4. Difusión y comunicación pública de la ciencia
4.2. Publicaciones científicas y fomento editorial
The following sections demonstrate the ability of the generated 12 Spanish emotion categories to generate a discriminating emotion space between the subset of 10 samples. Furthermore, the ability of reduced lexicon to reveal differences in emotional response between genders and age groups in Spain is also investigated.
5.3.1 Emotion space
PCA enabled the visualisation of the emotional space for the samples tested.
The first two principal components accounted for 95.34% of the data variance (Figure 5.1a). PC1 (72.65%) was highly positively correlated with the emotion categories Disgust, Disillusionment and Disappointment and negatively correlated with Pleasure, Classic, Fun, Desire, Nostalgia and Excitement.
Liking and familiarity were supplementary variables in the PCA and were highly negatively correlated with PC1. Mildness and Indifference were positively correlated with PC2 (22.69%) whilst Intensity was negatively correlated. This emotional space was consistent with circumplex models of emotion (see section 1.1.2). That is to say, PC1 was associated with pleasure/pleasantness and PC2 was related to arousal/engagement/activation.
Figure 5.1a Loading of the 12 Spanish emotion categories on the first two principal components (liking and familiarity are included as supplementary variables).
When plotting the sample positions in the Spanish emotional space (Figure 5.1b), it was observed that the Non-alcohol control and High alcohol samples were projected highly positively onto PC1, with the Hoppy sample also loading somewhat on this dimension. Therefore, these samples were associated with unpleasant emotions. In contrast, the Control was highly negatively correlated with PC1, with the Low CO2 and Light struck samples also projected somewhat in this direction. As such, these samples were associated with pleasant emotions. Both the Control and the High alcohol samples were projected negatively onto PC2, showing an association with
Mildness Indifference
Pleasure Classic
Desire Fun Disgust
Intensity Nostalgia
Excitement Liking
Familiarity
-1 0 1
-1 0 1
PC2 (22.69%)
PC1 (72.65%)
Disillusionment Disappointment
Figure 5.1b Projections of the 10 samples onto the first two principal components (Spanish data).
more arousing/engaging/activating emotions. The Hoppy and Sweet (and to a lesser extent Bitter, DMS, and Isoamyl acetate) samples were highly positively correlated with PC2 and hence less engaging emotions.
5.3.2 Discrimination ability of emotion categories between samples
ANOVA showed that all 12 emotion categories (and liking and familiarity) significantly discriminated between the beer samples (Table 5.4).
Consequently, post hoc analyses were carried out for all emotion categories (and liking and familiarity) in order to identify which samples were rated significantly differently from one another (Table 5.5). Comparisons between the post hoc groupings for each emotion category highlighted patterns of
pter 5: Cross-cultural comparison of emotional response using reduced emotion lexicons
162
interactions between sample*gender and sample*age group for each Spanish emotion category (and liking and familiarity).
Emboldened p-values represent statistical significance (p < 0.05)
pter 5: Cross-cultural comparison of emotional response using reduced emotion lexicons
163 ABCDEFLetters within the same column indicate post hoc groupings by Tukey’s HSD.
Different letters represent significant differences (p < 0.05) in rating between samples
categories and samples loaded onto the two dimensions identified by the PCA.
The emotional space therefore offered a useful guide for comparing and contrasting the discrimination ability of individual emotion categories.
The three emotion categories identified as unpleasant by their positive loading on PC1 (Disappointment, Disgust, and Disillusionment; Figure 5.1a) were very similar in their sample groupings (Table 5.5). The Non-alcohol control and High alcohol samples were found to be rated significantly higher for these attributes than most other samples, but were not significantly different to one other, reflecting their relative positioning on PC1 of the PCA product plot (Figure 5.1b). The Hoppy sample loaded in the same direction on PC1 as the Non-alcohol control and High alcohol samples although not as highly and hence was not regarded as so unpleasant. Nevertheless, significant differences were found between the Hoppy sample and the samples identified as most pleasant by the PCA (Figure 5.1b), with the Control and Light struck samples rated significantly lower in unpleasant emotions than the Hoppy sample. In addition, the Hoppy sample was rated significantly higher in Disillusionment than the Low CO2 sample (negatively correlated with PC1). For all three unpleasant emotion categories, the Isoamyl acetate sample (relatively neutral on PC1) was rated significantly higher than the Control (highly negatively correlated with PC1), whilst just Disappointment and Disillusionment revealed that the Control sample received significantly lower ratings than the Bitter and Sweet samples (both neutral on PC1). Disillusionment also revealed that DMS (relatively neutral on PC1) was rated as significantly more disillusioning than the Control. The Low CO2 and Light struck samples were located in the same
quadrant of the PCA as the Control and were the only samples found to not significantly differ to the Control for all three unpleasant emotion categories.
