Based on a database with actual purchases and a survey with 348 subjects, the link between personality and perfume choice is studied, using the ‘Big Five’ personality structure for the actual self as well as the ideal-self personality. Results of correspondence analyses and discriminant analyses show that only a weak relationship exists between perfume choice and the actual self, and that there appears to be no support for a relationship between the ideal self and perfume choice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AntonidesG. & van RaaijF.W. (1998) Consumer Behaviour. A European Perspective.Chichester: Wiley.
2.
BainH. (1997) Why people use perfumes. In: JellinekJ.S. (ed.) Paul Jellinek's: The Psychol ogical Basis of Perfumery (4th edn). London: Blackie Academic and Professional, pp. 232–239.
3.
CantorN. & MischelW. (1979) Prototypes in person perception. In: BerkowitzL. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol 12). New York: Academic Press.
4.
CostaP.T.Jr., & McCraeR.R. (1992) Four ways five factors are basic.Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 6, pp. 653–665.
5.
DamakL. (1996) Corps du consommateur et design du produit. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Dauphine, Paris.
6.
DanoF. (1996) Packaging: une approche semiotique.Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 11, 1, pp. 23–36.
7.
DigmanJ.M. (1990) Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model.Annual Review of Psychology, 41, pp. 417–40.
DittmarH.BeattieJ. & FrieseS. (1996) Objects, decision consideration and self-image in men's and women's impulse purchases.Acta Psychologica, 93, 1–3, pp. 187–206.
10.
DruschelB.A. & ShermanM.F. (1999) Disgust sensitivity as a function of the Big Five and gender.Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 4, pp. 739–748.
11.
ElliottR. (1994) Exploring the Symbolic Meaning of Brands.British Journal of Management, 5, pp. S13–S19.
12.
EvansF.B. (1959) Psychological objective factors in the prediction of brand choice: Ford versus Chevrolet.Journal of Business, 32, 4, pp. 340–369.
13.
EysenckH.J. (1992) The psychology of personality and aesthetics. In: Van TollerS. and DoddG.H. (eds) Fragrance: the Psychology and Biology of Perfume.London: Elsevier, pp. 7–26.
FiskeD.W. (1949) Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources.Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 44, pp. 329–344.
GowA.J.WhitemanM.C.PattieA. & DearyI.J. (2005) Goldberg's IPIP Big-Five factor makers: internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland.Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 2, pp. 317–329.
18.
GrahamJ.A. (1993) The psychology of fragrance. In: ButlerH. (ed.) Poucher's Perfumes, Cosmetics and Soaps (9th edn). London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 728–739.
19.
HeavenP.C.L. & BucciS. (2001) Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and personality: an analysis using the IPIP measure.European Journal of Personality, 15, 1, pp. 49–56.
20.
HerzR.S. (1996) A comparison of olfactory, visual and tactile cues for emotional and non-emotional associated memoires.Chemical Senses, 21, 5, pp. 614–615.
21.
HerzR.S. (1998) Are odours the best cues for memory? A cross-modal comparison of associative memory stimuli.Annual New York Academic Science, 855, pp. 670–674.
22.
HoughL.M. (1992) The ‘Big Five’ personality variables – construct confusion: description versus prediction.Human Performance, 5, 1–2, 139–155.
23.
HurtonA. (1991) Erotiek van het parfum, hemelse geuren en verleden, een cultuurgeschiedenis [Eroticism of perfume, heavenly odours and past, a culture history].Antwerpen: Standaard Uitgeverij (in Dutch).
24.
JacksonD.N.AshtonM.C. & TomesJ.L. (1996) The six-factor model of personality structure.Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 1, pp. 33–45.
25.
JellinekP. (1997) Odor effects diagram and personal perfume type. In: JellinekJ.S. (ed.), Paul Jellinek's: The Psychological Basis of Perfumery (4th edn). London: Blackie Academic and Professional, pp. 114–125.
26.
JohnsonJ.A. (2005) Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from web-based personality inventories.Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 1, pp. 103–129.
27.
KassarjianH.H. (1971) Personality and consumer behaviour: a review.Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 4 (November), pp. 409–418.
28.
MensingJ. & BeckC. (1984) Fragrance from the psychological side. The end of myth? In: MtillerJ. (ed.) The H&R Book for Perfume, Understanding Fragrance. Origin, History, Development, Meaning.London: Johnson, pp. 127–152.
29.
MensingJ. & BeckC. (1988) The psychology of fragrance selection. In: Van TollerS. & DoddG.H. (eds) Perfumery: The Psychology and Biology of Fragrance.Chapman and Hall: London, pp. 185–204.
30.
MickD.G.BurroughsJ.E.HetzelP. & BrannenM.Y. (2004) Pursuing the meaning in the commercial world: an international review of marketing and consumer research founded on semiotics.Semiotica, 152, 1/4, pp. 1–74.
31.
MilinskiM. & WedekindC. (2001) Evidence for MHC-correlated perfume preferences in humans.Behavioural Ecology, 12, 2, pp. 140–149.
32.
NormanW.T. (1963) Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 6, pp. 574–583.
33.
PatoutJ. (2003) Pied de nez.Avignon: Presses du Soleil.
34.
PauseB.M.FerstlR. & Fehm-WolsdorfG. (1998) Personality and olfactory sensitivity.Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 4, pp. 510–518.
35.
PiedmontR.L. & CiarrocchiJ.W. (1999) The utility of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory in an outpatient, drug rehabilitation context.Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13, 3, pp. 213–226.
36.
RetiveauA.N. (2004) Individual differences and the perception of complex scents. Abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
SchmittB.H. & SchultzC.J.II (1995) Situational effects on brand preferences for image products.Psychology & Marketing, 12, 5, pp. 433–446.
40.
TorresA. & van de VeldenM. (2007) Perceptual mapping of multiple variable batteries by plotting supplementary variables in correspondence analysis of rating data.Food Quality and Preference, 18, 1, pp. 121–129.
41.
TuckerW.T. & PainterJ.J. (1961) Personality and product use.Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 5, pp. 325–329.
42.
TupesE.C. & ChristalR.E. (1961) Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (ASD-TR-61-97).Lackland Ar Force Base, TX: Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory.
43.
Van TollerS.HotsonS. & Kendal-ReedM. (1992) The brain and the sense of smell: can we begin to make sense of cortical information after an odour has been received? In: Van TollerS. & DoddG.H. (eds) Fragrance: The Psychology and Biology of Perfume.London: Elsevier Applied Science, pp. 195–219.
WilliamsA.A.WhittlestoneD.J. & MartinD.C. (1992) The role of fragrances in product development: turning images into fragrances.Marketing and Research Today, 20, 2, pp. 95–106.
46.
WilsonG.D.KumariV.GrayJ.A. & CorrP.J. (2000) The role of neuroticism in startle reactions to fearful and disgusting stimuli.Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 6, pp. 1077–1082.
47.
ZuckermanM. (2004) The shaping of personality: genes, environments and chance encounters.Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 1, pp. 11–22.
48.
ZuckermanM.KuhlmanD.M.JoiremanJ.TetaP. & KraftM. (1993) A comparison of three structural models for personality: the big three, the big five, and the alternative five.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 4, pp. 757–768.
