Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 81–86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / foodqual

Natural ingredients claim’s halo effect on hedonic sensory experiencesof perfumes

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.03.0040950-3293/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: Department of Business Administration andMarketing (Economía Financiera II), Faculty of Economics and Business Adminis-tration, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Avda. Lehendakari Aguirre, 83,48015 Bilbao, Spain. Tel.: +34 945014489.

E-mail addresses: vanessa.apaolaza@gmail.com, vanessa.apaolaza@ehu.es(V. Apaolaza).

Vanessa Apaolaza a,⇑, Patrick Hartmann a, Cristina López a, Jose M. Barrutia b, Carmen Echebarria b

a Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spainb Institute of Applied Business Economics, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Bilbao, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 13 November 2013Received in revised form 17 March 2014Accepted 19 March 2014Available online 29 March 2014

Keywords:Halo effectHedonic experienceSensory perceptionNatural ingredientsPerfumes

Can consumer knowledge that a scent is composed of natural ingredients influence the perception of thefragrance? In the present study, 112 participants were asked to test and evaluate three perfumes fromthree different fragrance categories (floral, citrus and woody), all of which were made entirely from nat-ural essential oils. Prior to the test and the evaluation of the scents, half of the subjects were informed ofthe natural origin of components, while the other half were not provided with that information. In addi-tion, the pro-environmental orientation of all participants was assessed to analyze a potential interactionwith the effect of the natural ingredients claim. Results revealed that participants’ hedonic sensory per-ception, acceptance and purchase intention improved when they had been previously exposed to the nat-ural ingredients claim. Results were robust across all three different fragrance types. Findings confirm theexistence of a halo effect of natural ingredients claims affecting the perception of perfumes. However,hypothesized interaction effects with pro-environmentalism were not supported empirically. Implica-tions for marketers of body-care products as well as regulators are discussed.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Over recent years there has been a clear trend toward more nat-ural ingredients in perfumes, given that society is increasinglyaware of the benefits of natural products. Indeed, natural and or-ganic products today constitute a major growth segment in thecosmetics industry, their sales registering an annual increase of20% against 2% for cosmetics as a whole (Álvarez de la Gala,2013). In the cosmetics industry a natural product is understoodto be one that is composed of natural substances of botanical, ani-mal or mineral origin, including their mixtures. Where organicproducts are concerned, a minimum of 95% of their total ingredi-ents must proceed from organic farming. However, ambiguousand diversified definitions of natural cosmetics and the non-uni-fied regulation of organic certification lead to confusion amongconsumers and to natural and organic often being perceived asone and the same thing (Yamamoto, 2008). For perfumes, specifi-cally, the ‘‘natural origin’’ of ingredients is becoming increasingly

relevant, since consumers are more and more sensitive about usingchemical substances on the skin (Branen, Davidson, Salminen, &Thorngate, 2002; Dickson-Spillmann, Siegrist, & Keller, 2011;Kraus, Malmfors, & Slovic, 1992; Lockie, Lyons, Lawrence, & Grice,2004; MacGregor, Slovic, & Malmfors, 1999). Accordingly, the word‘‘natural’’ is understood by the consumer to be a positive character-istic, whilst ‘‘artificial’’ holds negative connotations (Rozin, 2005).

When buying perfumes, consumer purchase decision processesgenerally occur in low-involvement situations (Laurent & Kapferer,1985). With this product type the risk that is customarily associ-ated with purchase is low, and there is a strong drive of affectiveor hedonic activation (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Limited cog-nitive involvement leads people to choose a perfume because ofbrand, price, advertising, attraction aroused by the celebrity it isassociated with, information provided at the time by sales pointstaff, etc., but very often a lack of background knowledge aboutperfumes means that there is no deliberate process of evaluationand decision on the part of the consumer (Beharrell & Denison,1995; Silayoi & Speece, 2004). In such a situation, consumers areparticularly liable to be affected by halo effects. This happens whenan individual’s assessment of one particular characteristic of anitem powerfully affects or slants their impressions of other attri-butes of the same item (Lee, Shimizu, Kniffin, & Wansink, 2013).In other words, the halo effect involves cognitive bias wherebythe perception of a particular feature is influenced by the way

82 V. Apaolaza et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 81–86

previous features have been interpreted within a sequence ofinterpretations (e.g., Kniffin & Wilson, 2004).