A number of emotion categories loaded highly negatively on PC1 (Pleasure, Fun, Desire, Excitement, Classic, and Nostalgia; Figure 5.1a) and these pleasant emotion categories grouped samples similarly when considering post hoc tests (Table 5.5), as did liking and familiarity which were also negatively correlated with PC1 as supplementary variables. As with the unpleasant emotion categories, none of the pleasant emotion categories differentiated between Non-alcohol control and High alcohol samples and nor did liking or familiarity. The Control was rated significantly higher for Pleasure, Fun, Desire, Classic and Excitement (and liking and familiarity) than all other samples except Light struck and Low CO2 (and also Bitter for Classic). This was evident in the PCA (Figure 5.1b) where only Light struck and Low CO2
samples were located in the same quadrant as the Control. Other smaller differences between samples were also shown by Pleasure, Fun, Desire, Classic, and Excitement. For example, there were no significant differences in Fun between the High alcohol and Bitter samples, whereas there were in Pleasure, Desire, Classic, and Excitement (and liking and familiarity). Desire did not discriminate between High alcohol and Isoamyl acetate samples, whereas the other three emotion categories (and liking and familiarity) did.
Nostalgia was markedly less discriminating than the other five pleasant emotion categories, with no significant effect of manipulating the Control sample’s sensory properties. However, consumers did discriminate between samples in Nostalgia that were particularly opposed on PC1 (e.g. the High alcohol sample was rated significantly lower for Nostalgia than the Control,
Light struck and Low CO2 samples). Liking was unable to discriminate beyond the pleasant emotion categories, although familiarity did show significant differences that were not found by the pleasant emotion categories (e.g. the Bitter and Sweet samples were significantly different in familiarity).
Thus, whilst familiarity was associated with the emotional pleasantness of the sample, a difference in familiarity did not necessarily mean there would be a difference in emotional response in the context of the Spanish reduced product-specific consumer-led emotion lexicon.
The low activation/engagement/arousal emotion categories associated with PC2 (Figure 5.1a), Mildness and Indifference, were rated significantly higher compared to the Control in Sweet, DMS, Hoppy, and Bitter samples (and also Isoamyl acetate in Indifference; Table 5.5). These samples can be seen to load positively (low activation/engagement/arousal) on PC2 and oppose the highly negatively loading (high activation/engagement/arousal) Control sample (Figure 5.1b). Intensity showed an inverse correlation with Mildness and Indifference as would be expected because it loads in the opposite direction on PC2 (high activation/engagement/arousal; Figure 5.1a). Therefore, Sweet, DMS, Hoppy, Bitter, and Isoamyl acetate samples were rated significantly lower than Control for Intensity. Discriminating more than the low activation/engagement/arousal emotions, Intensity also showed that the Low CO2 received significantly lower ratings than the Control. In addition, Intensity was able to discriminate between the Non-alcohol control and High alcohol samples, with an increase in the sensory properties associated with alcohol content leading to a significant increase in ratings of Intensity. This is
reflected on PC2 (Figure 5.1b) where the High alcohol sample was projected more negatively than the Non-alcohol control.
Drawing together results from across emotion categories, the Spanish reduced product-specific consumer-led emotion lexicon revealed an individual emotional profile for almost all samples. The Control sample (Figure 5.2a) scored very low in unpleasant emotions (Disgust, Disillusionment, Disappointment) and relatively high in a number of pleasant emotions (e.g.
Fun, Excitement). However, exaggerating other sensory properties, for example hoppiness, was shown to generally increase ratings of negative emotion categories and decrease ratings of positive emotion categories (Figure 5.2a). Only the Light struck sample was shown to have no significant emotional effects as compared to the Control (Figure 5.2a) although the samples were sensorially different. Many more differences were apparent between individual modified samples (see the example of the comparison between the Light struck and Hoppy samples in Figure 5.2a). In a couple of further instances, only Intensity was able to discriminate between samples. For example, the Non-alcohol control and High alcohol samples were not rated significantly differently for 11 emotion categories but were significantly different in Intensity (Figure 5.2b).
Figure 5.2a Spider plot showing mean scores of all 12 Spanish emotion categories for Control, Hoppy, and Light struck samples. As per post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests (p < 0.05), * denotes a significant difference between the Control and Hoppy samples, and † denotes a significant difference between the Hoppy and Light struck samples (there were no significant differences between the Control and Light struck samples).
