Short CommunicationMixed messages: Ambiguous penalty information in modified restaurant menu items

- 72 menu items, including 48 nutritionally-modified restaurant food items (and 24 control items) were tested with consumers.
- JAR scales and penalty analysis often indicated different courses of action.
- Large off-JAR groups, but with low penalties of the hedonic scores were frequently observed.
- Small off-JAR groups with high penalties were also seen.
- Strategies for dealing with these anomalies are discussed.

Restaurant menu items from six national or regional brands were modified to reduce fat, saturated fat, sodium and total calories. Twenty-four items were tested with a current recipe, and two modifications (small and moderate reductions) for 72 total products. Approximately 100 consumers tested each product for acceptability as well as for desired levels of tastes/flavor, amounts of key ingredients and texture/consistency using just-about-right (JAR) scales. Penalty analysis was conducted to assess the effects of non-JAR ratings on acceptability scores. Situations arose where JAR ratings and penalty analyses could yield different recommendations, including large groups with low penalties and small groups with high penalties. Opposing groups with moderate to high penalties on opposite sides of the same JAR scale were also seen. Strategies for dealing with these observances are discussed.