Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TOPCO崇越論文大賞
論文題目：
Pleasant or Fit? The Effect of Product
Scent on Product Evaluation.
報名編號： M0065
1
Abstract
An increasing number of studies examined the impact of scent on ambient or product
evaluation, but they produced inconsistent results. This paper therefore aims to argue
that scent role and olfactory acuity may be moderators on the relationship between
product scent characteristics (scent pleasantness and scent fitness) and product
evaluation (perceived quality and brand attitude). This experiment consisted of 3 factors:
4 (product scent: pleasant-highly fit, pleasant-lowly fit, slightly unpleasant-highly fit,
slightly unpleasant-lowly fit) x 2 (scent role: utilitarian vs. hedonic) x 2 (olfactory
acuity: high vs. low). The results show that, for products with a utilitarian scent role
(fragrance bag), consumers focus more on the fit degree but the pleasant degree for
products with hedonic scent role (post-it note), especially to high olfactory acuity
people. This study deepens understanding on scent marketing and provides the basis of
using scent marketing for companies. For enterprises who sell products with utilitarian
scent role, such as fragrance bag, cleanser, and shower gel … etc., developing product
scents that most fit the products is the most important, which would get a good product
evaluation and thus enhance the sales volume. As to companies which want to develop
new scented products or use scent as trademarks, they should exploit more pleasant
scent. This study makes contributions to both theoretical and practical field, hoping to
offer some useful suggestions for managers and researchers of scent marketing.
Key Words：Scent Marketing, Olfactory Acuity, Scent Role, Product Evaluation.
1. INTRODUCTION
Scent marketing has been more prevalent today (Bosmans, 2006; Ellen and Bone, 1998,
1999; Mitchell, Kahn, and Knasko, 1995). In current day, scent has been used to serve
as a marketing tool by various walks of life (Knasko, 1989). Products imbued with
scents are said to elevate brand equity (Krishna, Lwin, and Morrin, 2010).
Recently, interests in sensory marketing have sprung up, particularly in the domain of
olfaction and touch, which were usually being ignored in the past (Peck and Childers,
2008). In the past, studies about scent marketing focused on the effect of ambient scent.
Spangenberg, Crowley, and Henderson (1996) found that the presence of scent in a
retail place can positively affect consumers’ evaluations and behaviors. Some studies
proposed that pleasant ambient scent can positively elevate lingering time in a store, the
assessment time of products, and the number of times which products being evaluated
(e.g., Morrin and Ratneshwar, 2003; Spangenberg et al., 1996), while others
recommended that when ambient scent is congruent with product category, consumers’
response is more positive than the incongruence or no scent present condition (Bosmans,
2006). Also, consumers are willing to take more time to more deeply deal with product
information with the presence of congruent ambient scent (Mitchell et al., 1995).
2
Only few studies stressed on the effect of product scent on product evaluation. Previous
studies have shown that products imbued with scent can influence consumer evaluation
(Bone and Jantrania, 1992; Krishna et al., 2010; Laird, 1932). Laird (1932) examined
homemaker’s evaluation on hosiery of four different scents, and found that hosiery with
narcissus scent was evaluated as the best quality. Bone and Jantrania (1992) showed that
consumers preferred sunscreen or cleanser with an appropriate scent to that with an
inappropriate scent. Krishna et al. (2010) suggested that product scent could enhance the
memory for information of a specific product.
However, they focus either on the effect of pleasant or congruent scent. To our
knowledge, no previous studies discussed the interaction effect of pleasant and fit scent
on product evaluation. Studies about scent pleasantness have proposed that pleasant
scent can influence consumer behavior. Consumers prefer products in a scented
condition (Hirsch, 1999; Spangenberg et al., 1996), and increase lingering time (Knasko,
1989). It could clearly see that some pleasant scents have the ability to influence
consumer behavior and product evaluation, but previous researchers didn’t explain the
mechanism. Furthermore, some held that scent pleasantness is quite important in
product evaluation (Morrin and Ratneshwar, 2003; Spangenberg et al., 1996), while
Bone and Jantrania (1992) believed that scent fit is more important when evaluating
products. So which kind of scent can effectively affect product evaluation?
To answer the above questions, this study introduces scent roles in products: utilitarian
role and hedonic role. Previous scholars proposed utilitarian and hedonic roles in the
domain of shopping behavior and product attributes (Batra and Ahtola, 1990); however,
nobody applied this concept to product scent. Some products, like aromatic or house
cleanser, one of their main attributes is scent. In these products, scent served as a
utilitarian role, and is one consideration of purchasing the product. While other products,
whose main attribute is not scent, and people may not expect them to be scented. In this
case, when they are scented, the scent might play a hedonic role in the product. In
current market place, products with hedonic scent role are really rare, which can be
developed as a kind of new product and can be used by those leading brands. Scent
plays different roles in products with utilitarian scent role and products with hedonic
role. For the former, scent is a necessity, so people may take it for granted during
purchasing. In this case, the fitness degree of the scent takes into account. However, for
the latter, scent is added value, and this study believes that it might have a different
effect from utilitarian scent. This study thus infers that, product scent characteristic that
consumers concern is due to the two different scent roles. So, this study examines
pleasant and fit scent at the same time (pleasant*highly fit, pleasant*lowly fit,
unpleasant*highly fit, and unpleasant*lowly fit), to realize which scent characteristic is
more important in product evaluation.
