Abstract
Projective Mapping (Risvik et.al., 1994) and its Napping (Pagès, 2003) variations have become increasingly popular in the sensory field for rapid collection of spontaneous product perceptions. It has been applied in variations which sometimes are caused by the purpose of the analysis and sometimes by the practical testing environment. As a result of the changes, a reasonable assumption would be to question the consequences caused by the variations in method procedures. Here, the aim is to highlight the proven or hypothetic consequences of variations of Projective Mapping.
Presented variations will include the applied framework, semantic restrictions, the choice of type of assessors and the validation of product separations. The applied framework concerns the response surface as presented to the assessor in different shapes, e.g. rectangular, square or round. Semantic restrictions are a part of the assessor instructions and influence heavily the product placements and the descriptive vocabulary (Dehlholm et.al., 2012b). The type of assessors performing the method influences results with an extra aspect in Projective Mapping compared to more analytical tests, as the given spontaneous perceptions are much dependent on the assessor’s way of thinking. Furthermore, a suggestion for validating product separations is proposed for the case where Multiple Factor Analysis is chosen for data analysis (Dehlholm, Brockhoff & Bredie, 2012a).
Presented variations will include the applied framework, semantic restrictions, the choice of type of assessors and the validation of product separations. The applied framework concerns the response surface as presented to the assessor in different shapes, e.g. rectangular, square or round. Semantic restrictions are a part of the assessor instructions and influence heavily the product placements and the descriptive vocabulary (Dehlholm et.al., 2012b). The type of assessors performing the method influences results with an extra aspect in Projective Mapping compared to more analytical tests, as the given spontaneous perceptions are much dependent on the assessor’s way of thinking. Furthermore, a suggestion for validating product separations is proposed for the case where Multiple Factor Analysis is chosen for data analysis (Dehlholm, Brockhoff & Bredie, 2012a).
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication date | 2012 |
| Number of pages | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2012 |
Keywords
- Former LIFE faculty
- Sensory analysis
- Projective Mapping
- Napping
- Multiple Factor Analysis
- Confidence Ellipses