense which is highly related to affect. Highly significant correlations (CCs>.500 or < .500) were seen for the Amusement/Excitement ( Smelling Your Favorit e Meal ), Disgust/Fear ( The Worst ), Satisfaction/Contentment ( Smelling Your Favorite Meal and Smelling Your Favorite Flower ), and Sensory Pleasure groups ( The Worst Thing and Smelli ng Your Favorite Flower ). The Sensory Pleasure group in partic ular is important in regards to smell. Since this group included only variable s pertinent to the five senses, the high correlation

PAGE 95

95 coefficients of the smell variables with this group show the grouping of the variables did what it aimed to do: it created a cohesive and relevant grou p of related items which were highly related to the senses. Correlations between the eight food related affect variables and the amalgamative groups similarly showed food and eating are highly related to affect. Highly significant correlations (CCs >.500 or < .500) were seen for the Amusement/Excitement ( Finding a Great Restaurant, Getting Invited to Dinner with Friends, Making up a Tasty New Recipe and Eating Your F avorite Food ), Disgust/Fear ( Eating Your Least Favorite Food ), Satisfaction/Contentment ( Finding a Great Restaurant, Getting Invited to Dinner with Friends and Making up a Tasty New Recipe ) and Sensory Pleasure groups ( Finding a Great Restaurant, Getting Invited to Dinner with Friends, Making up a Tasty New Recipe, and Eating Your Favorite Food ). These results show ed food and eating are highly related not only to affect but specifically to positive, sensory related affect. Several variables proved to be d ichotomous, and individuals tended to rate these variables moderately positively or moderately negatively. However, the mean participant rating was near zero (between 10 and 20). These positive and negative factions differ from one another in their corr elations with the amalgamative groups, showing these factions are affecti vely disparate and should not be tr eated as a whole for assessment. Dichotomous groups can be identified by a large spread in data, indicated by a high standard deviation in the parti cipant mean rating or by visually assessing the data spread on a regression graph.

PAGE 96

96 Alcohol was a group of particular interest. The spread of the component variables ( Beer, Drinking a Great Glass of Wine, Vodka and Whiskey ) was very large. The Alcohol gr oup yielded non statistically significant p values with nearly every group and variable to which it wa s experimentally correlated Conversely, all of the other groups showed mostly significant correlations with one another as well as with single variables. Likely, the young age of participants or (median=20) or the rating of alcohols as affective variables rather than foods led to this non significance. Further resea rch is needed to solidify the relationship between food and affect. The demographic of thi s study was limited, with a disproportionate number of participants being young white female s Performing this study in a non University environment, in different regions, and with different age groups would be beneficial.

PAGE 97

97 APPENDIX A HGLMS

PAGE 98

98 APPENDIX B SAMPLE BLOCK RANDOMIZATION OF ALL VARIABLES Block Included Variables 1 Ice cream The end of an important, special relationship Sour cream Graduating from high school Going to a fun party with friends Eating your fav orite food Whiskey Satisfying your curiosity Milk chocolate Your most embarrassing moment Being by yourself Lasagna Entering a haunted house Going to the doctor en Honey Going to Disney World 2 Having a deadline which seems impossible to meet Learning a new skill Making up a tasty new recipe Taking medication daily Ranch dressing Smoked meat elings When someone important to you hurts your feelings Cinnamon Getting a dental cavity Beer Grapefruit juice Salt Meeting a major deadline on time Drinking a great glass of wine Getting/giving a hug Vodka

PAGE 99

99 Block Included variables 3 Being in a minor car accident Getting bad news from your doctor Sugar Black pepper Being made fun of by others Being defiant to help correct an injustice Sweets, candy Anticipating a test result G etting lost Falling in love Reading a very interesting book Peanut butter Learning a relative has a terminal illness Working at your job Dark chocolate Sausage 4 Whole milk Getting caught doing somethi Orange juice Being disrespectful Losing your keys Meditating or praying Getting cut off in traffic Fresh, ripe strawberries Being diagnosed with cancer Losing 5 pounds Taking a te st and not knowing how you performed Black beans Cheddar cheese Garlic Looking down from a great height Getting a great deal on something Baked salmon