3
This study introduces “olfactory acuity” as a moderator, which is proposed by Gulas
and Bloch (1995). Olfactory acuity is said to be an individual difference in the ability to
perceive an odor (Smeets, Schifferstein, Boelema, and Lensvelt-Mulders, 2008) and is
born with a person (Dulay and Murphy, 2002). This study introduces utilitarian scent
role and hedonic scent role and assumes that consumers focus on different scent
characteristics according to scent role, but low olfactory acuity people don’t easily
perceive the unfitness or unpleasantness of a scent. In this case, olfactory acuity is an
important factor that can explain why some can be influenced by an odor while others
can’t.
The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of product scent on product evaluation
in product with different scent roles, and use olfactory acuity as a moderator. For
retailers and enterprises, they would like to know what they might pay attention to when
adopting scent marketing. Is scent pleasantness more important than scent fit, or does it
depend on scent role of the product? This study tries to find out which product scent
characteristic is more important to consumers’ product evaluation.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Scent Characteristic
In recent years, retailers have put more emphasis on “sense part” to get more profits.
Researchers indicated that odors can influence judgment (Bone and Jantrania, 1992;
Spangenberg et al., 1996). This study divided scent characteristic into scent pleasantness
and scent fit.
2.1.1 Scent Pleasantness
Olfaction has been regarded as an affective mechanism since one’s primary response to
scent is like or dislike (Ehrlichman and Halpern, 1988). With a more pleasant scent, the
effect on mood and judgment is more positive, and vice versa. The positive or negative
mood affects one’s evaluations of, or is likely to be transferred to an irrelevant target
object (Isen and Shalker, 1982). According to previous discussion, this study defined
scent pleasantness as a person’s perception of pleasantness or unpleasantness of an odor,
which can in turn transfers to a related product.
2.1.2 Scent Fit
According to the viewpoint of scent fit, the effect of scent on product evaluation is
based on how congruent the scent is with the product (Bosmans, 2006). Bone and
Jantrania (1992) proposed that product with a fit scent had a more positive evaluation.
When the cue is incongruent with the context, previous study (Mandler, 1982)
suggested that there is a competition for cognitive resources in consumer’s mind, may
4
disturb the consumer’s anticipations and interfere attitudinal assessment. Incongruent
scent may bring consumers about inappropriate information that would hinder the
processing of related information and lead to incorrect arousal (Mandler, 1982). In this
study, scent fit is defined as a consumer’s perception of how well the scent is congruent
with the product.
2.2 Product Evaluation
Product evaluation is how consumers perceive the product (Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal,
1991). Product evaluation in this study is composed of product attitude (Spears and
Singh, 2004) and perceived quality (Dodds et al., 1991; Grewal, Krishnan, Baker, and
Borin, 1998). Eagly and Chaiken (1998) defined an attitude as “a psychological
tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or
disfavor”. Based on the previous literature, this study defined product attitude as a
person’s favor or disfavor evaluation of a product. Literatures of marketing field define
quality as the overall ability of a service or a product to satisfy or meet one’s needs. The
subjective quality represents one’s perceived quality, which is a consumer’s awareness
of quality (Kotler, 2000). In this study, perceived quality refers to a consumer’s personal
subjective consciousness of a product’s quality.
2.3 Scent Role
Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) have developed two dimensions of measuring
shopping values: utilitarian and hedonic; the former is about “work”, while the latter
emphasis on its “fun side” (Fischer and Arnold, 1990; Hirschman, 1984). Product
attribute also possess the same characteristics (Crowley, Spangenberg and Hughes,
1992). In fact, so do scent roles share the same dimension. In marketplace, some
products are expected to have scent, while others aren’t. Bone and Jantrania (1992)
suggested that olfactory impact on different products needed to be understood. They
proposed a question: Under what conditions will olfaction effects be driven by
cognitions or hedonics? This study would like to find out the answer.
2.3.1 Utilitarian Role
Utilitarian benefit is a collective concept of instrument, and practical benefits
(Wertenbroch and Dhar, 2000). Researchers depict that utilitarian dimension is about
how useful the object is (Batra and Ahtola, 1990). Utilitarian value is mostly used to
assess work achievement, such as success or completion (Scarpi, 2005).
For some products, scent is a necessary attribute, such as aromatic, deodorant, etc. Scent
serves as a function to elevate environment or a specific object’s smell, or even, to
eliminate bad smell. Products of this kind, scent provides cues for the product. For
instance, lemon scent in a cleanser represents clean and can refresh the air (Bone and
5
Jantrania, 1992). In this case, scent plays an utilitarian role in the product. In this study,
utilitarian scent role is defined as a scent which is inherent in a product, and serves as an
instrument to improve the smell of a specific environment or an object.
As to products with utilitarian scent role, consumers expect them to have a scent, and
scent is one of considerations for purchasing the products, or even, as a cue for judging
product quality. Through the past experience and the concept implantation by
companies, consumers might form an impression that a particular scent represents a
specific product attribute or associates a certain product with a particular scent.
As Bone and Jantrania (1992) suggested, the appropriateness of a scent might take into
consideration, especially for assessing products with utilitarian scent. They found that in
a better-fit situation, the attitude positively elevated (Bone and Ellen, 1999). When it
comes to “congruity issue”, it involves with cognitive effort, which means elaboration
(Bone and Ellen, 1999). In products with a utilitarian scent role, people may have an
existing impression of the scent. Thus, elaboration does exist when evaluating products
with a utilitarian scent role. Elaboration makes consumers pay more attention to the
product itself and deeply handle product information. Bone and Ellen (1999) proposed
that when a congruent scent adds information about the product, it is likely to enhance
product evaluation.
