Abstract

The market for natural makeup has been substantially increasing, primarily because many consumers believe that natural makeup is healthier and higher quality than unnatural makeup. However, perceived health hazards of unnatural makeup have been debunked, and, while there is no evidence disproving the perceived quality superiority of natural makeup, the manipulability of chemical ingredients suggests that unnatural makeup would be superior. Therefore, the question arises as to whether consumers choose natural makeup not because it is actually superior in quality, but because society has led them to believe it is healthier and more effective. A blind consumption test involving four popular brands of lip gloss - two natural and two unnatural - was conducted to determine whether consumers actually prefer their self-identified favorite makeup brands and how influence from the natural product movement affects how closely their self-identified preferences match their blind consumption preferences. Ultimately, it was found that consumers’ self-identified preferences rarely matched their preferences under blind consumption conditions, regardless of how influenced they were by the natural product movement. Thus, the results suggest that makeup consumers make decisions predominantly based on their emotional perceptions of certain brands, as opposed to actual sensed quality differences between makeup products; and, while the natural product movement may be one factor that affects consumers’ perceptions of makeup brands, it is by no means a sole or primary influence in forming consumer opinions.

Friday, January 27, 2017

Leaving the Nest (Part 1)

01/27/2017

With less than one week of school left, it is just starting to set in that I won't be attending school on a regular basis for 6-7 months. While I am definitely excited to leave, start my new Starbucks job, and preparing for college (big decisions ahead in these next few months!), I am also a little nervous about completing the rest of my research and writing the results and discussion sections with the only support being a weekly meeting with Ms. Haag.

In terms of the progress I have made in the past week, I have created a much nicer flow from my lit review to my methods section and cut down a lot of words. I have also integrated a lot more justifications supporting my blind consumption test scale and exit survey questions (vignette - thank you, Kristiana, for sharing your sources - and Likert scale-style). Overall, I am feeling a lot more confident about the lit review and methods section, and I think a little bit of editing, adding, and reorganizing truly went a long way.

I have scheduled another date - Saturday, February 4th from 10-2pm - for going in to Skin Apeel Beauty Bar and testing participants. While this is the only OFFICIAL date I have locked down, I also plan on going into Skin Apeel the following week during the times when I am not working and trying to get as many walk-ins as possible to participate in the test.

Additionally, in terms of statistically analyzing data, I met with Mr. Peacher and we came up with some good ideas. Before, I had two main problems - determining the "number of mismatches" (how "off" participant product rankings were between their blind consumption test and the exit survey) and determining how related these misconceptions were to the natural product movement's influence on participants.

Before, I was determining the number of mismatches simply by looking at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place slots and counting how many were "off" between the two ranking lists. Thus, it was only a number 0-4, and it did not take into account how far each product moved on the ranking list (for example, if someone ranked the 1st place product in her blind consumption test 2nd on the exit survey, it would be less of a misconception than if she had ranked it 4th on her exit survey, and my previous way of counting mismatches didn't take this into account). Mr. Peacher suggested that I add how far off the rankings were from each other to get the "mismatching" number. For example, if a participant's rankings for the blind consumption test were product 1, product 2, product 3, product 4, and for the exit survey was product 4, product 2, product 1, product 3, their mismatching score would be 3 (for the number of places product 4 moved) + 2 (number of places product 1 moved) + 1 (number of places product 3 moved) = 6.

To determine how correlated these mismatching values are with the natural product influence on participants, I will create a linear regression between participants' mismatching scores and the added number (-20 to 20) from the exit survey questions. Thus, I will be able to determine how related the participant product misconceptions were to their preference (or lack thereof) for natural products. If there is a strong correlation, then it is likely the natural product movement is a major reason consumers have misconceptions about their favorite makeup brands. However, if there is a weak correlation, then misconceptions are likely due to other/additional causes.

(598)


Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. mrslyndsayhaagJanuary 30, 2017 at 1:07 PM

    Audrey, all of that at the end SOUNDS great, but I'm not sure that I understood all of it. We'll need to come up with a clear way to articulate the logic behind what you're doing.

    Moreover, your audience is about to expand in terms of who's reading the blog, so be cognizant of not assuming too much knowledge on behalf of the reader.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJanuary 30, 2017 at 1:37 PM

    Hey Audrey!

    It sounds like you have made a lot of great progress. I started with a good understanding of what you were talking about with the mismatches, but I did get lost towards the end with the linear regression. So, you will definitely have to work on that explanation in your results section.

    Otherwise, great job staying on top of your schedule and conducting your research! I am so excited to hear more about your results.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownJanuary 31, 2017 at 12:08 AM

    Audrey! I'm very glad to hear that you have cleared up your literature review and gave it a better flow.

    As far as what you went over with Mr. Peacher, I definitely agree with Grace and Mrs. Haag in the sense that I kinda got lost too towards the end of your blog post. I know it might be hard to simplify it because a lot of those terms are from stats but it will be good practice for simplifying your paper just in case your AP grader isn't familiar with those terms. Also, your presentation will probably have to be simplified as well.

    But the rest of your research seems to be going very well. I hope you reach your targeted number of 50 participants this weekend!

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)