Halo effects have been shown, for instance, with regard to theperception of specific attributes of food products. In some cases,participants had to evaluate a dimension of a food product thatis difficult to evaluate, for instance, calories. In such cases, halo ef-fects are more common. ‘‘Natural’’ or ‘‘organic’’ labels on foods canaffect consumer perception of product quality, evaluation of aproduct as being more healthy, with lower risk for the organism,as well as a more positive attitude toward the product, or a stron-ger intention to buy (Abrams, Meyers, & Irani, 2010; Devcich,Pedersen, & Petrie, 2007; Dickson-Spillmann et al., 2011; Lockieet al., 2004; Magnusson, Arvola, Hursti, Åberg, & Sjödén, 2003; Ro-zin et al., 2004; Schifferstein & Ophuis, 1998). Also Roe, Levy, andDerby’s (1999) study showed that a health label (e.g., high in cal-cium for yogurt) led consumers to consider a product to be betterfor their health and, therefore, to be more inclined to buy it.Schuldt and Schwarz (2010) found that consumers presupposedthat an ‘organic’ cookie had fewer calories and that more of themcould be eaten than was the case with their ‘non-organic’ counter-part. Likewise, the study carried out by Lee et al. (2013) revealedthat participants estimated foods with organic labels to be lowerin calories than those without the organic label. In addition, foodswith the organic label yielded better nutritional evaluations (e.g.,lower in fat, higher in fiber) than foods without the organic label.

However, the perception of dimensions that should be rela-tively easy to evaluate (e.g., liking of a beverage) can also be influ-enced by information provided to the consumer. In Siegrist &Cousin’s (2009) wine tasting experiment, positive or negativeinformation about the wine affected the rating of the wine, albeitonly if the information was provided before the tasting task, notbetween the tasting and the evaluation. Findings suggest thatinformation about a product may shape consumers’ sensory expe-rience itself and not only overall assessment. Lee, Frederick, andAriely (2006) came to a similar conclusion in a beer tasting exper-iment. Related research by Cavanagh and Forestell (2013) showedthat individuals rated cookies with a healthful brand label as moresatisfying and as having a better taste and flavor. Similarly, in anearlier study conducted by Makens (1965), consumers, when con-fronted with two identical turkey samples, gave a higher taste rat-ing to the one that they had been informed belonged to a local,well-known brand name. Wansink, van Ittersum, and Painter(2005) showed that even food names can exert a halo effect onhow the flavor of food is perceived.

In the specific case of perfumes and fragrances, research on halorelated effects has been very scarce, however. Among the very fewstudies in this context, Distel et al. (1999) and Distel and Hudson(2001) confirmed an effect of the perfume’s name on olfactory per-ception in terms of pleasantness, and Raghubir (2010) showed thatsensory perception of a cosmetic product can be significantly dis-torted through stimuli that alter consumer expectations. In partic-ular, a possible halo effect of ‘‘natural ingredients’’ information onhedonic-sensory experiences of perfumes has not been studied inprevious research.

The aim of this study is to address this research gap, assessingwhether awareness that a perfume is made from natural ingredi-ents may influence the perception of its hedonic-sensory proper-ties. In line with the reviewed literature, a halo effect ofinformation regarding the natural origin of the perfume’s ingredi-ents is expected. It is hypothesized that exposure to such an infor-mational claim exercises a positive halo effect on the experienceand evaluation of the perfume, leading to a more favorable hedonicsensory experience. Recently, there has been growing scientificinterest in the measurement of hedonic-emotional experienceselicited by foods/beverages, as well as personal care products(Jaeger, Cardello, & Schutz, 2013). In addition, overall more

favorable perception may also increase the willingness to purchasethe perfume.

In some cases, previous research has also addressed the role ofmoderating variables involved in the kind of halo effects men-tioned above. Pro-environmentalism has been suggested as a mod-erator of halo effects related to organic food perception. Findingshave been rather ambiguous, however. While Schuldt and Schwarz(2010) found that at high levels of pro-environmentalism an or-ganic claim biases caloric judgments downward, in Lee, Shimizu,Kniffin, and Wansink’s (2013) study participants who deemedthemselves to engage in environmentally friendly activities moreoften, were less susceptible to this kind of halo effect. Thus, a sec-ondary aim of the present study is to assess the potential interac-tion of pro-environmentalism with the hypothesized halo effect ofnatural ingredients claims.