However, if consumers were exposed to an incongruent scent, it might result in a
destruction of the schema and negative influence of the processing of the information
(Ellen and Bone, 1998). According to expectation disconfirmation theory, the presence
of an incongruent scent may cause negative disconfirmation which would probably
lower product evaluation. Based on previous studies, this study assumed that the
appropriateness of a scent indeed plays a more important role than the pleasantness in
product evaluation when assessing products with utilitarian scent role. For the
aforementioned reasons, this study infers that,
H1: For products with utilitarian scent role, the effect of scent fit on product
evaluation is greater than that of scent pleasantness.
2.3.2 Hedonic Role
“Hedonic benefits” means agreeable and enjoyment-related benefits (Batra and Ahtola,
1990; Wertenbroch and Dhar, 2000). Hedonic dimension is usually used to measure the
experiential effect of a specific object (e.g., how enjoyable or pleasing feelings are
caused by the object) (Batra and Ahtola, 1990).
Some products, such as camera, post card, usb disk, etc, people may not mention its
scent when think of them. If these products were scented, people would probably regard
them innovative, and feel interested and/or fun. Scent in these products is an added
6
value, and it provides consumers with originality, novelty, and fantasy. This concept
resembles hedonic value, thus we called it as the hedonic role of scent. This study
defined scent’s hedonic role as a scent which is added to a product, and serves as a
novelty to fulfill consumers’ fantasy and provides consumers with entertainment.
Consumers may view a scent in products with hedonic scent role as novelties. In this
case, it provides consumers with hedonic values, which emphasis on its ludic, epicurean,
or festive side (Sherry, 1990). Hedonic value is subjective, due to its non-instrument and
affection. Olfaction is said to be an affective phenomenon since the paramount response
to scent is favor or animosity (Ehrlichman and Halpern, 1988). Due to its hedonic
values and scent’s characteristic, consumers may give weight to scent pleasantness in
products with hedonic scent role. On the other hand, scent in products with hedonic
scent role may be regarded as a novelty for consumers. In this case, consumers’
information processing may be a “bottom-up” mode. “Bottom-up” is stimulus-driven,
and its response is totally directly influenced by the current stimulus. Because of the
absence of expectation and no previous scent characteristic as reference, consumers
would probably have no idea about which scent it should smell like and may not expect
which scent it should be. Thus, consumers have no conscious about which scent fits the
product. Accordingly, consumers may pay attention to scent pleasantness instead of
scent fit in judging scent of products with hedonic scent role.
Previous studies also shared the same opinion. Laird (1932) has found that housewives
preferred hosiery with narcissus scent to other scents, which confirmed that scent in
product with hedonic scent role does have an influence on product quality. Therefore,
when assessing products with hedonic scent role, consumers would probably put more
emphasis on scent pleasantness rather than on scent congruity. Moreover, scent
pleasantness is said to have a sharing effect. That is, the perception of a pleasant scent
can be transferred to an associated object (Ellen and Bone, 1998). For the
aforementioned reasons, this study infers that,
H2: For products with hedonic scent role, the effect of scent pleasantness on
product evaluation is greater than that of scent fit.
2.4 Olfactory Acuity
The perception ability of an odor differs from people to people and an odor may play
different roles in one’s daily life. Olfactory acuity is a characteristic serves as an
individual difference (Smeets et al., 2008), and is a personal ability to perceive a scent
in a battery of external stimulus. Dulay and Murphy (2002) depicted olfactory acuity as
a sensory variable that doesn’t involve in successful olfactory performance.
Gulas and Bloch (1995) mentioned that acuity may act as a moderator in scent effect.
7
People with high olfactory acuity are likely to perceive an odor without others’ warning;
while low olfactory acuity people are not. This study thus infers that the same scent
probably have different effects between high and low olfactory acuity people. Our study
examines the effect of utilitarian and hedonic scent role, and assumes that consumers
focus on different scent characteristics according to scent role. However, low olfactory
acuity people are not easily conscious of the unfitness or unpleasantness of a scent, thus
we add olfactory acuity into the model as a moderator. In this study, olfactory acuity is
defined as a person’s ability to aware odor.
For products with utilitarian scent role, scent is main attribute that consumers might
take into consideration when buying these products. Olfactory acuity does make a
difference. Some people may smell gas before anybody points out of it, while others just
notice a smell after others’ warning. Olfactory acuity is the ability of conscious an odor.
It is likely that consumers might not identify a scent specifically, but they may
determine that the scent is “just not right” (Ellen and Bone, 1998).
Just as developed above, scent fit plays a more important role in products with
utilitarian role than scent pleasantness does. Scent is a central attribute, and consumers
may have an expectation about which scent it might be. Thus, if the scent violated
consumers’ expectation, consumers may have a negative impression on the product
(Bone and Jantrania, 1992). High olfactory acuity people likely perceive a scent, and
may be more sensitive to a scent than low olfactory acuity people. Therefore, when a
scent is not fit, high olfactory acuity people are more likely to be influenced by it than
low olfactory acuity people. As a result, the gap of product evaluation between scent fit
and scent pleasantness of high olfactory acuity people is supposed to be larger than that
of low olfactory acuity people.
