4.2 Article

CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR TACTILE SOFTNESS: A QUESTION OF AFFECT INTENSITY?

Journal

JOURNAL OF SENSORY STUDIES
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 232-246

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2012.00388.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies have shown that consumers with higher affect intensity expressed stronger preferences for softer car seat fabrics (Kergoat et al.). The present research aims to consolidate and expand these results. Across two studies, we attempt to determine whether the intensity of affect (as measured by the affect intensity measure; Larsen) is a more general construct involved in soft textile preferences. Through the evaluation of two product categories (car seat fabrics and washed-shirt fabrics) and the manipulation of product sensory attributes, we were able to establish that affect intensity components (positive intensity and negative reactivity) play a role in soft textile preferences, independent of the product category. The highest predictive value of particular affect intensity components for softness preference is discussed in line with the multidimensional approach of the affect intensity construct (Bryant et al.). PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS This research highlights the significance of one emotional individual difference dimension (affect intensity) accounting for consumer tactile sensory preferences. Practically, it offers a way to characterize clusters of heterogeneous tactile sensory preferences observed in consumer tests. Furthermore, it represents a step in the understanding of underlying processes involved in soft tactile sensory preferences. We can assume these implications are not limited to the sense of touch and/or non-food products. As a general emotional variable, the affect intensity construct must play a role in various blind sensory evaluation settings and be a significant tool for a typology of consumers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available