Transitivity of odor preferences: constant and particularities in hedonic perception.

Gérard Brand, Virginie Haaz, Laurence Jacquot
Author Information
  1. Gérard Brand: Centre des Sciences du Gout et de L'alimentation (CSGA), Dijon, France. gerard.brand@univ-fcomte.fr

Abstract

Transitivity of preferences has been investigated for a long time in decision-making. In the field of perception, the pleasantness of odors raises several questions related to individual versus cultural or universal preferences and the existence of a classification in a delimited hedonic space. The aim of this study was to test transitivity in olfactory hedonicity using a first panel of 10 mixed odors and a second panel of 10 odors from a delimited floral category. Data were collected by paired comparisons in a two-alternative forced choice. Results in both panels showed a strong transitivity for each participant leading to a linear range of 10 odors classified by preference. However, ranges varied from one participant to another and the mean preferences of the group did not allow one to infer individual's hedonic classification of odors. Moreover, the individual classification appeared stable over time and undisturbed by odorant distractors. These findings suggest that humans have considerable ability to classify odors hedonically as a model of individual preferences in a sensory space usually considered to be more involved in affective/emotional states than in cognitive performances.

Keywords

References

  1. Rhinology. 2009 Jun;47(2):160-5 [PMID: 19593973]
  2. Perception. 1978;7(4):459-65 [PMID: 704276]
  3. J Neurosci. 2007 Sep 12;27(37):10015-23 [PMID: 17855616]
  4. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Apr 15;6(4):e1000740 [PMID: 20418961]
  5. Psychol Rev. 2011 Jan;118(1):42-56 [PMID: 21244185]
  6. PLoS One. 2010 Nov 08;5(11):e13878 [PMID: 21079734]
  7. Chem Senses. 1999 Apr;24(2):191-9 [PMID: 10321820]
  8. Chem Senses. 2007 Oct;32(8):775-82 [PMID: 17634389]
  9. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30(7):908-17 [PMID: 16545453]
  10. Psychol Sci. 2010 Apr;21(4):489-93 [PMID: 20424088]
  11. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1964 Jul 30;116:457-76 [PMID: 14220538]
  12. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1974 Sep 27;237(0):164-83 [PMID: 4529466]
  13. Brain Res. 2004 Mar 26;1002(1-2):51-4 [PMID: 14988033]
  14. Chem Senses. 2005 May;30(4):345-51 [PMID: 15788711]
  15. Q J Exp Psychol B. 2001 Aug;54(3):259-70 [PMID: 11547515]
  16. Chem Senses. 2008 Jun;33(5):469-79 [PMID: 18403383]
  17. Q Rev Biol. 1979 Mar;54(1):1-29 [PMID: 379894]
  18. Vision Res. 2007 May;47(10):1362-7 [PMID: 17397896]
  19. Front Psychol. 2010 Dec 13;1:148 [PMID: 21833217]
  20. Appetite. 2006 May;46(3):304-8 [PMID: 16580090]
  21. Perception. 2009;38(2):292-309 [PMID: 19400437]
  22. Neurosci Lett. 2002 Feb 22;319(3):162-6 [PMID: 11834318]
  23. J Exp Psychol. 1971 Oct;90(2):275-9 [PMID: 5134332]
  24. Science. 1974 Jul 12;185(4146):112-7 [PMID: 4834219]
  25. Chem Senses. 2005 Jan;30(1):37-49 [PMID: 15647463]

MeSH Term

Adult
Choice Behavior
Female
Humans
Male
Odorants
Olfactory Perception
Time Factors
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0odorspreferencesperceptionindividualclassificationhedonictransitivity10Transitivitytimedelimitedspacehedonicitypanelparticipantonehumansodorinvestigatedlongdecision-makingfieldpleasantnessraisesseveralquestionsrelatedversusculturaluniversalexistenceaimstudytestolfactoryusingfirstmixedsecondfloralcategoryDatacollectedpairedcomparisonstwo-alternativeforcedchoiceResultspanelsshowedstrongleadinglinearrangeclassifiedpreferenceHoweverrangesvariedanothermeangroupallowinferindividual'sMoreoverappearedstableundisturbedodorantdistractorsfindingssuggestconsiderableabilityclassifyhedonicallymodelsensoryusuallyconsideredinvolvedaffective/emotionalstatescognitiveperformancespreferences:constantparticularities

Similar Articles

Cited By