24
Characterization and perceptual mapping of luxury women’s fragrances using sorting, projective mapping, and conventional descriptive analysis Gaewalin Oupadissakoon* and Jean-François Meullenet Sensory & Consumer Research Center University of Arkansas, USA 10 th Sensometrics Meeting 2010

Characterization and perceptual mapping of luxury …...... projective mapping, and conventional descriptive analysis ... USA. 10. th. Sensometrics Meeting ... use perfume at least

  • Upload
    buianh

  • View
    227

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Characterization and perceptual mapping of luxury women’s fragrances using sorting, projective mapping, and conventional descriptive analysis

Gaewalin Oupadissakoon* and Jean-François MeullenetSensory & Consumer Research CenterUniversity of Arkansas, USA10th Sensometrics Meeting 2010

Sorting• Widely used in the psychology field• Stimuli are sorted based on their similarity.• Number of groups > 1 and < number of stimuli• Cost and time efficient method• Data are analyzed by multidimensional scaling

or multiple factor analysis.

Sorting

Sorting

Group 1: bitter, relaxing

Group 2: carbonated, sweet

Group 3: sweet, refreshing

Projective Mapping (PM)• Adapted from projective techniques used in

qualitative market research• Stimuli are placed on the space based on their

similarity and dissimilarity.• Data are analyzed by multiple factor analysis or

generalized procrustes analysis.• RV coefficients are used to understand the

correlation between the consensus space.

Projective Mapping

Projective Mapping

sweet, carbonated

herbal, bitter

bitter, relaxing

refreshing, sweet

Projective Mapping

Y

X

ObjectivesTo determine if perceptual mapping techniques are useful in understanding sensory characteristics of fragrances compared to the conventional descriptive analysis

To compare the results of perceptual mapping obtained from descriptive and consumer panels

To access consumer reproducibility of perceptual mapping tasks

StimuliPerfume Name Type*Angel EP

Aromatics Elixir EP

Chanel N 5 EP

Cinéma EP

Coco Mademoiselle EP

L’Instant de Guerlain EP

J’Adore EP

J’Adore ET

Lolita Lempicka EP

Pleasures EP

Pure Poison** EP

Shalimar** ET

* EP stands for Eau de Parfum* ET stands for Eau de Toilette** represents duplicate samples used in consumer perceptual mapping study

Sample Preparation

Sample Preparation

Assessors• Descriptive panelists (n=12)

• sorting/projective mapping• conventional descriptive analysis (3 replications)

• Fragrance users (n=117)• women• age ranged from 25-55• use perfume at least 2-4 times a week• have no discomforts in using fragrances• recruited from the Sensory & Consumer

Research data base

Sorting Procedures• Samples simultaneously

presented• Sort samples based on

the similarity• Name each group of

sample based on their sensory characteristics

Projective Mapping Procedures• Samples simultaneously

presented• Place samples in the

space (white paper)• Mark an X on the paper

to identify sample location

• Add terms on the paper to describe samples

MFA Results Comparing the 3 Methods using ‘Descriptive Panelists’

-4 -2 0 2 4

-4-2

02

Dim 1 (25.68 %)

Dim

2 (1

2.97

%)

Angel

Aromatics

Chanel N5

Cinema

Coco

J'Adore EPJ'Adore ET

L’Instant

Lolita Pleasures

Pure Poison

Shalimar

SortingProjectiveMappingDescriptiveAnalysis

Citrus LemonGrapefruit Citral

Other Citrus

Fruity Non-CitrusOther Fruity

Green Grassy/Unripe

Floral

JasmineYlangYlang

Rose

Other Floral

Piney/TerpenySpicy

Other Spicy

Sweet AromaticsVanillaOther Sweet Aromatics

Powdery Medicinal

Aldehyde/Soapy

Woody

Earthy/Musty/DirtyAnimal

Musk

RV coefficients: Sorting vs. PM = 0.67Sorting vs. DA = 0.63PM vs. DA = 0.69

Citrus

Lemon

Grapefruit

Citral

Other Citrus

Fruity Non-CitrusOther Fruity

Green Grassy/Unripe

Floral

JasmineYlang Ylang

Rose

Other Floral

Piney/Terpeny

SpicyOther Spicy

Sweet Aromatics

Vanilla

Other Sweet Aromatics

Powdery

MedicinalAldehyde/Soapy

Woody

Earthy/Musty/Dirty

AnimalMusk

MFA Results Comparing the 3 Methods using ‘Fragrance Users’

