Projective mapping: variations and consequences

Research output: Contribution to conferencePosterResearch


Projective Mapping (Risvik, 1994) and its Napping (Pagès, 2003) variations have become increasingly popular in the sensory field for rapid collection of spontaneous product perceptions. It has been applied in variations which sometimes are caused by the purpose of the analysis and sometimes by the practical testing environment. As a result of the changes, a reasonable assumption would be to question the consequences caused by the variations in method procedures. Here, the aim is to highlight the proven or hypothetic consequences of variations of Projective Mapping.

Presented variations will include the applied framework, semantic restrictions, the choice of type of assessors and the validation of product separations. The applied framework concerns the response surface as presented to the assessor in different shapes, e.g. rectangular, square or round. Semantic restrictions are a part of the assessor instructions and influence heavily the product placements and the descriptive vocabulary (Dehlholm, 2012b). The type of assessors performing the method influences results with an extra aspect in Projective Mapping compared to more analytical tests, as the given spontaneous perceptions are much dependent on the assessor’s way of thinking. Furthermore, a suggestion for validating product separations is proposed for the case where Multiple Factor Analysis is chosen for data analysis (Dehlholm, Brockhoff & Bredie, 2012a).
Original languageEnglish
Publication date2012
Number of pages1
Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Research areas

  • Former LIFE faculty - Sensory analysis, Projective Mapping, Napping, Multiple Factor Analysis, Confidence Ellipses

Number of downloads are based on statistics from Google Scholar and

No data available

ID: 40244965