PAGE 100

100 Block Included variables 5 Mustard Cashews Speaking in front of an a udience Speeding A new baby being born into your family Collard greens Plain broccoli, cooked Getting the flu Going to the dentist Learning from your doct or that you only have a few months to live Finding a great restaurant Lychee Getting invited to dinner with friends Getting a good grade Watching a community suffer through a massive natural disaster Breaking an important promise to a loved one Talking badly about a friend 6 Dancing Experiencing a natural wonder Finding a suspicious looking mole or spot on your body Successfully solving a very difficult problem Ketchup Strawberry yogurt Eating your least favorite food Watching your favorite team win Bananas Chips A disappointing meal Creating a piece of artwork Oreo cookies Finding a suspicious lump in your breast or testicle Bleu cheese Cookies, cake, or pastries

PAGE 101

101 Block Included variables 7 Riding a roller coaster Not knowing which important choice to make Ginger Pecan pie Learning your greatest wish has come true Mayonnaise Sharing an intimate moment with someone you love Accomplishing an important goal Being unable to control an important aspect of your life Getting dressed and ready for your day Trying new exotic foods Watching a really funny movie Apples Smelling your favorite meal Telling a lie Seeing a roach Soy sauce Butter 8 Having to use a really dirty bathroom Portabella mushrooms Lemon flavor Onions The death of a loved one Celery ever been about a hobby Seeing a poisonous snake Making a new friend Catching up with someone special Olive oil Breaking an important promise to a loved one Grape jelly Being diagnosed with diabetes Not understanding what those around you are talking about Curry Watching a beautiful sunset

PAGE 102

102 Block Included variables 9 Mint Gardening Your proudest moment Going to the grocery store Hot peppers er been of yourself Black coffee Fried food Being in a major car accident Listening to your favorite music Gaining 5 pounds Dill pickles Beef steak Cleaning your house 10 Spaghetti with marinara sauce Jello Getting a message Fruit roll ups Having a reason to believe a problem is about to get better Whipped cream Spending time with loved ones Not getting something you really wanted Raw carrots Your most intense spiritual experience Marshmallow Watching your favorite TV show Smelling your favorite flower Sugar sweetened drinks Findin

PAGE 103

103 LIST OF REFERENCES Aitk en RCB. 1969. Measurement of feelings using visual analogu e scales. Proc R Soc Med 62: 989 993. Anderson AK, Cristoff K, Stappen I, Panitz D, Ghahremani DG, Glo ver G, Gabrieli JDE Sobel N. 2003. Dissociated neural representations of intensity and vale nce in human olfaction. Nat Neurosci 6: 196 202. Ba chmanov AA, Beauchamp GK. 2007. Taste receptor genes. Annu Rev Nutr 27:389 414 Bartoshuk, LM. 2012. Taste. In: Wolfe JM, Kluender KR, Levi DM ed itor s. Sensation and perception. 3 rd ed. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates. p. 432 455. Bartos huk LM, Murphy C, Cleveland CT. 1978 Sweet taste of dilute NaCl: p sychophysical evidence for a sweet stimulus. Physiol Behav 21(4):609 13. Bart oshuk LM, Wolfe JM. 1990. Conditioned re they olfactory aversions? Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Chemoreception Sciences, Sarasota, Fl. Barto shuk LM, Duffy VB, Miller IJ. 1994. PTC/PROP tasting: a nato my, psychophysics, and sex effe cts. Physiol. Behav. 56: 1165 1171. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Fast K, Green BG, Prutkin J, Snyder DJ. 2003. Labeled scales (e.g., category, Likert, VAS) and inv alid across group comparisons: w hat we have learned f rom genetic variation in taste. Food Qual Prefer 14(2):125 38. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Green BG, Hoffman HJ, Ko C Lucchina LA, Marks LE, Snyder DJ, Weiffenbach JM. 2004. Valid across group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physi ol Behav 82(1):109 14. Bart oshuk LM, Snyder DJ, Duffy VB. 2006. Hedonic gLMS: v alid comparisons for food liking/disliking across obesi ty, age, sex, and PROP status. Chem Senses 31(5):A50. Bellisle F. 1999. Glutamate and the um ami taste: sensory, metaboli c, nutritional and behavioural considerations. A review of the literature published in the last 10 years. Neurosci Biobehav R 23(3):423 38. Bertin o M, Beauchamp GK, Engelman K. 1982. Long term reduction in dietary sodium al ters the taste of salt. Am J C lin Nutr 36(6): 1134 1144. Blakeslee AF, Salmon MR. 1931. Odor and taste blindness. Eugen News 16:105 110.

