I__. - International Military Testing Association

77% is needed. Other qualitative or quantitative data
could also be used in conjunction with acceptor set size to
establish breakpoint criteria.
Going one step further, nomrs could, and should, be
established for different product groups. Some types of
products by their nature will never have large acceptor
sets. so they should not have to be measured against
products that do.
Our findings obviously reinforce the research attesting
to the value of the acceptor set to managers in the
commercial world concerned with market positioning and
product optimization. The military worldcan alsobenefit.
Although our consumeris a captive consumer so to speak,
there may be some bottom line applications of the acceptor
set that me,ans c,an’t address.
For instance, the U.S. Army can spend ‘around
$3 I ,OOO,OOO a year on its standard operational ration. For
the sake of hypothesis. assume those who didn’t like it
didn’t eat it. What would that mean in terms of dollars’! If
you were to assume further the ration overall had a mean
rating of 5 (7-point scale), 66% would be eating it, and if
it had a mean rating of 6,90% would be eating it. The
differential of that one scale point amounts to $7,440,000
in uneaten rations. This type of accountability would
behoove the developer to improve acceptability in a way
that simply looking at means couldn’t.
Overall, we recommend using an acceptor set to
communicate levels of acceptability and to use this measure
in tandem with traditional scale statistics. Scale
pammeters still convey infomlation that dichotomous or
otherqualitativedatacannot. Forthemanager, however,
the acceptor set will provide a far more intuitive grasp of
the product findings and a firmer footing for product
244
optimization or market positioning decisions.
The excellent fit of the linear regression mode1 is
especially gratifying because of the simplicity it offers.
The acceptor set grows linearly with product acceptance
means. One integer of improvement in a mean translates
into a constant percent change in the acceptor set, namely
about 24% on a 7-point scale.
References
Choi, H.S., and Kosikowski, F.V. (1985). Sweetened
plain &and flavored c,arbonated yogurt beverages.
Journal ofDairy Science,68,913.
Gordon, N.M. (1985). A product development, positioning
and optimization process guided by organizational
objectives. Mnsterof ScienceThesis. University
of Wisconsin, Madison.
Gordon,N.M. andNorback, J.P. (1985). Choosingobjective
measures when using sensory methods for optimization
and product positioning. Food Technology,
39,( 1 1), 96.
Lagrange, V. and Norback, J.P. (1987). Product optimization
and the acceptor set size. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 2, 119-136.
Mailer, 0. and Cardello, A. (,1984X Ration acceptance
methods: measuring likes and their consequences.
Niederlands Militari Geneeskundig
Tijdschrift.,37(79/1 lo), 91-96.
Peryam, D.R. and Pilgrim, F. (1957). Hedonic scale
method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology,
11(9), Supplement 9.