Method

Participants and design

The experimental study exposed 112 (59 female, 53 male)undergraduate university students to a between-groups experi-mental design. The participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 47 yearsold (M = 22.45, SD = 4.35). Three individuals originated from sub-Saharan Africa, and the remaining participants were Caucasian.Individuals were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In bothgroups, each participant sensed three different fragrances onimpregnated perfume test strips. After exposure to each fragrance,participants completed a questionnaire assessing different hedonicproperties of the perfume, as well as overall evaluation and inten-tion to purchase the perfume. The order of exposure to the fra-grances was counterbalanced to avoid sequence effects. Theexperiment was carried out with three different fragrances to as-sess whether observed experimental effects were robust across dif-ferent fragrance types. The three different scents correspondedwith the most common fragrance categories: floral, citrus andwoody (Donna, 2009; Veramendi, Herencia, & Ares, 2013; Worch,Le, & Punter, 2010). All three perfumes were of 100% natural ingre-dients made from essential oils.

In the experimental condition, before and during the perfumetests, a slide was projected to a central screen showing one singleline of text in green font color on a white background: ‘‘Perfumesmade of 100% natural ingredients’’. No brand name was shown.In addition, the experimenter stated before the test that the partic-ipants would test perfumes of 100% natural ingredients. In the con-trol group, participants were not exposed to any slide and noinformation on ingredients was provided. The study complies withthe ethical guidelines of the hosting university and receivedinstitutional approval.

Measurement

Development of measurement scales was based on the litera-ture in order to ensure content validity. For the measurement ofhedonic-sensory experience of the perfume, a multi item scalewas developed, based on items previously used to assess hedo-nic-emotional and sensory perception of food products and fra-grances (Churchill & Behan, 2010; Ferdenzi et al., 2013; Jaegeret al., 2013; King & Meiselman, 2010; Porcherot et al., 2010; SilvaCortez-Pereira, Rolim Baby, Kaneko, & Robles Velasco, 2009). To as-sess manipulation effects, participants first rated the extent towhich the fragrance had a ‘‘natural scent’’. The remaining itemswere pleasant, agreeable, gratifying, attractive, sensual, comfortable,enjoyable, harmonious, healthy, and relaxing. Response categoriesranged from 1 = not at all, to 10 = very much. The dimensionality

V. Apaolaza et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 81–86 83

of the scale was analyzed with principal component factor analysisconducted on all items with exception of the manipulation checkvariable. One single factor was extracted with eigenvalue 8.5,85% of explained variance, and factor loadings ranging from .87to .95. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .98, indicating high scalereliability. A single index for hedonic-sensory properties of the per-fumes was created by averaging the item scores.

Acceptance of the fragrance was measured by means of asemantic differential scale, with scores ranging from 1 to 10, usingthe pair of bipolar items ‘‘I didn’t like it at all’’ and ‘‘I liked it a lot’’.The scale was based on established scales such as the LabeledAffective Magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking(Schutz & Cardello, 2001) and the 9-point hedonic scale (Peryam &Pilgrim, 1957; see Jaeger & Cardello, 2009, for a comparison of he-donic scaling methods).

Willingness to buy the perfume was also measured via a seman-tic differential scale, with scores ranging from 1 to 10, using thepair of bipolar items ‘‘I would very likely not buy it’’ and ‘‘I wouldvery likely buy it’’ (Miniard, Bhatla, & Rose, 1990).

Pro-environmentalism was measured with a four item scaledeveloped by Lee et al. (2013), which was conceptually adaptedfrom Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, and Jones (2000). Participants wereasked to report whether they liked to recycle, recycle whenever theycan, enjoy going on nature hikes or leisurely walks, and enjoy spend-ing time in nature on a 10 point scale ranging from 1 = strongly dis-agree to 10 = strongly agree. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .78,indicating adequate scale reliability. A single index for pro-envi-ronmentalism was composed by averaging the scores of the fouritems. The mean value of the composed pro-environmentalismscore was 7.13 reflecting an overall significant pro-environmentalorientation of the sample. To examine possible interaction effectsof the pro-environmentalism variable with the experimental fac-tor, following Lee et al. (2013), participants were divided intotwo groups with high versus low pro-environmentalism based onthe median of ratings. Remarkably, the median of pro-environmen-talism (Median = 7.25) matched the median value of environmen-talism obtained in Lee et al.’s study, albeit on a scale ranging from 1to 10, whereas Lee et al.’s scale ranged from 1 to 9.

