When smelling perfume, how much do descriptions such as “for women” and “for men” contribute to its impression? If the contents remain the same, can a different description change how feminine or masculine it seems, and even change how an object carrying that scent feels to the touch?
In 2021, Sayo Iseki and colleagues examined both questions in one experiment. The results indicate that the effect of a description does not appear equally in every evaluation. Gender impressions of the scent differed, but there were no significant differences attributable to the descriptions in liking for the scent or evaluations of the scented paper’s feel.
Why study scent and touch together?
The background to the study is the connection between scent and texture. Previous research had reported that different scents can change how soft fabrics feel and that tactile evaluations can improve when scent and texture have congruent associations.
The authors therefore wondered whether meaning supplied through words might carry over into evaluations of touch even without replacing the scent itself. If femininity is associated with smoothness and masculinity with roughness, a scent described as being for women might match smooth paper, while one described as being for men might match rough paper, improving their respective tactile evaluations. The study concerns associations with gender, not inherent properties of women and men.
The perfume stayed the same; the brand description changed
First, 46 university students evaluated five commercial unisex perfumes without being given product information. Based on these results, HERMES Concentré d’Orange Verte was selected for the main experiment as a scent unlikely to lean toward either gender association. Its designation as “neutral” was based on this preliminary study.
The main analysis included 118 university students in Japan. Participants were randomly divided into two groups of 59. Everyone smelled a blotter containing 0.30 mL of the same perfume. One group then read that it was sold by a women’s brand, while the other read that it was sold by a men’s brand.
They then rated how masculine or feminine the scent seemed and how much they liked it on nine-point scales. They also touched smooth and rough paper bearing the same perfume for about a minute each and rated comfort of touch, pleasantness, and preference. They were additionally asked how well the scent and texture matched.
Gender impressions differed, but liking did not differ significantly
The group told that the perfume was sold by a women’s brand rated the same scent as more feminine than the group told it was sold by a men’s brand. The difference was statistically significant. Even with identical contents, the type of product described changed the gender associations attached to the fragrance.
By contrast, average liking was 5.19 in the women’s-brand group and 5.48 in the men’s-brand group, with no significant difference. A shift in judgments of femininity did not coincide with a shift in liking in this experiment.
However, the main experiment had no group that received no gendered description. It cannot separate the direction or size of each description’s effect relative to an unlabeled condition. What it established was a difference between the two description groups.
No carryover to touch was confirmed
The tactile results did not support the researchers’ prediction. Describing the perfume as sold by a women’s brand did not lead to relatively better evaluations of smooth paper, nor did describing it as sold by a men’s brand lead to better evaluations of rough paper. Ratings differed by paper type, but there was neither a significant effect of brand description nor a significant interaction between description and paper type.
The preceding judgment of whether scent and texture matched also failed to confirm the predicted correspondence between the women’s description and smooth paper or the men’s description and rough paper. In other words, the description changed the scent’s gender image, but the proposed sequence in which this created semantic congruence with texture and improved tactile liking was not supported.
This should be distinguished from earlier research using different scents. Changing the scent itself also changes the stimulus received by the nose. Here, the description attached to the same scent was changed. Even if verbal meaning can contribute to the relationship between scent and touch, gender associations created by a description alone need not have the same effect as replacing the fragrance. This experiment alone did not establish the mechanism behind that distinction, either.
Conclusion
The authors view their findings as supporting earlier research that information about a scent contributes to its perception, using a different perfume, participants, and a brand-description context. Even for the same liquid, the meaning attached to its presentation may help shape its gender associations.
At the same time, this study cautions against assuming that a changed image transforms the entire product experience. Liking for the scent did not differ significantly, and the predicted effects of descriptions on scent–texture congruence and tactile evaluations were not found. The meaning people perceive in a scent and how favorably they evaluate it need to be tested separately.
The authors suggest that gender-related wording may also matter in online product descriptions, where sampling is unavailable. However, participants in this study actually smelled the fragrance, and online purchasing behavior was not measured. The main experiment involved one perfume and predominantly young Japanese university students. The immediate takeaway is that gendered descriptions can frame the perception of a scent, while whether that framing reaches liking and tactile evaluations remains a separate question.
References
Authors: Sayo Iseki, Kosuke Motoki, Ryosuke Sakata, Shinji Kitagami
Article: How Semantically Labeled Scent-Gender Associations Influence the Evaluations of Scent and Texture
Journal: Frontiers in Psychology 12, 713329 (2021)
Published: October 21, 2021
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713329
Full text: Publisher’s article page
Original article license: Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
