How Differences in Ratings of Odors and Odor Labels Are Associated with Identification Mechanisms

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Standard

How Differences in Ratings of Odors and Odor Labels Are Associated with Identification Mechanisms. / Kaeppler, Kathrin.
In: Chemosensory Perception, Vol. 12, No. 1, 15.04.2019, p. 18-31.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{eeef06f0d15c43ddaca32cb8ae585c81,
title = "How Differences in Ratings of Odors and Odor Labels Are Associated with Identification Mechanisms",
abstract = "Introduction: Odor perception is biased by verbal–semantic processes when cues on an odor{\textquoteright}s source are readily available from the context. At the same time, olfaction has been characterized as basically sensation driven when this information is absent. In the present study, we examined whether language effects occur when verbal cues are absent and how expectations about an odor{\textquoteright}s identity shape odor evaluations. Methods: A total of 56 subjects were asked to rate 20 unlabeled odor samples on perceptual dimensions as well as quality attributes and to eventually provide an odor source name. In a subsequent session, they performed the same rating tasks on a set of written odor labels that was compiled individually for each participant. It included both the 20 correct odor names (true labels) and in any case of incorrect odor naming in the first session, the self–generated labels (identified labels). Results: We compared odor ratings to ratings of both types of labels to test whether differences between odor and odor label evaluations were rooted in identification mechanisms. In cases of false identifications, we found higher consistencies between the evaluation of an odor and its identified label than between the description of an odor and its true (yet not associated) label. Conclusions: These results indicate that odor evaluations are strongly affected by the mental image of an odor rather than the actual sensory codes and that this mental image is built spontaneously. Our findings imply that odors and odor labels are evaluated similarly for identical objects and that the differences found in similar studies may have been rooted in different mental representations being evaluated. Implications: Odor sensations provoke odor naming without explicit demand. These self–generated hypotheses about an odor{\textquoteright}s source exert a considerable semantic impact on odor perceptual processing, regardless of their accuracy.",
keywords = "Language, Odor evaluation, Odor identification, Olfaction, Perceptual processing, Semantic processing, Business psychology",
author = "Kathrin Kaeppler",
year = "2019",
month = apr,
day = "15",
doi = "10.1007/s12078-018-9247-9",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "18--31",
journal = "Chemosensory Perception",
issn = "1936-5802",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - How Differences in Ratings of Odors and Odor Labels Are Associated with Identification Mechanisms

AU - Kaeppler, Kathrin

PY - 2019/4/15

Y1 - 2019/4/15

N2 - Introduction: Odor perception is biased by verbal–semantic processes when cues on an odor’s source are readily available from the context. At the same time, olfaction has been characterized as basically sensation driven when this information is absent. In the present study, we examined whether language effects occur when verbal cues are absent and how expectations about an odor’s identity shape odor evaluations. Methods: A total of 56 subjects were asked to rate 20 unlabeled odor samples on perceptual dimensions as well as quality attributes and to eventually provide an odor source name. In a subsequent session, they performed the same rating tasks on a set of written odor labels that was compiled individually for each participant. It included both the 20 correct odor names (true labels) and in any case of incorrect odor naming in the first session, the self–generated labels (identified labels). Results: We compared odor ratings to ratings of both types of labels to test whether differences between odor and odor label evaluations were rooted in identification mechanisms. In cases of false identifications, we found higher consistencies between the evaluation of an odor and its identified label than between the description of an odor and its true (yet not associated) label. Conclusions: These results indicate that odor evaluations are strongly affected by the mental image of an odor rather than the actual sensory codes and that this mental image is built spontaneously. Our findings imply that odors and odor labels are evaluated similarly for identical objects and that the differences found in similar studies may have been rooted in different mental representations being evaluated. Implications: Odor sensations provoke odor naming without explicit demand. These self–generated hypotheses about an odor’s source exert a considerable semantic impact on odor perceptual processing, regardless of their accuracy.