Results

As hypothesized, a series of ANOVA analysis of between-groupdifferences of mean values confirmed significant main effects ofthe participant’s exposure to the natural ingredients claim on allindependent variables (Table 1 and Figs. 1–4). Mean value differ-ences between the group exposed to the natural ingredients claimand the control group were robust across all three different fra-grances. Ratings of all dependent variables and across all fragrancetypes were significantly higher in the experimental group exposedto the natural claim (p < .001). Participants in the group exposed tothe claim rated the perfumes overall significantly higher with regardto the naturalness of the scent (M = 6.0, SD = 2.06 vs. M = 4.4,SD = 2.3; F(1,334) = 47.29; p < .001), confirming a successful manip-ulation with the natural ingredients claim. The hedonic-sensoryproperties of the perfumes were also perceived as significantly morefavorable than by the control group (M = 5.5, SD = 1.8 vs. M = 3.8,SD = 2.0; F(1,334) = 69.18; p < .001). Furthermore, the overall accep-tance of the perfumes was higher in the experimental group (M = 5.4,SD = 2.0 vs. M = 3.7, SD = 2.3; F(1,334) = 50.98; p < .001) and partic-ipants showed a higher intention to purchase the perfumes (M = 4.7,SD = 2.3 vs. M = 2.9, SD = 2.1; F(1,334) = 56.86; p < .001).

In addition, the analysis shows that in both groups ratings of thedifferent fragrances vary significantly for all independent variables(F(2,333) = 5.05 to 10.33; p = .007 to p < .001). The citric fragrancewas perceived as the most natural and evoked the most favorable

hedonic-sensory experience. It was also the most liked and re-ceived the highest purchase intention scores. Conversely, the woo-dy scent rated lowest in all dimensions.

A further ANOVA analysis assessing in-between group differ-ences of environmentalism confirmed the absence of significantdifferences between the experimental and control group. However,pro-environmentalism had a significant main effect on most inde-pendent variables. In both the experimental and the control group,participants with a high pro-environmental orientation rated theperfumes as more natural (M = 5.6, SD = 2.4 vs. M = 4.7, SD = 2.1;F(1,334) = 13.10; p < .001), more favorable on hedonic-sensorialproperties (M = 5.0, SD = 2.1 vs. M = 4.2, SD = 2.1; F(1,334) =11.10; p < .001), as well as in the dimensions liking (M = 4.9,SD = 2.4 vs. M = 4.2, SD = 2.2; F(1,334) = 8.77; p = .003) and pur-chase intention (M = 4.2, SD = 2.6 vs. M = 3.3, SD = 2.1;F(1,334) = 12.72; p < .001).

Contrary to expectations, mixed model between group andwithin group 2 (natural claim) � 3 (fragrance type) � 2 (pro-envi-ronmentalism) MANOVA analysis revealed the absence of interac-tions between the experimental factor ‘‘natural ingredients claim’’and the pro-environmental orientation of participants with regardto their effects on any of the dependent variables (F(1,323) = .14 to2.29; p = .70 to .13). The pro-environmentalism of participants didnot affect the experimental effect of the natural claim condition inany manner. There was also no interaction between either theeffects of the experimental natural ingredients claim and thefragrance type (F(2,323) = .70 to 1.55; p = .49 to .21), or pro-environmentalism and fragrance type (F(2,323) = .01 to .55;p = .99 to .56). A possible three-way interaction natural ingredientsclaim x environmentalism x fragrance type was disconfirmed as well(F(2,323) = .37 to 1.02; p = .69 to .36).