PAGE 104

104 Borg G. 1982. A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In: G eissler HG, Petzold P, editors. Psychophys ical judgement and the process of perception. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften p. 25 34. Buettner A, Beer A, Hannig C, Settles M, Schieberle P. 2002. Physiological and analytical studies on flavor perception dynamics as induced by the eating and swallowing process. F ood Qual Prefer 13(7 8):497 504. Cabanac M. 1979. Sensory pleasure. Q Rev Biol 54(1): 1 29. Cabanac M. 2002. What is emotion? Behav Processes 60: 69 83. Cameron EL. 2007. Measures of human olfactory percept ion during pregna ncy. Chem Senses 32(8): 775 782. Car dello A, Lawless HT, Schutz HG. 2008. Effects of extreme and interior label spacing on labe led affective magnitude scales. Food Qual Prefer 19: 473 480. Chaudhari N, Roper SD. 2010. The cell biology of taste. J Cell Bio 190(3): 285 296. Cox DN, Clark MR, Mia lon VS. 2001. A cross cultural methodological study of the uses of two common hedonic response scales. Food Qual Prefer 12(2): 119 131. De Arujo IET, Rolls ET, Kringelb ach ML, McGlone F, Phillips N. 2003. Taste olfact ory convergence, and the representation of the pleasantness o f flavor, in the human brain. Eur J Neurosci 18: 2059 2068. Duffy VB, Bartoshuk LM, Striegel Moore R, Rodin J. 1998. Ta ste changes across pregnancy. Olfaction and taste XII: an international sy mposium. 855:805 809. Duffy VB, Davidson AC, Kidd JR, Kidd KK, Speed WC, Pakstis AJ, Reed DR, Snyder DJ, Bartoshuk LM. 2006. Bitter receptor gene (TAS2R38), 6 n Propylthiouracil (PROP) bitterness and alcohol intake. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 28(11): 1629 1637 Engen T. 1 982. The perception of odors. New York: Academic Press. 202 p. Finger TE, Nelson GM Bryant B, Moore PA. 1994. Intragemm al and perig emmal fibers in taste buds: i mmunocytochemistry and different ial sensitivity to capsaicin. Neurosci Abstr 402: 12 Fox AL. 1932. The relationship between chemical constitution and taste. Proc Natl Acad Sci 18(1):115 20. Frank RA, Byram J. 1988. Taste smell interaction are tastant and odoran t dependent. Chem Senses 13: 445 455.

PAGE 105

105 G oetzl FRM, Abel MS, Ahokas AJ. 1949. Occurrence in normal individuals of diurnal v ariations in olfactory acuity. J Appl Physiol 2: 533 562. Gracely RH, Kwilosz DM. 1988. The descriptor differential scale: Applying psychophysical principles to clinical pain a ssessment. Pain 35(3): 279 288. Green BG, Shaffer GS, Gilmore MM. 1993. Derivation and evaluation of a semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties. Chem Senses 18(6):683 702. Hass N, Schwarzenbacher K, Breer H. 2010. T1R3 is expressed in brush cells and ghrelin prod ucing cells of murine stomach. Cell and Tissue Res 339(3): 493 504. Herness S Zhao F. 2009. The neuropeptide s CCK and NPY and the changing view of cell to cell c ommunication in the taste bud. Physiol Behav 97: 581 591. Herz, RS. 1998. Are odors the best cues to memory a cross modal comparison of associative memory stimul i. Ann NY Acad Sci 855(1):6 70 674. Herz RS. 2012. Olfaction. In: Wolfe JM, Kluender KR, Levi DM ed itor s. Sensation and perception. 3 rd ed. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates. p 398 430. Herz RS, Eliassen J, Beland S, Souza T. 2004. Neuroimaging evidence for the emotional potency of odor evoked memory. Neurophychologia 42: 371 378. Hinreiner EH. 1956. Organoleptic evaluation by industry panels th e cutting bee. Food Technol 3(1 1): 62 67. Hornak J, Rolls ET, Wade D. 1996. Face and voice expression identified in patients with emotional and behavioural changes following ventral frontal lobe damage. Neuropsychologia 34: 247 261. Jone s LV, Peryam DR, Thurstone LL. 1955. Development o f a scale for measurin g Food Res 20:512 20. Kalva, JJ. 2009. Comparison of the hedonic general labeled magnitude scale to the hedonic 9 point scale. [ MSc thesis]. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 101 p. Available from: UF Online Dissertations UFE0024514. Kringelbach ML. 2005. The human orbito frontal cortex: l inking reward to hedo nic experience. Nature Rev Neurosci 6:691 702. oherty J, Rolls ET, Andrews C. 2003. Activation of the human orbitofrontal cortex to a liquid food stimulus is correlated with its s ubjective pleasantness. Cerberal Cortex 13: 1064 1071.