AB - Introduction: Odor perception is biased by verbal–semantic processes when cues on an odor’s source are readily available from the context. At the same time, olfaction has been characterized as basically sensation driven when this information is absent. In the present study, we examined whether language effects occur when verbal cues are absent and how expectations about an odor’s identity shape odor evaluations. Methods: A total of 56 subjects were asked to rate 20 unlabeled odor samples on perceptual dimensions as well as quality attributes and to eventually provide an odor source name. In a subsequent session, they performed the same rating tasks on a set of written odor labels that was compiled individually for each participant. It included both the 20 correct odor names (true labels) and in any case of incorrect odor naming in the first session, the self–generated labels (identified labels). Results: We compared odor ratings to ratings of both types of labels to test whether differences between odor and odor label evaluations were rooted in identification mechanisms. In cases of false identifications, we found higher consistencies between the evaluation of an odor and its identified label than between the description of an odor and its true (yet not associated) label. Conclusions: These results indicate that odor evaluations are strongly affected by the mental image of an odor rather than the actual sensory codes and that this mental image is built spontaneously. Our findings imply that odors and odor labels are evaluated similarly for identical objects and that the differences found in similar studies may have been rooted in different mental representations being evaluated. Implications: Odor sensations provoke odor naming without explicit demand. These self–generated hypotheses about an odor’s source exert a considerable semantic impact on odor perceptual processing, regardless of their accuracy.

KW - Language

KW - Odor evaluation

KW - Odor identification

KW - Olfaction

KW - Perceptual processing

KW - Semantic processing

KW - Business psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050686069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12078-018-9247-9

DO - 10.1007/s12078-018-9247-9

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85050686069

VL - 12

SP - 18

EP - 31

JO - Chemosensory Perception

JF - Chemosensory Perception

SN - 1936-5802

IS - 1

ER -

Recently viewed

Researchers

  1. Axel Piesker

Publications

  1. TANGO: A reliable, open-source, browser-based task to assess individual differences in gaze understanding in 3 to 5-year-old children and adults
  2. Group formation in computer-supported collaborative learning
  3. The Role of Network Size for the Robustness of Centrality Measures
  4. Analysis of brittle layer forming mechanism in Ti6Al4V sloping structures by SLM technology
  5. Framework, Drivers and Information Needs for Creating Business Cases for Sustainability
  6. Integrated curvature sensing of soft bending actuators using inertial measurement units
  7. From Adaptive to Specific
  8. Klimasimulation
  9. How does collaborative governance evolve?
  10. Why can't we view Europe from a chair?
  11. Digitized planning processes in the revitalization of buildings by an interdisciplinary project study empirical work with students in argentina
  12. The Welcomers
  13. Towards ‘New Memoir’
  14. Connected process design for hot working of a creep-resistant Mg–4Al–2Ba–2Ca alloy (ABaX422)
  15. The Age of Open Strategic Autonomy
  16. Modern Micropolitics of Antipopulism
  17. Automated text analyses of sustainability & integrated reporting.
  18. Tactical and strategic choices in business models
  19. Recognition of a WCAM Settlement in Germany
  20. The emergence of local open government
  21. Gemeinschaftsschule im ländlichen Raum
  22. Ammonia volatilization after application of biogas slurries in a coastal marsh region of Northern Germany
  23. Article 2 Non-Contractual Obligations
  24. Erscheinen und Verschwinden
  25. Kittler
  26. Kosmopolitische Solidarität
  27. SYMPOSIUM .7. CHANGES IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLING - INCOMPLETE MODERNIZATION AND CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY - FOREWORD
  28. Randkommentare
  29. Critical assessment of models for transport of engineered nanoparticles in saturated porous media
  30. Germanistik nach 1945: Ulrich Pretzel, Hans Pyritz
  31. JFK. Fostering historical learning and media literacy
  32. Research on teaching of linguistically and culturally diverse students in Germany
  33. Notting Hill Gate 3
  34. Schizophrenie