Since interaction effects were addressed in the previous analy-sis by dichotomizing the initially continuous variable pro-environ-mentalism and therefore reducing statistical power, an additionalmultiple linear regression analysis of the interaction ingredientsclaim x environmentalism was carried out with the original contin-uous pro-environmentalism measure and modeling the experi-mental effect of the natural ingredients claim with a binarydummy variable. This additional analysis confirmed findings ofthe previous ANOVA and MANOVA analyses. The main effects ofingredients claim and pro-environmentalism on dependent vari-ables naturalness (Beta = .37, p < .001; Beta = .28, p = .001), hedo-nic-sensory perception (Beta = .43, p < .001; Beta = .24, p = .004),acceptance (Beta = .38, p < .001; Beta = .19, p = .023) and purchaseintention (Beta = .40, p < .001; Beta = .18, p = .035) were significantto highly significant. The interaction between both independentvariables however did not significantly affect any of the dependentvariables (Beta = .02 to .06; p = .49 to .79).

Discussion

Summary of findings and implications

The aim of the present study was to assess a potential halo ef-fect of the claim that a perfume was made completely from naturalingredients on the perfume’s hedonic-sensory properties. While anumber of previous studies have analyzed halo effects of organiclabels or natural ingredients with regard to food products (e.g.,Abrams et al., 2010; Devcich et al., 2007; Dickson-Spillmannet al., 2011; Lee et al., 2006, 2013; Lockie et al., 2004; Magnussonet al., 2003; Rozin et al., 2004; Schifferstein & Ophuis, 1998; Sie-grist & Cousin’s, 2009), such effects have not previously been ad-dressed for perfumes.

Findings of this research confirmed the hypothesized halo ef-fect. Exposure to a natural ingredients claim significantly increased

Table 1Mean and standard deviation of dependent variables under exposure to natural ingredients claim and control condition with different fragrance types.

Dependent variable Experimental factor

Fragrance type Natural ingredients claim Df1 Df2 F-value

Natural Control

M SD M SD

Natural scent Floral 6.02 2.01 4.46 2.40 1 110 13.74**

Citric 6.25 1.82 5.00 2.00 1 110 11.96**

Woody 5.71 2.32 3.51 2.27 1 110 23.46**

Hedonic sensorial experience Floral 5.66 1.79 4.17 2.10 1 110 16.14**

Citric 5.88 1.76 4.30 1.94 1 110 20.42**

Woody 5.04 1.85 2.80 1.77 1 110 42.48**

Acceptance Floral 5.50 2.05 4.21 2.43 1 110 9.20*

Citric 5.96 1.94 4.20 2.31 1 110 19.30**

Woody 4.82 2.03 2.67 1.97 1 110 30.06**

Purchase intention Floral 4.63 2.34 3.20 2.35 1 110 10.37*

Citric 5.34 2.21 3.23 2.09 1 110 26.89**

Woody 4.11 2.19 2.15 1.79 1 110 26.06**

Notes: All items are measured on 10-point scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much).* p < .01.** p < .001.

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

Natural ingredients Control

Naturalness of scent

Floral

Citric

Woody

Fig. 1. Mean values of the perception of the scent as ‘‘natural’’ under exposure tonatural ingredients claim and control condition (different fragrance types).

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

Natural ingredients Control

Hedonic sensorial experience

Floral

Citric

Woody

Fig. 2. Mean values of ‘‘hedonic sensorial experience’’ under exposure to naturalingredients claim and control condition (different fragrance types).

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

Natural ingredients Control

Acceptance

Floral

Citric

Woody

Fig. 3. Mean values of ‘‘acceptance’’ under exposure to natural ingredients claimand control condition (different fragrance types).

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

Natural ingredients Control

Purchase inten�on

Floral

Citric

Woody

Fig. 4. Mean values of purchase intention under exposure to natural ingredientsclaim and control condition (different fragrance types).

84 V. Apaolaza et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 81–86

the perception that a perfume smelled naturally and improved he-donic sensory experience assessed by such items as pleasantness,attractiveness or joy, among others. In addition, acceptance ofthe perfumes and purchase intention were also significantly higherunder exposure to the experimental claim. Conducting the studywith three different fragrance types made it possible to test if re-sults would hold across different perfumes. While the three fra-grances were rated as significantly different in all studieddimensions, the experimental effect of the natural ingredients

claim was robust across all of them, regardless of whether thescent tested was floral, citrus or woody. In principle, findings arein line with previous food related research showing that sensoryperception and evaluation of product attributes can be manipu-lated by the information provided to consumers (e.g., Goerlitz &Delwiche, 2004; Lee et al., 2006, 2013; Porcherot et al., 2012;Siegrist & Cousin’s, 2009; Wansink et al., 2005).

