86 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS facturer was uncertain whether or not he should attempt to withdraw all of his product from the market. Only if the negative consumer reaction was general, did he wish to suffer the expense of recalling all of the merchandise. The obvious way to determine if a significant consumer segment finds the odor objectionable is to question directly in some such manner as this: "If you purchased this product (hand out a complaint sample) would you find the odor objectionable?" When this approach was tried on convenient "consumers" about 1 in 6 advanced mild objections. Does such a procedure give a true answer, or will there be many more complaints forthcoming? To recheck the findings, why not resort to a common psychological technique? It is known that in many instances a simple, indirect question is more effective in obtaining an individual's "real" reactions than is the direct avenue. Protective methods such as the ink-blot (Rorschach) and the tell-a-story-about-a-picture test are premised on this knowledge (4). The indirect approach was employed on a second group of consumers who were asked, "Please note the odor of this product. Do you believe your friends or acquaintances who might buy it would object to the odor of it?" When they "projected" themselves into the position of others, about 90 per cent objected. The reasoning of'thee'test •consumer is stated somewhat like this: "I myself am rather tolerant, but I am sure Mabel, John, and Harry would object strongly to this odor." As a consequence of the latter test the vendor quickly recalled all of the merchandise and, later, the pattern of store returns indicated that the indirect questioning more nearly evoked the truth than did the direct approach. REPRESENTATIVE QUESTIONS In other cases, typical of those referred to the Psychometric Laboratories of the United States Testing Company, the problems are not nearly so sim- ple and must be subjected to many different approaches. Such questions as the following require answering: "Is my product sufficiently uniform from lot to lot, and if not what specific quality is at variance ?" "Which of these three proposed package designs is most attractive, has most attention value, best legibility, and greatest apparent size ?" "Is my product perceived to be as permanent in its protective capac- ity as its two leading competitive brands ?" "Which of these five colors is most preferred when applied to the skin by the consumer herself?" "If I must sacrifice color, odor, or lasting quality in the present product change, which is least important ?" For the solution of each of these problems it is necessary first to obtain the test materials in the form in which they are used. We learned many years ago that the number of consumer respondents or panel members can

ANALYSIS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF COSMETICS 87 be reduced by use of the actual product under known controlled conditions. Since memory is imperfect, little precise knowledge is gained by asking consumers what they think of Blink Eye Shadow or Farley's Skin Balm. If precise control of respondents' environment is not provided, incidental distraction, misinterpretation of instructions, and other factors can destroy the sensitivity and significance of any study. Incidentally, we find in this same context that it is only wastefully wishful to expect Mr. or Mrs. Consumer to design or redesign your product. They are not sufficiently motivated, nor are they articulate or experienced enough to tell you what consistency a vanishing cream should have or what odor is ideal in a hand soap. Under the right conditions they can provide almost unlimited infor- mation about the present product, but rarely can they state what should be done to improve it. Before proceeding with other illustrations, perhaps we should define some of the terms we have used and will use. DEFINITIONS First, what is the difference between psychometrics and psychophysics, both of which have been referred to earlier? Psychophysics can be illus- trated by a test of the perceived length of three lines on a sheet of paper or of the perceived weight of three scraps of paper. In each instance, the psychological judgment can be checked with the aid of a simple physical measure of linear or weight dimensions such as a foot ruler or a balance. When it is not possible to apply a parallel physical scale, then the study be- comes clearly psychometric. For example, there is no physical measure of the beauty of a package, a lipstick, or a lady of the pleasantness of feel of a facial cream the pain from a razor blade the readability of a label. Then we must turn to Psychometrics. In certain cases, no physical meas- ure has yet been devised as in the case of odor, while in other examples physical measures are too insensitive to be of help, as with tactual qualities. NTUMBERS DON'T MAKE VALID MEASUP. EMENT We must remember too, that mere physical measures of the stimulus materials may be meaningless or misleading. For example, photometric readings of hair reflectance may disagree with perceived luster, or, similarly, rheological assays of a vanishing cream may bear no relation to the "greas- iness" or "fiufiSness" of the preparation. Some texts list more than a hundred variations of the comparatively small number of basic psycho- physical and psychometric methods (5). Most familiar methods include Limits, Equal Appearing Intervals, Constant Stimulus Dif}erences, Produc- tion, and Average Error, all of which are basic to psychophysics, while Paired Comparison, Rank Order, Triangle and Single Stimuli Tests are more common to psychometrics.