{"id":25190,"date":"2026-03-28T21:41:54","date_gmt":"2026-03-28T16:11:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=25190"},"modified":"2026-03-28T21:41:54","modified_gmt":"2026-03-28T16:11:54","slug":"a-comparative-statistical-analysis-of-sweet-preferences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sachdevajk.in\/?p=25190","title":{"rendered":"A Comparative Statistical Analysis of Sweet Preferences"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Comparative Statistical Analysis of Sweet Preferences<\/span><\/p>\n

Author:<\/span> Poonam Dwivedi (61)<\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction:<\/span><\/h2>\n

Food preferences play an important role in consumer behavior and cultural studies. Traditional Indian sweets such as Kajukatli, Gulabjamun, Rasmalai, and Laddu are widely consumed and appreciated across regions. However, individual preferences may vary based on taste, texture, and personal liking. Statistical analysis helps in identifying whether these differences in ratings are significant or simply due to random variation.<\/span><\/p>\n

This study evaluates the ratings of selected sweets to understand differences in consumer preferences.<\/span><\/p>\n

Objective:<\/span><\/h2>\n

To analyze the ratings of four sweets using <\/span>One-Way ANOVA<\/span> in order to determine whether significant differences exist among them.<\/span><\/p>\n

Literature Review:<\/span><\/h2>\n

Consumer Preference and Food Choice Behavior<\/span><\/h3>\n

Previous studies suggest that food preferences are influenced by sensory attributes such as taste, texture, and appearance. Researchers highlight that traditional sweets often receive varied ratings due to cultural familiarity and individual taste differences.<\/span><\/p>\n

Application of Statistical Techniques in Food Studies<\/span><\/h3>\n

Studies in food science emphasize the use of statistical tools like ANOVA to compare multiple food items simultaneously. It allows researchers to determine whether observed differences in ratings are statistically significant, rather than due to chance.<\/span><\/p>\n

Data Collection:<\/span><\/h2>\n

The data was collected through a <\/span>Google Form survey<\/span>.<\/span>
<\/span>A total of <\/span>30 responses<\/span> were recorded. Participants rated four sweets\u2014Kajukatli, Gulabjamun, Rasmalai, and Laddu\u2014on a scale of 1 to 10.<\/span><\/p>\n

Data Analysis:<\/span><\/h2>\n

Summary<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

SUMMARY<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Count<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Sum<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Average<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Variance<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Kajukatli<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

283<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.433333<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.288506<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Gulabjamun<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

252<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.282759<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Rasmalai<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

263<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.766667<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.185057<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Laddu<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

201<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.7<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.182759<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

ANOVA<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Source of Variation<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

SS<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F crit<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Between Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

122.0917<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

40.69722<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

13.63496<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.11E-07<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.682809<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Within Groups<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

346.2333<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

116<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.98477<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

Total<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

468.325<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

119<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Hypotheses<\/span><\/h3>\n