Characterization and perceptual mapping of luxury women's ...
Characterization and perceptual mapping of luxury women's ...
Characterization and perceptual mapping of luxury women's ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Characterization</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>perceptual</strong><br />
<strong>mapping</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>luxury</strong> women’s fragrances<br />
using sorting, projective <strong>mapping</strong>, <strong>and</strong><br />
conventional descriptive analysis<br />
Gaewalin Oupadissakoon* <strong>and</strong><br />
Jean-François Meullenet<br />
Sensory & Consumer Research Center<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Arkansas, USA<br />
10 th Sensometrics Meeting 2010
Sorting<br />
• Widely used in the psychology field<br />
• Stimuli are sorted based on their similarity.<br />
• Number <strong>of</strong> groups > 1 <strong>and</strong> < number <strong>of</strong> stimuli<br />
• Cost <strong>and</strong> time efficient method<br />
• Data are analyzed by multidimensional scaling<br />
or multiple factor analysis.
Sorting
Sorting<br />
Group 1:<br />
bitter, relaxing<br />
Group 2:<br />
carbonated, sweet<br />
Group 3:<br />
sweet, refreshing
Projective Mapping (PM)<br />
• Adapted from projective techniques used in<br />
qualitative market research<br />
• Stimuli are placed on the space based on their<br />
similarity <strong>and</strong> dissimilarity.<br />
• Data are analyzed by multiple factor analysis or<br />
generalized procrustes analysis.<br />
• RV coefficients are used to underst<strong>and</strong> the<br />
correlation between the consensus space.
Projective Mapping
Projective Mapping<br />
herbal, bitter<br />
bitter, relaxing<br />
sweet, carbonated<br />
refreshing, sweet
Projective Mapping<br />
Y<br />
X
Objectives<br />
To determine if <strong>perceptual</strong> <strong>mapping</strong> techniques<br />
are useful in underst<strong>and</strong>ing sensory<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> fragrances compared to the<br />
conventional descriptive analysis<br />
To compare the results <strong>of</strong> <strong>perceptual</strong> <strong>mapping</strong><br />
obtained from descriptive <strong>and</strong> consumer panels<br />
To access consumer reproducibility <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>perceptual</strong> <strong>mapping</strong> tasks
Stimuli<br />
* EP st<strong>and</strong>s for Eau de Parfum<br />
* ET st<strong>and</strong>s for Eau de Toilette<br />
** represents duplicate samples used in<br />
consumer <strong>perceptual</strong> <strong>mapping</strong> study<br />
Perfume Name<br />
Angel<br />
Aromatics Elixir<br />
Chanel N 5<br />
Cinéma<br />
Coco Mademoiselle<br />
L’Instant de Guerlain<br />
J’Adore<br />
J’Adore<br />
Lolita Lempicka<br />
Pleasures<br />
Pure Poison**<br />
Shalimar**<br />
Type*<br />
EP<br />
EP<br />
EP<br />
EP<br />
EP<br />
EP<br />
EP<br />
ET<br />
EP<br />
EP<br />
EP<br />
ET
Sample Preparation
Sample Preparation
Assessors<br />
• Descriptive panelists (n=12)<br />
• sorting/projective <strong>mapping</strong><br />
• conventional descriptive analysis (3 replications)<br />
• Fragrance users (n=117)<br />
• women<br />
• age ranged from 25-55<br />
• use perfume at least 2-4 times a week<br />
• have no discomforts in using fragrances<br />
• recruited from the Sensory & Consumer<br />
Research data base
Sorting Procedures<br />
• Samples simultaneously<br />
presented<br />
• Sort samples based on<br />
the similarity<br />
• Name each group <strong>of</strong><br />
sample based on their<br />
sensory characteristics
Projective Mapping Procedures<br />
• Samples simultaneously<br />
presented<br />
• Place samples in the<br />
space (white paper)<br />
• Mark an X on the paper<br />
to identify sample<br />
location<br />
• Add terms on the paper<br />
to describe samples
MFA Results Comparing the 3 Methods<br />
using ‘Descriptive Panelists’<br />
Dim 2 (12.97 %)<br />
-4 -2 0 2<br />
Sorting<br />
ProjectiveMapping<br />
DescriptiveAnalysis<br />
L’Instant<br />
J'Adore EP<br />
J'Adore ET Cinema<br />
Pure Poison<br />
Pleasures<br />
Lolita<br />
Coco<br />
Angel<br />
Shalimar<br />
Chanel N5<br />
Aromatics<br />
Sweet Aromatics<br />
Other Sweet Aromatics Vanilla<br />
Other Floral<br />
Floral<br />
Other Fruity<br />
Fruity Non-Citrus<br />
Grapefruit<br />
Citrus<br />
Citral<br />
Lemon<br />
Jasmine Powdery Rose<br />
Other Citrus<br />
Green Grassy/Unripe<br />
Aldehyde/Soapy<br />
Woody<br />
Spicy<br />
Piney/Terpeny<br />
Other Spicy<br />