20 30 40 50 60 70
Mildness *
Indifference *
Pleasure *†
Classic *†
Fun *†
Desire *†
Disgust *†
Disillusionment
*†
Disappointment
* Intensity *†
Nostalgia
Excitement *†
Control Hoppy Light struck
Figure 5.2b Spider plot showing mean scores of all 12 Spanish emotion categories for Non-alcohol control and High alcohol samples. As per post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests (p < 0.05), * denotes a significant difference between Non-alcohol control and High Non-alcohol samples, † denotes a significant difference ratings between High alcohol and Control samples, and ‡ denotes a significant difference between Non-alcohol control and Control samples.
5.3.3 Consumer group effects
The next section further explores the effectiveness of the reduced consumer-led emotion lexicon by showing how it was able to reveal differences in emotional response across Spanish consumer segments, namely between genders and between age groups.
5.3.3.1 Gender
A significant main effect of gender (p < 0.05) was found for the emotion categories Classic, Desire, Disappointment, Indifference, Intensity, Mildness, and Nostalgia, as well as familiarity (Table 5.4). In all except Intensity, Spanish women gave significantly lower ratings than Spanish men. Despite the numerous
20
differences in overall ratings between genders of emotion categories, such differences were not apparent in liking.
Furthermore, there were significant interactions (p < 0.05) between sample and gender for the emotion categories Disgust (Figure 5.3a) and Pleasure (Figure 5.3b). The key gender differences were driven by the responses to the Non-alcohol control and High Non-alcohol samples. Although generally similar sample ratings were obtained for Pleasure, further analyses showed that the Non-alcohol control and High alcohol samples were rated significantly lower in Pleasure by women than men. Disgust was also scored similarly between genders for most samples, except for the High alcohol sample which females rated significantly higher in this emotion than males.
Figure 5.3a Mean ratings (and SEM) of Disgust for each sample by gender. As per post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests, * denotes a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the rating of Disgust between males and females (Spanish data).
Figure 5.3b Mean ratings (and SEM) of Pleasure for each sample by gender. As per post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests, * denotes a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the rating of Pleasure between males and females (Spanish data).
20 30 40 50 60 70
Control Hoppy Light struck Isoamyl acetate DMS Bitter Sweet Low CO2 Non-alcohol control * High alcohol
Disgust mean score
Male Female
20 30 40 50 60 70
Control Hoppy Light struck Isoamyl acetate DMS Bitter Sweet Low CO2 * Non-alcohol control * High alcohol
Pleasure mean score
Male Female Low CO2Low CO2
5.3.3.2 Age group
Significant main effects (p < 0.05) of age group were found for the emotion categories Desire, Disappointment, Disgust, Disillusionment, Excitement, Fun, Indifference, Intensity, Mildness, and Pleasure, as well as liking and familiarity (Table 5.4). On the whole, the 35+ age group scored the unpleasant and low engagement emotion categories (Disappointment, Disgust, Disillusionment, Indifference, Mildness) higher than the 18-34 group. Conversely, ratings for pleasant and high engagement emotion categories (Desire, Excitement, Pleasure, Intensity) as well as liking and familiarity were higher amongst the younger age group.
Significant interactions (p < 0.05) were found between sample and age group for the emotion categories Classic (Figure 5.4a), Disappointment (Figure 5.4b) and Nostalgia (Figure 5.4c), as well as liking and familiarity. Further analyses showed that the Non-alcohol control and High alcohol samples received significantly higher ratings of Classic from the 35+ than the 18-34 age group. In contrast, the Bitter sample was rated significantly higher in Classic by 18-34 year old consumers. The 35+ age group assigned higher ratings of Disappointment to the Control, Bitter, Sweet, and Low CO2 samples. These same four samples were also rated significantly lower by the older age group in liking and familiarity. For Nostalgia, the High alcohol sample which was rated significantly higher by the 35+ year old consumers and the Light struck sample which was rated significantly more nostalgic by the 18-34 year old consumers.
Figure 5.4a Mean ratings (and SEM) of Classic for each sample by age group. As per post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests, * denotes a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the rating of Classic between age groups (Spanish data).
Figure 5.4b Mean ratings (and SEM) of Disappointment for each sample by age group. As per post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests, * denotes a significant difference (p <
0.05) in the rating of Disappointment between age groups (Spanish data).
10 20 30 40 50 60
Control Hoppy Light struck Isoamyl acetate DMS * Bitter Sweet Low CO2 * Non-alcohol control * High alcohol
Classic mean score
18-34 35+
20 30 40 50 60 70
* Control Hoppy Light struck Isoamyl acetate DMS * Bitter * Sweet * Low CO2 Non-alcohol control High alcohol
Disappointment mean score
18-34 35+
Low CO2* Low CO2
Figure 5.4c Mean ratings (and SEM) of Nostalgia for each sample by age group. As per post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests, * denotes a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the rating of Nostalgia between age groups (Spanish data).