When a product with hedonic scent role is presented to high olfactory acuity people and
low olfactory acuity people at the same time, the following situation might happen: high
olfactory acuity people aware the scent and generate a response, such as novel,
interested, disgusted, repelled, unpleasant, etc.; however, low olfactory acuity people
don’t response to the scent. In this situation, the scent of products with hedonic scent
role doesn’t take any effect to low olfactory acuity people. It doesn’t matter if it’s
scented or not! This study proposes the following hypotheses,
H3: For higher olfactory acuity consumers, product evaluation will be better
(worse) when they contact higher- (lower-) scent-fit products with utilitarian
scent role, whereas for those with lower olfactory acuity, product evaluation
will be unaffected.
H4: For higher olfactory acuity consumers, product evaluation will be better
(worse) when they contact higher- (lower-) scent-pleasant products
8
with hedonic scent role, whereas for those with lower olfactory acuity, product
evaluation will be unaffected.
3. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Conceptual Framework
The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of product scent characteristics
on product evaluation, and this study introduces scent role and olfactory acuity as
moderators. The conceptual framework of this study is shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1 Conceptual Framework
3.2 Pretest – Product and Scent Selection
This study listed candidate products that obey the following criteria: product selection
according to the definition of products with utilitarian/ hedonic scent role defined in this
study, products with easily absorbed scent material, selected products of equivalent
value, avoidance of masculine and feminine product and products of the same product
attribute. Through the above criteria, this study lists candidate products as following:
products with utilitarian scent role include fragrance bag, aromatic, and shampoo;
products with hedonic scent role are post-it note, pencil, and shopping bag.
After that, this study recruited 64 undergraduate students to assist us to find out the
appropriate products and scents. This study aims to find out that, for products with
utilitarian scent role and products with hedonic scent role, which scent characteristic
Product Attitude
Perceived Quality
Purchase Intention
Product Evaluation
High
Low
Olfactory Acuity
Utilitarian role
Hedonic role
Scent Role
Scent Pleasantness
Scent Fit
Product Scent
Characteristic
9
(pleasant or congruent) is more important when evaluating products. Thus, this study
used pleasant and slightly unpleasant scent, and divided product scents into four groups:
pleasant and highly fit (the product), pleasant and lowly fit, unpleasant and highly fit,
and unpleasant and lowly fit. The 64 students were divided into two groups: group A
and B. Students in each group smell six different scents (for group A: wild ginger,
phytoncid, milk, peach, tuberose and cinnamon; for group B: grapefruit, ocean,
sunflower, grape, lemon soda and magnolia) and asked them to rank the pleasant and fit
degree of each scent (with a semantic differential item pleasant/unpleasant, fit/unfit in 6
point). Each participant sniffed 6 scents in a reverse order to avoid different order
effects. Between each scent, participants were instructed to smell coffee bean to refresh
their olfaction system, which is an approved method that used in the fragrance industry
to purify the nasal system.
3.3 Sample and Design
Three hundred and sixty salarymen and salarywomen aged from 22 to 73 were
randomly assigned to cells of a 4 (product scent: pleasant-highly fit, pleasant-lowly fit,
unpleasant-highly fit, unpleasant-lowly fit) x 2 (product’s scent role: utilitarian, hedonic)
between-subject experiment. This study retrieved 340 questionnaires after deleting 2
invalid questionnaires. The effective response rate is 98%.
3.4 Method
The subjects were randomly assigned to one experimental situation. The questionnaire
of this study is consisted of three parts. The first part is product evaluation. The second
part is a self-report about olfactory acuity investigation. The final part is the
demographic data.
First, the participants were asked to read the instructions about a new product release,
and asked them to make evaluations as the direction of improvement of the new product.
There are some items added in the product evaluation questionnaire: 1. Have you ever
used a fragrance bag/post-it note before? (yes or no) 2. You feel that the smell of this
new fragrance bag/post-it note is pleasant. 3. The smell fits with this new fragrance
bag/post-it note (in 6 point semantic differential item). 4. What is the most unique
characteristic of this new post-it note (an open ended probe)? This study also asked the
participants to answer an open-ended probe about the purpose of this study as Krishna
et al. (2010) recommended, “In your opinion, what do you think the purpose of this
study should be”, in the final of the questionnaire.
10
3.5 Measures
3.5.1 Independent Variable
Olfactory Acuity. This study used the “Odor Awareness Scale (OAS)” scale of Smeets et
al. (2008) to measure an individual’s olfactory acuity. The original OAS questionnaire
included three levels of odor awareness: cognitive awareness, assessment awareness,
and executive awareness, and originally consisted of 34 items. Since this study only
wants to realize the olfactory acuity degree not the whole olfactory awareness of a
person, this research asked scholars to help us exclude the inappropriate items, and
deleted them. Finally, this study kept 14 items for the olfactory acuity questionnaire.
3.5.2 Dependent Variable
Product evaluation is composed of brand attitude and perceived quality. This study
adopted scales developed by Spears and Singh (2004) which was used to measure brand
attitude: The new product is appealing/ good/ pleasant/ likable, with a six-point Likert
scale to avoid a central tendency bias (from 1 = extremely disagree to 6 = extremely
agree). Modified and adopted the items developed by Grewal et al. (1998) and Dodds et
al. (1991). The items are as followed: Likelihood that the product will be reliable; this
product appears to be of quality/ durable/ dependable, with a six-point Likert scale from
1 = extremely disagree to 6 = extremely agree.