PAGE 106

106 K ringelbach ML, Rolls ET. 2004. The functional neuroanatomy of the human orbitofrontal cortex: e vidence from neu roimaging and neurophysiology. Prog N eurobiol 72: 341 372 Lawless HT, Heymann H. 1 999. Sensory evaluation of food principles and p r actices. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer Sci ence + Business Media, LLC. 827 p. Me ilgaard M, Civille G, Carr BT. 2007. Sensory evaluation techniques. London: CRC Press. 448 p. Menella JA, Beauchamp GK. 1991. The tra nsfer of alcohol to human milk e ffects on flavor En gl J Med 325:981 985. Menella JA, Beauchamp GK. 1993. Beer, breast feedin g, and folklore. Dev Psychobiol 26(8): 459 466. Moskowitz HR, Sidel JL. 1971. Magnitude and hedonic scales for food acceptability. J Food Sci 36(4): 677 680 Moskowitz HR, Kumraiah V, Sh arma KN, Jacobs HL, Sharma SD. 1975. Cross cultural differences in simple taster preferences. Science 190: 1217 1 218. Pickering GJ, Jain AK, Bezawada R. 20 13. Super tasting gastronomes? Taste phenotype characterizatio n of foodies and wine experts. Food Qual Prefer 28: 85 91. Prescott J. 1999. Flavour as a physiological construct: i mplications for perceiving and me asuring the sensory qualities of food. Food Qual Prefer 10:349 356. Ramirez JM, Cabanac M 2003. Pleasure, t he common currency of emotions. Ann NY Acad Sci 1000: 293 295. Reed DR, Nanthakumar E, North M, B ell C, Bartoshuk LM, Price RA. 1999. Localizatio n of a gene for bitter taste percep tion to human chromosome 5p15. Am J Hum Genet 64:1478 1480. Rolls ET. 1999. The brain and emotion. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press 367 p. Rolls ET Hornak J, Wade D, McGrath J. 1994. Emotion related learning in patients with social and emotional changes associated with frontal lobe damage J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 57: 1518 1524. Rozin P. 1982. Taste smell confusions and the duality of the olfactory sense. Percept Psychophys 31(4):397 401. Si del JL, Stone S, Bloomquist J 1981. Use and misuse of sensory evaluation in researc h and quality control. J Dairy Sci 64:2296 2302.

PAGE 107

107 Schnider A. 2003. Spontaneous confabulation and the adaption of thought to ong oing reality. Nature Rev Neurosci 4: 662 671. Snyder DJ, Puentes LA, Sims CA, Bartoshuk LM. 2008. Building a better intensity scale: which labels are essential? Chem Senses 33(8):S142. Stein LJ, Cowart BJ, Epstein AN, Pilot LJ, Laskin CR, Beauchamp GK. 1996. Increased liking for salty foods in adolescents exposed during infa ncy to chlor ide deficient feeding formula. Appetite 27(1): 65 77 Steiner JE. 1973. The gustofacial response: o bservation on normal and anencephalic newborn infants. In : JF Bosma editor. Fourth symposium on oral sensatio n and perception, Bethesda, MD: U .S. D epartment of Health, Education and Welfare. (DHEW Publication No. NIH 73 546). Stevens SS.1957. On the psychoph ysical law. Psychol Rev 64(3): 153 81. Stevens SS. 1960. The psychophysics of sensory function Amer Sci 48(2): 226 253 Wheatcroft PEJ, Thor nburn CC. 1972. Toxicity of the taste testing compound phenylthiocarbamide. Nature 235: 93 94 Wysocki CJ, Dorries KM, Beauchamp GK. 1989. Ability to perceive androstenone can be acquire d by ostensibly anosmic people. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 7976 7978. Zhao GQ, Zhang Y, Hoon MA, Chandrashekar J, Erlenbach I, Ryba NJP, Zuker CS. 2003. The receptors for ma mmalian and sweet umami taste. Cell 115(3): 255 266.

PAGE 108

108 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Brittany Martin was raised in Palm Bay Florida. S he attended the Uni versity of Florida from 2007 2011 where she graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in food science and human n utri tion, with a specialization in food s cience. During this time she was also a c o op for Campbell Soup Company in Camden, New Jersey. A lifelong interest in food, cooking, and scientific research led her to the food science field; this interest sparked her desire to stay at the University of Florida to work on a Master of Science degree, which she received in May 2013. Brittany will continue stud ying at the University of Florida to pursue a Doctor of Philosophy in the field of food c hemistry