A secondary aim of this research was to contribute to the debateon a possible moderating influence of pro-environmentalism on

V. Apaolaza et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 81–86 85

sensory related halo effects. While in Schuldt and Schwarz’s, 2010study, for instance, participants with high levels of pro-environ-mental orientation were more susceptible to an organic claim in-duced halo effect, in Lee, Shimizu, Kniffin, and Wansink’s, (2013)study they were less so. The present study sought to assess the po-tential interaction of pro-environmentalism with the hypothesizedhalo effect of natural ingredients claims. The results did not sup-port, however, any kind of interaction effect. Contrary to expecta-tions, the effects of the experimental factor ‘‘natural ingredientsclaim’’ did not interact with the pro-environmental orientation ofparticipants. Across all fragrance types, pro-environmentalismdid significantly affect perception of the perfumes in all dimen-sions, leading to a more favorable hedonic sensory experience,greater liking and a higher purchase intention. However, pro-envi-ronmentalism did not in any way increase or decrease the experi-mentally induced halo effect of the natural ingredients claim.Furthermore, there was also no interaction between either the ef-fects of the experimental natural ingredients claim and the fra-grance type, or pro-environmentalism and fragrance type.

Overall, the current study supports the hypothesis that describ-ing a perfume as being made from natural ingredients exerts a haloeffect that influences consumers’ hedonic-sensory experiences, aswell as preference and behavior such as purchase intention. Per-sonal traits of the individual, which would potentially interact withthis halo effect, as suggested in the literature, could not be identi-fied in the present study.

The findings have significant implications for marketers of per-fume products. As can be observed in the marketplace, the use ofclaims such as ‘‘natural ingredients’’ or ‘‘natural origin’’ is increas-ingly popular. This research confirms the effectiveness of such anapproach. Fragrances marketed as natural will evoke a more favor-able hedonic-sensory experience in consumers and a higher pur-chase intention. Unfortunately, a number of perfumes are alsomarketed as ‘‘natural’’, even when they contain only traces of nat-ural ingredients such as essential oils, and most of the ingredientsare indeed synthetic. The described halo effect is to be expected inthose cases as well. Therefore, this study also has implications forconsumer policy. Perfumes used in this research were made from100% natural ingredients, but consumers will perceive a perfumelabeled as ‘‘natural’’ more favorably, even when the ingredientsare actually synthetic. Regulators should take this into accountwhen introducing legislation on the use of ‘‘natural’’ claims withperfumes.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Findings and conclusions should be taken with some caution,since this study has several limitations. The research setup as a lab-oratory experiment and the homogeneous student sample bothconstrained external validity. A wider and more diverse samplewould have strengthened findings. Furthermore, the study wasalso limited to only three different fragrance types, affecting gener-alizability of results.

An additional limitation of the experimental design derivesfrom the fact that the control group was not exposed to any infor-mational claim. Just providing additional information (regardlessof what informational content) could have changed participants’perceptions. A more balanced experimental design would have ex-posed individuals in the control group to some unrelated informa-tion. However, also providing the control group with some kind ofinformational claim constitutes an important challenge with re-gard to identifying neutral filler content which would not other-wise interfere with the experiment. Potentially, exposingparticipants to a totally unrelated message and subsequently ques-tioning about their perception of perfumes could lead to undesiredcognitive reactions regarding the coherence and consistency of the

study they were taking part in, and could even have led to greaterundesired effects (reactance) than the fact that the control groupwas not exposed to any information. Meanwhile, providing somekind of logically related information could have exerted a differentkind of halo effect in the control group. For instance, informationabout the origin of the perfume (e.g. ‘‘Made in France’’) could haveled either to an improved evaluation or to the contrary effect. Thesame applies to information regarding the fabrication process.Weighting these implications, we decided to conduct the experi-mental design without counter-balancing for information content.