3.5.3 Control Variable
Krishna et al. (2010) included gender and age as covariates in their “product scent”
study. Bradford and Desrochers (2010) indicated that scent can differentially influence
gender and age. Women’s perception ability of odor is better than men’s (Koelega,
1994). Furthermore, women’s olfactory information processing, such as odor memory
and odor identification, is better than men (Doty, Applebaum, Zusho, and Settle, 1985;
Larsson, Ö berg, and Bäckman, 2006). According to Larsson et al. (2006), young people
(aged 18-35) have a clearer and exact memory response than older people (aged 60-75)
when smelling familiar scents.
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Pretest
This study picks out the final experiment products and scents, which are shown in Table
4-1.
11
Table 4-1 Final Experiment Products and Scents
Pleasant Slightly Unpleasant
Highly Fit Lowly Fit Highly Fit Lowly Fit
Fragrance Bag Ocean Sunflower Grape Cinnamon
Post-it Note Sunflower Lemon Soda Grapefruit Cinnamon
4.2 Experiment Results
4.2.1 Control Variable Analysis
Two control variables – age and gender were discussed in this study. The distribution of
these control variables were shown in Table 4-2and 4-3 Most participants are 22 ~ 39
years old, and 56.5 percent are female. Results show that no significant difference exists
between male and female on perceived quality and brand attitude.
Table 4-2 Subjects Age Distribution
Age Subjects Percentag
e 22 ~ 29 125 37.4%
30 ~ 39 110 33%
40 ~ 49 50 14.9%
50 ~ 59 37 11.1%
Above 60 12 3.6%
Missing
Data
6
Table 4-3 Subjects Gender Distribution
Gender Subjects Percentag
e Male 148 43.5%
Female 192 56.5%
4.2.2 Manipulation Test
Three things were included in the manipulate test – scent role, scent pleasantness degree
and the fitness degree between scent and product. The scent role and pleasantness
manipulation was successful (t Fragrance bag = 73.754, p < .05 vs. t Post-it note = 136.471, p
< .05). Most of the subjects who participated in “Fragrance Bag Experiment” reported
that the scent plays a utilitarian role in fragrance bags (Utilitarian role = 162 vs.
Hedonic role = 5). Participants in “Post-it Note Experiment” reported most that scent
Scent
Product
12
plays a hedonic role in post-it notes (Hedonic role = 164 vs. Utilitarian role = 9). The
pleasantness conditions had significantly higher scores in both utilitarian scent role
product (M ocean = 4.50, M sunflower = 4.55) and hedonic scent role product (M sunflower =
4.34, M lemon soda = 3.96) than slightly unpleasantness conditions (M grape = 3.91, p < .05,
M cinnamon (fragrance bag) = 3.13, p < .05, and M grapefruit = 3.74, p < .05, M cinnamon = 3.00, p
< .05). The fitness conditions of utilitarian scent role product had higher scores (M ocean
= 4.64, M grape = 3.91) than unfitness conditions (M sunflower = 4.55 and M cinnamon = 3.38,
p < .1). The score of fitness condition of hedonic scent role product with pleasant scent
(M sunflower = 4.39) is significantly greater than unfitness condition (M lemon soda = 3.71, p
< .05) and the score of unpleasant scent in fitness condition (M grapefruit = 3.70) is greater
than unfitness condition (M cinnamon =3.35).
4.2.3 Results
To test H1, H2, H3 and H4, this study performed a series of ANOVAs. There is a positive
main effect on product scent characteristic and scent role on product evaluation (F
(4,335) = 4.007, p < .05). The finding supports H1 and H2 (Table 4-4).
Table 4-4 ANOVA of Product Scent Characteristic, Scent Role and Olfactory
Acuity
Source Independent Variable df Mean Square F Sig.
Product
Scent
Characteristic
Product Evaluation 3 4.007 6.644 .000**
Product Attitude 3 5.924 7.077 .000**
Perceived Quality 3 3.001 3.982 .009**
Product Scent
Characteristic x
Scent Role
Product Evaluation 4 1.998 3.312 .012**
Product Attitude 4 1.804 2.155 .076*
Perceived Quality 4 2.238 2.969 .021**
Product Scent
Characteristic x
Olfactory Acuity
Product Evaluation 4 2.041 3.384 .011**
Product Attitude 4 2.038 2.435 .049**
Perceived Quality 4 2.468 3.274 .013**
Product Scent
Characteristic x
Scent Role x
Olfactory Acuity
Product Evaluation 4 1.296 2.148 .077*
Product Attitude 4 1.982 2.367 .055*
Perceived Quality 4 1.183 1.569 .185
Scent Role x Scent Characteristic. The result of ANOVA of product with utilitarian
scent role shows that, no matter the scent is in pleasantness or slight unpleasantness
** p < .05, * p < .1
13
condition, the congruent scent always have better evaluations than incongruent scent.
Furthermore, the pleasantness conditions were assessed at better than slight
unpleasantness conditions. The finding partially supported H1. The result of ANOVA of
product with hedonic scent role shows that, when the scent is incongruent with the
product, the evaluations of pleasant scent are better than that of slightly unpleasant scent.
H2 is supported.
