Characterization and perceptual mapping of luxury women`s

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
10th 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
herbal, bitter
bitter, relaxing
sweet, carbonated
refreshing, sweet
Projective Mapping
Y
X
Objectives
To 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
Stimuli
Perfume Name
* EP stands for Eau de Parfum
* ET stands for Eau de Toilette
** represents duplicate samples used in
consumer perceptual mapping study
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
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’
Sorting
ProjectiveMapping
DescriptiveAnalysis
2
Angel
Sweet Aromatics
Other Sweet Aromatics Vanilla
Other Floral
J'Adore EP
J'Adore ET Cinema
Pure Poison
Shalimar
Floral
Other Fruity
Fruity Non-Citrus
Grapefruit
Citrus
Jasmine
Other Citrus
Green Grassy/Unripe
0
Aromatics
Pleasures
Coco
Lolita
-2
Chanel N5
Woody
Spicy
Piney/Terpeny
Other Spicy
Earthy/Musty/Dirty
Animal
Citral
Musk
Lemon
Powdery Rose
Medicinal
YlangYlang
Aldehyde/Soapy
-4
Dim 2 (12.97 %)
L’Instant
-4
-2
0
Dim 1 (25.68 %)
2
4
RV coefficients: Sorting vs. PM = 0.67
Sorting vs. DA = 0.63
PM vs. DA = 0.69
Powdery
1
Floral
Rose
Vanilla Aldehyde/Soapy
-1
0
Sweet Aromatics
Other Floral
Grapefruit
Jasmine
Green Grassy/Unripe
Fruity Non-Citrus
Other Sweet Aromatics
Other Fruity
Woody
Ylang Ylang
Piney/Terpeny
Musk
Animal
Other Spicy
Spicy
Other Citrus
-2
Lemon
Citrus
Medicinal
Earthy/Musty/Dirty
Citral
-3
Dim 2 (11.61 %)
2
3
MFA Results Comparing the 3 Methods
using ‘Fragrance Users’
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Dim 1 (25.75 %)
2
3
RV coefficients: Sorting vs. PM = 0.94
Sorting vs. DA = 0.74
PM vs. DA = 0.84
Sorting Results – Descriptive Panel
Stress Value = 0.15
Animal
Mediciney
Anise
Earthy
Soapy
Dirty
Musty
Evergreen
Sweet Fruit/Melon
Honey
Spicy
Heavy
Mandarin/Orange
Fresh Lemon
Woody
Flowery
Musk
Rose
Freshness
Light
Nutty/Almond
Old
Vanilla
Green
Delicate
Leather
Sweet
Aftershave
Citrus Floral
Lotion/Powder
Jasmine
Sorting Results – Consumer Panel
Outdoor
Sweet
Spring-Like
Sweet Fruit/Melon
Soft/Light
Leather
Woody
Anise
Green
Piney
Citrus
Incense
Mandarin/Orange Old
Musk
Fresh Lemon Spicy
Animal
Masculine
Woodsy
Earthy
Natural
Floral
Jasmine
Fruity Rose
Chamomile
Feminine
Caramel
Vanilla
Honey
Flowery
Clean/Freshness
Nutty/Almond
Strong
Mediciney
Powdery
Soapy
Stress Value = 0.19
PM Results – Descriptive Panel
Spicy
Gardenia
Light Scent
Musty
Old
Nutty/Almond
Floral
Sweet
Flowery
Musk
Lotion
Clean
Vanilla
Intense
Fresh Lemon
Cedar Chips Perfumy
Strong
Woody
Delicate
Heavy
Soapy
Pine
Honey
Jasmine
Mandarin/Orange Freshness Spearmint
Sweet Fruit/Melon
Cleaner
Mild
Anise
Powdery
Earthy
Animal
Hospital
Citrus
Incense
Unpleasant
Mediciney
Green
Rose
Dirty
PM Results – Consumer Panel
Fresh Lemon
Green
Piney
Citrus
Woody Leather
Soft/Light
Mandarin/Orange
Fruity
Flowery
Jasmine
Floral
Feminine
Sweet Fruit/Melon
Sweet
Chamomile
Clean/Freshness
Honey
Anise
Mediciney
Strong
Musk
Earthy
Rose
Nutty/Almond
Animal
Spicy
Incense
Caramel
Masculine
Vanilla
Powdery
Old
Conventional Descriptive Analysis Results
Citrus
Other Citrus
Green/Lemony
Lemon
Citral
Spicy/Musky/Woody
Green Grassy/Unripe
Other Fruity
Animal
Musk
Spicy
Other Spicy
Piney/Terpeny
Ylang Ylang
Fruity-Non Citrus
Grapefruit
Fruity/Floral
Aldehyde/Soapy
Jasmine
Other Sweet Aromatic
Other Floral
Woody
Earthy/Musty/Dirty
Overall Intensity
Floral
Sweet Aromatics
Vanilla
Powdery/Vanilla
Powdery
Rose
Medicinal
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.