RV coefficients: Sorting vs. PM = 0.94Sorting vs. DA = 0.74PM vs. DA = 0.84

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

-3-2

-10

12

3

Dim 1 (25.75 %)

Dim

2 (1

1.61

%)

Aftershave

Animal

Anise

Citrus

Delicate

Dirty

Earthy

Evergreen

Floral

Flowery

Fresh Lemon

Freshness

Green

HeavyHoney

Jasmine

Leather

Light

Lotion/Powder

Mandarin/Orange

Mediciney

Musk

Musty

Nutty/AlmondOld

Rose

Soapy

Spicy

Sweet

Sweet Fruit/Melon

Vanilla

Woody

Sorting Results – Descriptive PanelStress Value = 0.15

Sorting Results – Consumer Panel

Animal

AniseCaramel

Chamomile

CitrusClean/Freshness

Earthy

Feminine

Floral

Flowery

Fresh Lemon

Fruity

Green

Honey

Incense

JasmineLeather

Mandarin/Orange

Masculine

Mediciney

Musk

Natural

Nutty/Almond

Old

Outdoor

Piney

Powdery

Rose

Soapy

Soft/Light

Spicy

Spring-Like

Strong

Sweet

Sweet Fruit/Melon

Vanilla

Woody

Woodsy

Stress Value = 0.19

PM Results – Descriptive Panel

AnimalAnise

Cedar Chips

Citrus

Clean

Cleaner

Delicate

Dirty

Earthy

Floral

Flowery

Fresh Lemon

Freshness

Gardenia

Green

HeavyHoney

HospitalIncense

Intense

Jasmine

Light Scent

Lotion

Mandarin/Orange

Mediciney

Mild

Musk

Musty Nutty/AlmondOld

Pine

Perfumy

Powdery

Rose

SoapySpearmint

Spicy

Strong

Sweet

Sweet Fruit/Melon

Unpleasant

VanillaWoody

PM Results – Consumer Panel

Animal

Anise

Caramel

Chamomile

Citrus

Clean/Freshness

EarthyFeminine

FloralFlowery

Fresh Lemon

Fruity

Green

Honey

Incense

Jasmine

Leather

Mandarin/Orange

Masculine

Mediciney

Musk

Nutty/Almond

Old

Piney

Powdery

Rose

Soft/Light

Spicy

Strong

Sweet Sweet Fruit/Melon

Vanilla

Woody

Conventional Descriptive Analysis Results

Overall Intensity

Citrus

Lemon

Grapefruit

CitralOther Citrus

Fruity-Non Citrus

Other Fruity

Green Grassy/Unripe

Floral

Jasmine

Ylang Ylang

Rose

Other Floral

Piney/Terpeny

SpicyOther Spicy

Sweet Aromatics

Vanilla

Other Sweet Aromatic

Powdery

Medicinal

Aldehyde/Soapy Woody

Earthy/Musty/Dirty

Animal

Musk

Fruity/Floral

Spicy/Musky/Woody

Green/Lemony

Powdery/Vanilla

Medicinal/Musty

Conclusions• Configurations of these three techniques were similar for

both panels. However, projective mapping showed higher agreement with descriptive analysis than sorting.

• Consumers showed reproducibility in performing perceptual mapping tasks.

• Perceptual mapping was effective as an exploratory sensory technique for screening a large number of products.

• The experimenter should have the option of using naïve consumers rather than descriptive panelists in understanding product sensory characteristics.

Thank you.For further information, please visit

poster #35.