Earthy/Musty/Dirty<br />
Animal<br />
Musk<br />
Medicinal<br />
YlangYlang<br />
-4 -2 0 2 4<br />
Dim 1 (25.68 %)<br />
RV coefficients: Sorting vs. PM = 0.67<br />
Sorting vs. DA = 0.63<br />
PM vs. DA = 0.69
MFA Results Comparing the 3 Methods<br />
using ‘Fragrance Users’<br />
Dim 2 (11.61 %)<br />
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3<br />
Powdery Rose<br />
Floral Vanilla Aldehyde/Soapy<br />
Medicinal<br />
Sweet Aromatics<br />
Earthy/Musty/Dirty<br />
Other Floral<br />
Grapefruit<br />
Jasmine<br />
Woody<br />
Green Grassy/Unripe<br />
Ylang Ylang<br />
Fruity Non-Citrus Other Sweet Aromatics<br />
Piney/Terpeny<br />
Other Fruity<br />
Musk<br />
Animal<br />
Other Citrus<br />
Other Spicy<br />
Spicy<br />
Lemon<br />
Citral<br />
Citrus<br />
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3<br />
Dim 1 (25.75 %)<br />
RV coefficients: Sorting vs. PM = 0.94<br />
Sorting vs. DA = 0.74<br />
PM vs. DA = 0.84
Sorting Results – Descriptive Panel<br />
Stress Value = 0.15<br />
Dirty<br />
Sweet Fruit/Melon<br />
Honey<br />
Fresh Lemon<br />
Soapy<br />
M<strong>and</strong>arin/Orange<br />
Musty<br />
Heavy<br />
Evergreen<br />
Spicy<br />
Nutty/Almond<br />
Old<br />
Animal<br />
Mediciney<br />
Anise<br />
Earthy<br />
Woody<br />
Flowery Musk<br />
Rose<br />
Freshness<br />
Light<br />
Vanilla<br />
Green<br />
Leather<br />
Delicate<br />
Sweet<br />
Aftershave<br />
Citrus Floral<br />
Jasmine<br />
Lotion/Powder
Sorting Results – Consumer Panel<br />
Outdoor<br />
Leather<br />
Woody<br />
Anise<br />
Green<br />
Piney<br />
Woodsy<br />
Citrus<br />
M<strong>and</strong>arin/Orange<br />
Old<br />
Incense<br />
Musk<br />
Fresh Lemon<br />
Spicy<br />
Animal<br />
Masculine<br />
Earthy Strong<br />
Spring-Like<br />
Sweet<br />
Sweet Fruit/Melon<br />
S<strong>of</strong>t/Light<br />
Natural Floral<br />
Jasmine<br />
Fruity<br />
Rose<br />
Chamomile Honey<br />
Feminine<br />
Caramel<br />
Vanilla<br />
Flowery<br />
Clean/Freshness<br />
Nutty/Almond<br />
Mediciney<br />
Powdery<br />
Soapy<br />
Stress Value = 0.19
PM Results – Descriptive Panel<br />
Spicy<br />
Light Scent<br />
Flowery<br />
Gardenia<br />
Sweet<br />
Clean<br />
Vanilla<br />
Floral<br />
Lotion<br />
Musk<br />
Musty<br />
Intense<br />
Fresh Lemon<br />
Cedar ChipsPerfumy<br />
Old<br />
Nutty/Almond<br />
Strong<br />
Delicate<br />
Honey<br />
Freshness Jasmine Pine Soapy<br />
Sweet Fruit/Melon M<strong>and</strong>arin/Orange<br />
Mild<br />
Spearmint<br />
Cleaner<br />
Anise<br />
Earthy<br />
Powdery<br />
Hospital<br />
Citrus<br />
Unpleasant<br />
Green<br />
Mediciney<br />
Woody<br />
Animal<br />
Incense<br />
Heavy<br />
Rose<br />
Dirty
PM Results – Consumer Panel<br />
Fresh Lemon<br />
Green<br />
Citrus<br />
S<strong>of</strong>t/Light<br />
Fruity M<strong>and</strong>arin/Orange<br />
Flowery<br />
Floral Jasmine<br />
Feminine<br />
Sweet Sweet Fruit/Melon<br />
Chamomile<br />
Clean/Freshness<br />
Honey<br />
Rose<br />
Caramel<br />
Piney<br />
Nutty/Almond<br />
Animal<br />
Woody Leather<br />
Anise<br />
Mediciney<br />
Strong<br />
Musk<br />
Earthy<br />
Spicy<br />
Incense<br />
Masculine<br />
Vanilla<br />
Powdery<br />
Old
Conventional Descriptive Analysis Results<br />
Citrus<br />
Green/Lemony<br />
Other Citrus<br />
Lemon<br />
Citral<br />
Fruity/Floral<br />
Green Grassy/Unripe<br />
Other Fruity<br />
Fruity-Non Citrus<br />
Grapefruit<br />
Jasmine<br />
Other Sweet Aromatic<br />
Other Floral<br />
Floral<br />
Rose<br />
Sweet Aromatics<br />
Spicy/Musky/Woody<br />
Animal<br />
Musk<br />
Spicy<br />
Other Spicy<br />
Piney/Terpeny<br />
Ylang Ylang<br />
Aldehyde/Soapy Woody<br />
Earthy/Musty/Dirty<br />
Overall Intensity<br />
Medicinal<br />
Powdery/Vanilla<br />
Vanilla<br />
Powdery<br />
Medicinal/Musty
Conclusions<br />
• Configurations <strong>of</strong> these three techniques were similar for<br />
both panels. However, projective <strong>mapping</strong> showed higher<br />
agreement with descriptive analysis than sorting.<br />
• Consumers showed reproducibility in performing<br />
<strong>perceptual</strong> <strong>mapping</strong> tasks.<br />
• Perceptual <strong>mapping</strong> was effective as an exploratory<br />
sensory technique for screening a large number <strong>of</strong><br />
products.<br />
• The experimenter should have the option <strong>of</strong> using naïve<br />
consumers rather than descriptive panelists in<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>ing product sensory characteristics.
Thank you.<br />
For further information, please visit<br />
poster #35.
Change language