Projective mapping: variations and consequences
Research output: Contribution to conference › Poster › Research
Standard
Projective mapping : variations and consequences. / Dehlholm, Christian; Brockhoff, Per B.; Bredie, Wender Laurentius Petrus.
2012.Research output: Contribution to conference › Poster › Research
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - CONF
T1 - Projective mapping
T2 - variations and consequences
AU - Dehlholm, Christian
AU - Brockhoff, Per B.
AU - Bredie, Wender Laurentius Petrus
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - 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).
AB - 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).
KW - Former LIFE faculty
KW - Sensory analysis
KW - Projective Mapping
KW - Napping
KW - Multiple Factor Analysis
KW - Confidence Ellipses
M3 - Poster
ER -
ID: 40244965