Utilitarian Scent Role x Scent Characteristic x Olfactory Acuity. The ANOVA result of
the effect of “Utilitarian Scent Role x Scent Characteristic x Olfactory acuity”. For high
olfactory acuity people, when the scent is pleasant and fit, their assessment of the
product (M = 4.357, SD = 0.575) is better than low olfactory acuity people (M = 4.263,
SD = 0.769); however, when the scent is pleasant and unfit, the evaluation of the
product of high olfactory acuity people (M = 3.971, SD = 1.052) is worse than low
olfactory acuity people (M = 4.271, SD = 0.674). In slightly unpleasantness conditions,
high olfactory acuity people reported even worse evaluations than low olfactory acuity
people, especially when the scent is unfit. When scent is slightly unpleasant and fit, high
olfactory acuity people think the product is a little worse (M = 3.698, SD = 0.939) than
low olfactory acuity people (M = 4.175, SD = 0.712). When the scent is slightly
unpleasant and unfit, high olfactory acuity people have a much worse assessment (M =
2.917, SD = 1.147) than low olfactory acuity people (M = 3.406, SD = 0.844). H3 is
partially supported.
Hedonic Scent Role x Scent Characteristic x Olfactory Acuity. For high olfactory
acuity people, when the scent is pleasant, their assessments of product with hedonic
scent role in both congruent scent (M = 4.757, SD = 0.533) and incongruent scent (M =
4.598, SD = 0.522) are better than that low olfactory acuity people (M = 3.425, SD =
0.942; M = 4.227, SD = 0.464). In slight unpleasant scent condition, high olfactory
acuity have worse comments (M = 3.638, SD = 0.573) than low olfactory acuity people
(M = 3.80, SD = 0.754) in grapefruit scent. The result of slight unpleasantness and
unfitness condition, high olfactory acuity people also have worse evaluations (M =
3.750, SD = 1.054) than low olfactory acuity people (M = 4.286, SD = 0.799). H4 is
partially supported.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study examined the effect of product scent on product evaluation under different
scent roles. To our knowledge, no previous research discussed this topic. To be more
specifically, none of previous studies categorized product scent roles into hedonic and
utilitarian types. Moreover, olfactory acuity was proposed by Gulas and Bloch (1995);
however, precedent studies about scent marketing haven’t investigated the moderating
effect of olfactory acuity in their experiments. This study first brought olfactory acuity
14
into the model of scent marketing and examined its effect. In addition, unlike most prior
studies observing either pleasant scent or congruent scent, this study examined scent
which is both pleasant/unpleasant and fit/unfit.
5.1 Findings
To realize the effect of scent characteristic in products with different scent role, this
study carried out an experiment that used scents with different pleasant and fit degree in
fragrance bag and post-it note. The results show that product scent characteristics have
directly significant effect on product evaluation according to different scent roles. This
study finds that consumers have better evaluations when scent fits with fragrance bag
which scent plays a utilitarian role in the product. Also, as to post-it note, scent plays a
hedonic role, and consumers have better evaluations on post-it notes with sunflower and
lemon soda scents. That is, for products with utilitarian scent role, consumers focus on
the fitness of product scent rather than the pleasantness of the scent. However, for
products with hedonic scent role, consumers care more about the pleasantness of
product scent than the fitness of the scent.
Besides, the above effect is greater for high olfactory acuity people than that of low
olfactory acuity people. In other words, high olfactory acuity people care much more
about the fitness degree in products with utilitarian scent role than low olfactory acuity
people. When the product scent smells pleasant and fits the product well, high olfactory
acuity people have better evaluation than low olfactory acuity people in products with
utilitarian scent role, but have worse evaluation when the product scent is unpleasant
and incongruent. In the same way, when evaluating products with hedonic scent role,
high olfactory people evaluate better in pleasant scent condition than low olfactory
people but evaluate worse in unpleasantness condition.
5.2 Theoretical Implications
The findings provide several important implications in theory. First of all, these
differential effects for hedonic and utilitarian scent roles have implications for
expanding the understanding of scent marketing in product evaluation. This study first
proposes “scent role” and divides it into two categories, including utilitarian and
hedonic roles. The products with utilitarian role are more suitable for congruent scent
than those with hedonic role, but the products with hedonic role are more suitable for
pleasant scent than those with utilitarian role. Second, customers’ individual differences
might influence the effect of scent marketing. This study incorporates olfactory acuity
which Gulas and Bloch (1995) proposed but didn’t investigate its influence on scent
effect into the research framework as moderator. The results show that olfactory acuity
is indeed a factor that could influence scent effect. High olfactory acuity people are
more sensitive to different scents than low ones. Third, this study is unlike previous
15
scent researches which only recruited students as experiment subjects (e.g., Bone and
Jantrania, 1992; Bosmans, 2006; Krinsha et al., 2010), this study recruited general
public to participate in our experiment to make the results more convincing and can be
applied to real world. Bradford and Desrochers (2010) suggested that scent effect may
differ from age and gender so it’s more comprehensive that our subjects cover different
professions, ages, and genders.
5.3 Managerial Implications
Not only does this paper make contributions to theoretical community but also in
managerial practice. Companies enjoy employing olfactory cues as marketing tool
nowadays. Regardless of catering industry, fragrance industry, or even finance and real
estate industry, scent marketing is omnipresent (Goldkuhl and Styvén, 2007; Vlahos,
2007). Many firms cost lots of money on their scent marketing budget, and they really
hope to make good use of it to ensure their investment will be in return. To reduce their
misgivings, this study offers several suggestions.
