SELECTION OF FRAGRANCE FOR COSMETIC CREAM CONTAINING OLIVE OIL 169 aspects and cost factors, and may be related to the higher consumption frequency of face creams in this cluster. Cluster 2 used the term “disagreeable smell,” which was not used by Cluster 1, confi rming that dislike of a cream’s fragrance can strongly infl uence its acceptability (8). Signifi cant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found for 10 of the 30 CATA terms used by Cluster 1. The cream with fragrance E4, which had the highest overall liking score, was described mainly in terms of “nourishing,” “softening,” “fresh,” “for older women,” “daytime use,” Table V CATA Results for Cluster 1 Attribute Sample CE1 CE2 CE3 CE4 CE5 CE6 Nourishing* 13.6 22.7 31.8 54.5 40.9 31.8 Moisturizingns 18.2 27.3 31.8 45.5 22.7 36.4 Softening* 9.1 31.8 36.4 50.0 18.2 31.8 Energizingns 13.6 31.8 13.6 9.1 9.1 27.3 Beautifyingns 4.5 0.0 4.5 13.6 9.1 9.1 Anti-agingns 13.6 4.5 13.6 18.2 27.3 4.5 Anti- wrinklens 4.5 0.0 13.6 13.6 9.1 4.5 Fresh** 9.1 36.4 18.2 40.9 18.2 59.1 Healthyns 0.0 13.6 9.1 13.6 13.6 9.1 For young women* 18.2 22.7 9.1 27.3 18.2 50.0 For older women* 31.8 22.7 22.7 40.9 54.5 18.2 Daytime use* 13.6 50.0 27.3 40.9 27.3 54.5 Night time usens 31.8 13.6 22.7 18.2 18.2 27.3 Naturalns 13.6 9.1 27.3 40.9 27.3 31.8 Artifi cialns 22.7 22.7 18.2 4.5 18.2 18.2 Cheapns 31.8 22.7 27.3 18.2 36.4 18.2 Expensivens 4.5 0.0 13.6 18.2 9.1 13.6 Glamorousns 9.1 0.0 0.0 13.6 4.5 4.5 Delicious smell** 18.2 45.5 31.8 72.7 45.5 45.5 Strong smellns 18.2 31.8 27.3 9.1 27.3 45.5 Mild smell* 27.3 22.7 40.9 45.5 22.7 4.5 Popularns 13.6 22.7 13.6 9.1 31.8 22.7 Summer use** 18.2 18.2 18.2 22.7 18.2 59.1 Winter usens 18.2 4.5 18.2 27.3 22.7 13.6 Use on feetns 4.5 0.0 18.2 0.0 13.6 9.1 Use on handsns 18.2 27.3 31.8 27.3 40.9 18.2 Facial usens 13.6 13.6 9.1 40.9 22.7 18.2 Use on bodyns 36.4 45.5 36.4 63.6 40.9 68.2 Must-havens 0.0 13.6 13.6 9.1 0.0 4.5 For pampering oneself* 4.5 13.6 0.0 22.7 4.5 0.0 Frequency of mention by attribute and sample. Only terms used by more than 10% of respondents are shown. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ns: no signifi cant differences (p 0.05) according to Cochran’s Q test.

JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 170 Table VI CATA Results for Cluster 2 Attribute Sample CE1 CE2 CE3 CE4 CE5 CE6 Nourishingns 14.6 9.8 7.3 19.5 12.2 12.2 Moisturizingns 24.4 22.0 22.0 36.6 19.5 17.1 Softeningns 19.5 12.2 24.4 26.8 9.8 17.1 Energizingns 4.9 12.2 9.8 2.4 0.0 9.8 Anti-agingns 2.4 0.0 12.2 4.9 12.2 2.4 Anti-wrinklens 0.0 2.4 2.4 4.9 9.8 0.0 Freshns 14.6 14.6 29.3 22.0 7.3 19.5 For young womenns 14.6 9.8 14.6 17.1 2.4 19.5 For older women* 14.6 31.7 31.7 14.6 36.6 17.1 Daytime usens 24.4 31.7 12.2 22.0 12.2 24.4 Night time usens 12.2 4.9 17.1 17.1 14.6 14.6 Naturalns 17.1 4.9 17.1 22.0 9.8 12.2 Artifi cialns 22.0 39.0 29.3 14.6 34.1 39.0 Cheap* 24.4 36.6 22.0 24.4 46.3 46.3 Delicious smell* 19.5 7.3 26.8 31.7 7.3 19.5 Disagreeable smellns 14.6 29.3 17.1 14.6 34.1 26.8 Strong smell*** 17.1 48.8 17.1 12.2 41.5 51.2 Mild smell*** 53.7 9.8 43.9 41.5 14.6 14.6 Popular** 9.8 34.1 14.6 7.3 24.4 17.1 Summer use* 7.3 34.1 12.2 17.1 12.2 24.4 Use on feet* 2.4 19.5 14.6 2.4 17.1 17.1 Use on handsns 31.7 31.7 17.1 22.0 22.0 29.3 Facial use** 4.9 0.0 22.0 17.1 9.8 4.9 Use on bodyns 48.8 22.0 41.5 51.2 46.3 41.5 Frequency of mention by attribute and sample. Only terms used by more than 10% of respondents are shown. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001, ns: no signifi cant differences (p 0.05) according to Cochran’s Q test. “delicious smell,” “mild smell,” and “for pampering oneself.” Of the creams with the low- est overall liking scores, CE1 had a low frequency of mention among the CATA terms, while sample CE6 was described mainly in terms of “fresh,” “for young women,” “day- time use,” “delicious smell,” and “summer use.” Samples CE4 and CE5 were associated with “older women” by Cluster 1 respondents. Signifi cant differences (p ≤ 0.05) were found for 9 of the 24 CATA terms used by Cluster 2. As for Cluster 1, cream CE4 was described by Cluster 2 in terms of “delicious smell” and “mild smell,” yet its overall liking was rated below the minimum commercial poten- tial threshold. This may support the idea that Cluster 2 respondents did not regard the fragrance of the creams as an important sensory attribute in evaluating their overall liking. Cream CE5, which was assigned the lowest overall liking score by Cluster 2, was de- scribed by this group in terms of “for older women,” “cheap,” and with a “strong smell.” The high odor intensity of this cream, together with its perceived cheapness, may explain the low overall liking scores assigned to CE5.