Future research should replicate the study in a real life setupwith a representative population sample and a wider selection offragrances including, for instance, fruity, spicy and sweet odor cate-gories (see Veramendi et al., 2013). Instead of focusing exclusivelyon perfumes, hedonic sensory experiences of other personal careproducts should also be addressed. A further important aim for fu-ture studies would be to extend this line of research to possiblehalo effects of ‘‘organic’’ claims. Halo effects of organic claims havebeen proved in previous research for food products (e.g., Lee et al.,2013), but have not been addressed for perfumes or other personalcare products. This could produce significant new insights sinceconsumers seem not to differentiate well between ‘‘naturalingredients’’ and ‘‘organic’’ claims, likely a consequence of the lackof unification and clear regulation of such claims and labels(Yamamoto, 2008). Finally, studies should be carried out to identifythe circumstances under which the interaction of the observedhalo effects with personal traits such as pro-environmentalismmay occur as has been suggested in the literature for the case offood products (Lee et al., 2013; Schuldt and Schwarz, 2010). Be-sides pro-environmentalism, the role of other potential moderatorssuch as health orientation should also be addressed.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers fortheir constructive comments and suggestions, which contributedsignificantly to the final version of this paper. This research wassupported by research Grants EHU10/13, GIU11/17, SAIOTEK S-PE10UN29, ECO 2010–20792, GIC 10/54-IT 473-10, and FESIDEFoundation.

References

Abrams, K. M., Meyers, C. A., & Irani, T. A. (2010). Naturally confused: Consumers’perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products. Agriculture and HumanValues, 27, 365–374.

Álvarez de la Gala, R. (2013). Naturales y Orgánicos: El sector de mayor crecimientode la industria cosmética (Naturals and Organics: The fastest growing sector inthe cosmetics industry). Acofar, 525(July/August). Retrieved 29 September 2013from: <http://www.revistaacofar.com/revista/secciones/fitoterapia/1684-es-el-sector-de-mayor-crecimiento-de-la-industria-cosmetica.html>.

Beharrell, B., & Denison, T. J. (1995). Involvement in a routine food shoppingcontext. British Food Journal, 97(4), 24–29.

Branen, A. L., Davidson, P. M., Salminen, S., & Thorngate, J. H. III, (2002). Foodadditives (2nd ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker Inc..

Cavanagh, K. V., & Forestell, C. A. (2013). The effect of brand names on flavorperception and consumption in restrained and unrestrained eaters. Food Qualityand Preference, 28, 505–509.

Churchill, A., & Behan, J. (2010). Comparison of methods used to study consumeremotions associated with fragrance. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 1108–1113.

Devcich, D. A., Pedersen, I. K., & Petrie, K. J. (2007). You eat what you are: Modernhealth worries and the acceptance of natural and synthetic additives infunctional foods. Appetite, 48, 333–337.

Dickson-Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M., & Keller, C. (2011). Attitudes toward chemicalsare associated with preference for natural food. Food Quality and Preference, 22,149–156.

Distel, H., & Hudson, R. (2001). Judgment of odor intensity is influenced by subject’sknowledge of the odor source. Chemical Senses, 26, 247–251.

Distel, H., Ayabe-Kanamura, S., Martínez-Gómez, M., Schicker, I., Kobayakawa, T.,Saito, T., et al. (1999). Perception of everyday odors – Correlation betweenintensity, familiarity and strength of hedonic judgment. Chemical Senses, 24,191–199.

86 V. Apaolaza et al. / Food Quality and Preference 36 (2014) 81–86

Donna, L. (2009). Fragrance perception: Is everything relative? Perfumer & Flavorist,34, 26–35.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends inmeasuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the newecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3),425–442.

Ferdenzi, C., Delplanque, S., Barbosa, P., Court, K., Guinard, J. X., Guo, T., et al. (2013).Affective semantic space of scents. Toward a universal scale to measure self-reported odor-related feelings. Food Quality and Preference, 30, 128–138.

Goerlitz, C., & Delwiche, J. (2004). Impact of label information on consumerassessment of soy enhanced tomato juice. Journal of Food Science, 69, 376–379.

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emergingconcepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.

Jaeger, S. R., & Cardello, A. V. (2009). Direct and indirect hedonic scaling methods: Acomparison of the labelled affective magnitude (LAM) scale and best-worstscaling. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 249–258.

