Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 7, 2025

Psychophysical Tracking Method to Measure Taste Preferences in Children and Adults
Published on: July 16, 2016
Re-evaluating how sweet-liking and PROP-tasting are related
Martin R Yeomans1, Chi Vi1, Narmeen Mohammed1
1School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QH, UK.
Abstract:
Past research has identified distinct phenotypic differences in responses to sweet taste, although the origins of these differences remain unclear. One possibility is that these individual differences in sweet-liking are a manifestation of the more widely known differences in sensitivity to the bitter tastant 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP), which has been related to wider differences in food liking and preference. However, previous studies exploring the relationship between sweet-liking and PROP-tasting have had mixed outcomes. This is possibly due to older studies using a more simplistic dichotic characterisation of sweet likers, whereas recent research suggests three sweet-liking phenotypes (extreme sweet likers, ESL; moderate sweet likers, MSL; and sweet dislikers, SD). To re-assess how sweet-liking and PROP tasting are inter-related, 236 volunteers evaluated their liking for 1.0 M sucrose and the intensity of three concentrations of each NaCl and PROP. Using three different methods for classifying PROP taster status, our analysis confirmed that all three sweet-liking phenotypes were represented in all three PROP taster groups (super-tasters, ST; medium tasters, MT; and non-tasters, NT), but relatively few ESL were classified as ST, or SD as NT. Overall, these data suggest that while PROP tasting and sweet-liking are not causally related, the SD phenotype may partly be explained by a broader tendency for anhedonia.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
The Physiology of Taste
Gustation
Taste Buds and Receptors
Conditioned Taste Aversion
A notable characteristic of conditioned taste aversion is that it often requires only a single...
The Tongue and Taste Buds
Factors Influencing Attraction III: Similarity

