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 13, 2017

Refining the Method

01/13/2017

With 14 days of school left (how did that happen?!), we have been working on refining our methods sections and preparing to dive into research.

I am actually beginning to conduct my consumer tests tomorrow, and (fingers crossed that I am not proven wrong) I feel confident that I have a solid procedure for administering my blind consumption test and exit survey and sufficient understanding of the validity precautions I need to carry out.

However, my first shot at writing the methodology section of my paper turned out pretty weak, mostly due to poor organization, lack of justification, and ineffective presentation of complicated information.

At the beginning of my methods section, instead of diving directly into what I did, I need to articulate my research question and explain how a blind consumption test paired with an exit survey best provides the information necessary to answer it. As of right now, the explanation for why the method works is just thrown in at the end of the paper, leaving the reader confused while sifting through the procedure.  

Next, I will explain why I chose lip gloss and the specific shades I did. Instead of addressing personal practical concerns for choosing lipgloss (i.e. the economical nature), I will cite why lipgloss is useful for my research (e.g. easy and quick for participants to apply, one shade works on many skin tones, its short-lasting nature (hence, its quality is not determined based on how long it lasts so much as its appearance and feel (shine, non-stickiness, etc.) meaning that participants can judge it in a short amount of time).

In explaining gathering my participants, I will point to why my sample was worthwhile for my research, for, as of right now, I mainly just focus on the sample's limitations.

My procedure needs a lot more justification, especially in terms of the exit survey and the value of using vignette and Likert scale questions to judge participant emotional responses to natural products. I also need to find a source that backs up shine, taste, texture, and color quality as key factors in assessing the quality of lip gloss so that I can justify using those categories to measure participant liking of the lip glosses in the blind consumption test. Also, when explaining the -2 to +2 scale for the questions, I should present the information in a set of tables, as opposed to using a long, drawn-out explanation within the body of the paper.

Overall, while I have a clear outlook for actually conducting my research and the method itself seems strong, I need to put a lot of work into justifying and explaining my work within the written methods section of my paper. Through some reorganization and using more sources, I think that I will be able to complete this task without too many issues.

(472)
Posted by at

3 comments:

  1. mrslyndsayhaagJanuary 17, 2017 at 10:43 AM

    Audrey, I'm happy to hear all of the reflection that you've done as a result of our critique last week. I know it was tough being the first one to go, but I think we made some significant progress in terms og getting your methods section to where it needs to be. I agree with you that the organization and the justifications serve as the two biggest weaknesses, but I feel really confident in what we worked out during the in-class critique, and I know you'll be able to execute a revised methods section flawlessly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJanuary 17, 2017 at 9:20 PM

    Audrey! It sounds like you gathered a lot from our critique in class which is great! I agree with you that some parts of your methods section seemed to be overwhelming because of all the scales, stats, etc. However using a table should do the trick since those are generally easier to read and understand.

    Your question, furthermore, should be addressed a little more often in your methods (make sure to keep asking yourself how anything you do answers your question). I also agree that starting with your question would be a good move since it serves as a nice transition from your literature review into your methods while providing a nice framework.

    Finally, while it might seem annoying to do this all the time, I do think that looking for all the decisions that you made and justifying them is well worth the time and word count. Doing this will ensure that your reader isn't left wondering if you truly took the best course of action or not. For example, like you said, you should justify your scales and also justify why you need to use deception (should only be a sentence or two).

    While there are a few things that still need to be worked out, I do think that you're easily on your way to acing the methods section.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Catherine O'NeillJanuary 18, 2017 at 7:15 AM

    Audrey, I think you covered pretty much all we went over in class and putting all of these changes into your methods section will make it solid. I think in addition to the justification of the vignette and Likert scale, you need to further elaborate on what they exactly are and how you plan to use them, which could be done easily in a footnote if you are running out of words. I think one thing you forgot in here is word count. Your methods section is a bit lengthy. Is there anyway for you to cut it down because you use 2,600 words in your lit review and 1,500 words in the methods section, leaving only around 900 words for your results and discussion section? Other than that I think you are a good track, but word count is going to become an issue for you in the future.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)