Jaeger, S. R., Cardello, A. V., & Schutz, H. G. (2013). Emotion questionnaires: Aconsumer-centric perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 30, 229–241.

King, S., & Meiselman, H. L. (2010). Development of a method to measure consumeremotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 168–177.

Kniffin, K. M., & Wilson, D. S. (2004). The effect of nonphysical traits on theperception of physical attractiveness: Three naturalistic studies. Evolution andHuman Behavior, 25, 88–101.

Kraus, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1992). Intuitive toxicology – Expert and layjudgments of chemical risks. Risk Analysis, 12, 215–232.

Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles.Journal of Marketing Research, 22(February), 41–53.

Lee, L., Frederick, S., & Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you’ll like it. Psychological Science, 17,1054–1058.

Lee, W. J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. M., & Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see:Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29, 33–39.

Lockie, S., Lyons, K., Lawrence, G., & Grice, J. (2004). Choosing organics: A pathanalysis of factors underlying the selection of organic food among Australianconsumers. Appetite, 43, 135–146.

MacGregor, D. G., Slovic, P., & Malmfors, T. (1999). How exposed is exposed enough?– Lay inferences about chemical exposure. Risk Analysis, 19, 649–659.

Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U. K. K., Åberg, L., & Sjödén, P. O. (2003). Choiceof organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and toenvironmentally friendly behavior. Appetite, 40(2), 109–117.

Makens, J. (1965). Effect of brand preference upon consumers’ perceived taste ofturkey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 261–263.

Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., & Rose, R. L. (1990). On the formation and relationship ofad and brand attitudes: An experimental and causal analysis. Journal ofMarketing Research, 27(August), 290–303.

Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring foodpreferences. Food Technology, 11, 9–14.

Porcherot, C., Delplanque, S., Planchais, A., Gaudreau, N., Accolla, R., & Cayeux, I.(2012). Influence of food odorant names on the verbal measurement ofemotions. Food Quality and Preference, 23, 125–133.

Porcherot, C., Delplanque, S., Raviot-Derrien, S., Le Calvé, B., Chrea, C., Gaudreau, N.,et al. (2010). How do you feel when you smell this? Optimization of a verbalmeasurement of odor-elicited emotions. Food Quality and Preference, 21,938–947.

Raghubir, P. (2010). Visual perception. In A. Krishna (Ed.), Sensory marketing:Research on the sensuality of products (pp. 201–215). New York, NY: Taylor &Francis Group.

Roe, B., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The impact of health claims on consumersearch and product evaluation outcomes: Results from FDA experimental data.Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 89–105.

Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of ‘‘natural’’: Process more important than content.Psychological Science, 16, 652–658.

Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., et al. (2004).Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and thecontrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43, 147–154.

Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Ophuis, P. A. M. O. (1998). Health-related determinants oforganic food consumption in the Netherlands. Food Quality and Preference, 9,119–133.

Schuldt, J. P., & Schwarz, N. (2010). The ‘organic’ path to obesity? Organic claimsinfluence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment andDecision Making, 5(3), 144–150.

Schutz, H. G., & Cardello, A. V. (2001). A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale forassessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16(2), 117–159.

Siegrist, M., & Cousin, M.-E. (2009). Expectations influence sensory experience in awine tasting. Appetite, 52, 762–765.

Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratorystudy on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal,106(8), 607–628.

Silva Cortez-Pereira, C., Rolim Baby, A., Kaneko, T. M., & Robles Velasco, V. (2009).Sensory approach to measure fragrance intensity on the skin. Journal of SensoryStudies, 24, 871–901.

Veramendi, M., Herencia, P., & Ares, G. (2013). Perfume odor categorization: Towhat extent trained assessors and consumers agree? Journal of Sensory Studies,28, 76–89.

Wansink, B., van Ittersum, K., & Painter, J. E. (2005). How descriptive food namesbias sensory perceptions in restaurants. Food Quality and Preference, 16,393–400.

Worch, T., Le, S., & Punter, P. (2010). How reliable are the consumers? Comparisonof sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference, 21,309–318.

Yamamoto, S. (2008). The roots of natural cosmetics and its modern interpretation.SOFW Journal, 134(8), 8–12.