First, for enterprises who sell products with utilitarian scent role, such as fragrance bag,
cleanser, and shower gel … etc., developing product scents that most fit the products is
the most important, which would get a good product evaluation and thus enhance the
sales volume. One thing needs to be noted is that the scent should be pleasant and
congruent at the same time. High olfactory people are considerably sensitive to the scent,
once the scent is a little unsuitable or unpleasant, they will notice. Companies could
make some investigation before product launch to find out the most appropriate scent
for the product. Second, the results show that when the scent is pleasant in products
with hedonic scent role, consumers have better attitude toward products, recognize
products as superior quality and elevate purchase intention of products which might
bring firms better word-of-mouth and higher profit. Therefore, for companies which
manufacture products with no scents, e.g., post-in, pencils, or cups…etc., imbuing the
most pleasant scents into their products may be another direction of new product
development. Thirdly, Krishna et al. (2010) recommended that scents can be trademarks
if they act as identification for a specific product or brand even they didn’t serve a
practical function in the product. This concept complies with the value of hedonic scent
role in this study, so this paper suggests enterprises who try to use pleasant and unique
scents in products should apply trademarks for these scents to guarantee their
competitive advantage.
5.4 Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Our study does make contributions to both academic and practical community, but there
are still some limitations and suggestions needed to be improved in future research.
First, unlike previous scent research which use undergraduate college students, our
16
participants cover different professions, ages, and genders and are more comprehensive;
however, the findings of this study are limited to the region of Taiwan. However, scent
effect differs from culture to culture. According to prior research, some resentment
feelings caused by some unpleasant odors may be greater in some cultures compared
with others (Pangborn, Guinard, and Davis, 1988; Schaal, Soussignan, Marlier, Kontar,
Karima, and Tremblay, 1997). The hedonic reactions from the pleasant odors exist
higher cultural variability (Schleidt, Neumann, and Morishita, 1988). Furthermore, the
liking response to a scent is not only out of its pleasant degree, but also the frequency of
use, familiarity and the existence in a culture (Ayabe-Kanamura, Schicker, Laska,
Hudson, Distel, Kobayakawa, and Saito, 1998; Delplanque, Grandjean, Chrea, Aymard,
Cayeux, Le Calvé, Velazco, Scherer, and Sander, 2008). Future research can try to make
a cross-culture experiment to find out if culture could make difference to the results.
Second, the products used in our experiment were both convenience products whose
prices are cheap. According to Kotler and Armstrong (2012), consumers purchase
convenience products with little comparison and buying exertion, and they may not
spend much effort into buying these kinds of products, even just out of intuition.
However, the decision model of buying shopping goods, special goods or other products
may be different. Future research can try to use other kinds of products as the
experimental products to confirm if the results can analogize to any other kind of
products. Finally, the controlled setting we used in our laboratory environment was also
designed to make the influence of product scent on product evaluations more effectively,
but further research should also extend the situation by observing consumers in a natural
setting, such as in a grocery store as they examine such scented products. Much is left to
study, but our hope is that this study will offer a basis for related research on the role of
product scent in marketing.
REFERENCE
Ayabe-Kanamura, S., Schicker, I., Laska, M., Hudson, R., Distel, H., Kobayakawa, T.,
and Saito, S., 1998. Differences in perception of everyday odors: A Japanese-German
cross-cultural study. Chemical Senses, 23(1), 31-38.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., and Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or Fun: Measuring
Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4),
644-656.
Batra, R. and Ahtola, O. T., 1990. Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of
Consumer Attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.
Bone, P. F. and Ellen, P. S., 1999. Scents in the Marketplace: Explaining a Fraction of
Olfaction. Journal of Retailing, 75(2), 243-262.
Bone, P. F. and Jantrania, S., 1992. Olfaction as a Cue for Product Quality. Marketing
Letters, 3(3), 289-296.
17
Bosmans, A., 2006. Scents and Sensibility: When Do (In) Congruent Ambient Scents
Influence Product Evaluations? Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 32-43.
Bradford, K. D. and Desrochers, D. M., 2010. The Use of Scents to Influence
Consumers: The Sense of Using Scents to Make Cents. Journal of Business Ethics,
90(2), 141-153.
Crowley, A. E., Spangenberg, E. R., and Hughes, K. R., 1992. Measuring the Hedonic
and Utilitarian Dimensions of Attitudes toward Product Categories. Marketing Letters,
3(3), 239-249.
Delplanque, S., Grandjean, D., Chrea, C., Aymard, L., Cayeux, I., Le Calvé, B., Velazco,
M. I., Scherer, K. R., and Sander, D., 2008. Emotional processing of odors: Evidence
for a nonlinear relation between pleasantness and familiarity evaluations. Chemical
Senses, 33(5), 469-479.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., and Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of Price, Brand, and Store
Information on Buyers' Product Evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3),
307-319.
Doty, R. L., Applebaum, S., Zusho, H., and Settle, R. G., 1985. Sex Differences in Odor
Identification Ability: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Neuropsychologia, 23(5), 667-672.
Dulay, M. F. and Murphy, C., 2002. Olfactory Acuity and Cognitive Function Converge
in Older Adulthood: Support for the Common Cause Hypothesis. Psychology and Aging,
17(3), 392-404.
