ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
How Semantically Labeled Scent-Gender Associations Influence the Evaluations of Scent and Texture.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should Panelists Refrain from Wearing a Personal Fragrance Prior to Sensory Evaluation? The Effect of Using Perfume on Olfactory Performance.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sensory evaluation can be influenced by semantic information such as gender descriptions. Gender categories are associated with tactile information (e.g., female = soft/smooth, while male = hard/rough). Feminine scents (e.g., floral) are typically perceived as soft and smooth. Thus, semantic labels of gender (feminine/masculine qualities) may influence congruent sensory evaluation (i.e., female = soft/smooth, male = hard/rough). This study examined how semantically labeled scent-gender associations influence the evaluation of scent and texture. Specifically, we examined whether "feminine" and "masculine" labels applied to neutral scents that have not been associated with gender influence scent and haptic evaluation. Participants sniffed a feminine-labeled or masculine-labeled scent embedded on soft and rough papers. They then evaluated the scent (e.g., gender perception) and texture (e.g., hedonic evaluation). The results demonstrated that participants who sniffed a feminine-labeled (vs. masculine-labeled) scent perceived it as more feminine. However, contrary to our expectations, gender labeling of scent did not influence haptic evaluation. These findings indicate that semantic labeling of scents (i.e., feminine/masculine) may alter the gender perception of a scent but not the tactile evaluation. Practical implications for (online) sensory marketing are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.