Projective mapping: variations and consequences

Research output: Contribution to conferencePosterResearch

Standard

Projective mapping : variations and consequences. / Dehlholm, Christian; Brockhoff, Per B.; Bredie, Wender Laurentius Petrus.

2012.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePosterResearch

Harvard

Dehlholm, C, Brockhoff, PB & Bredie, WLP 2012, 'Projective mapping: variations and consequences'.

APA

Dehlholm, C., Brockhoff, P. B., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2012). Projective mapping: variations and consequences.

Vancouver

Dehlholm C, Brockhoff PB, Bredie WLP. Projective mapping: variations and consequences. 2012.

Author

Dehlholm, Christian ; Brockhoff, Per B. ; Bredie, Wender Laurentius Petrus. / Projective mapping : variations and consequences. 1 p.

Bibtex

@conference{b2760efadf06443d871c00c1089643b3,
title = "Projective mapping: variations and consequences",
abstract = "Projective Mapping (Risvik et.al., 1994) and its Napping (Pag{\`e}s, 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).",
keywords = "LIFE, Sensory analysis, Projective Mapping, Napping, Multiple Factor Analysis, Confidence Ellipses",
author = "Christian Dehlholm and Brockhoff, {Per B.} and Bredie, {Wender Laurentius Petrus}",
year = "2012",
language = "English",

}

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 - LIFE

KW - Sensory analysis

KW - Projective Mapping

KW - Napping

KW - Multiple Factor Analysis

KW - Confidence Ellipses

M3 - Poster

ER -

ID: 40244965