Eagly, A. H. and Chaiken, S, 1998. Handbook of Social Psychology. (4th
ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press and McGraw-Hill.
Ehrlichman, H. and Halpern, J. N., 1988. Affect and Memory: Effects of Pleasant and
Unpleasant Odors on Retrieval of Happy and Unhappy Memories. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 769-779.
Ellen, P. S. and Bone, P. F., 1998. Does It Matter If It Smells? Olfactory Stimuli as
Advertising Executional Cues. Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 29-39.
Fischer, E. and Arnold, S. J., 1990. More Than a Labor of Love: Gender Roles and
Christmas Shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(3), 333-345.
Goldkuhl, L. and Styvén, M., 2007. Sensing the Scent of Service Success. European
Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1297-1305.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., and Borin, N., 1998. The Effect of Store Name,
Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers' Evaluations and Purchase Intentions.
Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331-352.
Gulas, C. S. and Bloch, P. H., 1995. Right Under Our Noses: Ambient Scent and
Consumer Responses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(1), 87-98.
Hirschman, E. C., 1984. Experience Seeking: A Subjectivist Perspective of
18
Consumption. Journal of Business Research, 12(1), 115-136.
Isen, A. and Shalker, T., 1982. The Effect of Feeling State on Evaluation of Positive,
Neutral and Negative Stimuli: When You “Accentuate the Positive,” Do You “Eliminate
the Negative”? Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(1), 58-63.
Knasko, S. C., 1989. Ambient Odor and Shopping Behavior. Chemical Senses, 14(94),
718.
Koelega, H. S., 1994. Sex Differences in Olfactory Sensitivity and the Problem of the
Generality of Smell Acuity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78(1), 203-213.
Kosslyn, S. M. and Rosenberg, R. S., 2001. Psychology: the Brain, the Person, the
World. Needham Heights (MA), Allyn and Bacon.
Kotler, P., 2000. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and
Control. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G., 2012. Principals of Marketing. (14th
ed.). Edinburgh Gate:
Pearson.
Krishna, A., Lwin, M. O., and Morrin, M., 2010. Product Scent and Memory. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(1), 57-67.
Laird, D. A., 1932. How the Consumers Estimate Quality by Subconscious Sensory
Impressions: With Special Reference to the Role of Smell. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 16(3), 241-246.
Larsson, M., Ö berg, L., and Bäckman, L., 2006. Recollective Experience in Odor
Recognition: Influences of Adult Age and Familiarity. Psychological Research, 70(1),
68-75.
Lipman, J., 1990. The Wall Street Journal, Scents That Encourage Buying Couldn't
Smell Sweeter to Stores, 1990/Jan/9.
Mandler, G., 1982. The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste,” in Affect and
Cognition. The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium, Hillsdale, N J., 203-230.
Mitchelle, D. J., Kahn, B. E., and Knasko, S. C., 1995. There’s Something in the Air:
Effects of Congruent or Incongruent Ambient Odor on Consumer Decision Making.
Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2), 229-238.
Morrin, M. and Ratneshwar, S., 2003. Does It Make Sense to Use Scents to Enhance
Brand Memory? Journal of Marketing Research, 40(1), 10-25.
Pangborn, R. M., Guinard, J. X., and Davis, R. G., 1988. Regional aroma preferences.
Food Quality and Preference, 1(1), 11-19.
Peck, J. and Childers, T. L., 2008. If It Tastes, Smells, Sounds, and Feels Like a Duck,
Then It Must Be a . . . : Effects of Sensory Factors on Consumer Behaviors. in
Handbook of Consumer Psychology, ed. Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Paul M. Herr, and Frank R.
Kardes, New York: Psychology, 193-219.
19
Scarpi, D., 2005. Hedonic and Utilitarian Behaviour in Specialty Shops. The Marketing
Review, 5(1), 31-44.
Schaal, B., Soussignan, R., Marlier, L., Kontar, F., Karima, I. S., and Tremblay, R. E.,
1997. Variability and invariants in early odour preferences: Comparative data from
children belonging to three cultures. Chemical Senses, 22(2), 181-236.
Schleidt, M., Neumann, P., and Morishita, H., 1988. Pleasure and disgust: Memories
and associations of pleasant and unpleasant odours in Germany and Japan. Chemical
Senses, 13(2), 279-293.
Schmitt, B. H. and Schultz II, C. J., 1995. Situational Effects on Brand Preferences for
Image Products. Psychology and Marketing, 12(5), 433-446.
Sherry, J. F., 1990. Dealers and Dealing in a Periodic Market: Informal Retailing in
Ethnographic Perspective. Journal of Retailing, 66(2), 174-200.
Smeets, M. A. M., Schifferstein, H. N. J., Boelema, S. R., and Lensvelt-Mulders, G.,
2008. The Odor Awareness Scale: A New Scale for Measuring Positive and Negative
Odor Awareness. Chemical Senses, 33(8), 725-734.
Spangenberg, E. R., Crowley, A. E., and Henderson, P. W., 1996. Improving the Store
Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Behaviors? Journal of
Marketing, 60(2), 67-80.
Spears, N. and Singh, S. N., 2004. Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase
Intentions. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.
Wertenbroch, K and Dhar, R., 2000. Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian
Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.
Wilkie, M., 1995. Scent of a Market. American Demographics, 17(8), 40-47.
