Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., Colwill, J., Rogers, R., & Lyon, D. H. (1994). Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference, 5(4), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(94)90051-5
Comments by Paula Varela (December 2025)
Background
In the early 1990s, sensory science was dominated by analytical methods requiring trained panels, such as Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) based or Spectrum methods. These methods, while rigorous, were time-consuming, costly, and often disconnected from real consumer perception. There was a growing need for consumer-friendly, intuitive methods that could bridge the gap between sensory profiling and consumer research.
Why important
This paper was the first to introduce Projective Mapping (PM) – aka perceptual mapping or Napping- as a rapid, alternative method for capturing how consumers perceive and describe sensory properties of food products. It marked a paradigm shift by:
- Proposing untrained consumers to participate in sensory profiling.
- Providing a holistic view of product space based on intuitive judgments.
Laying the groundwork for consumer-centric sensory description. Projective Mapping (PM) revolutionized sensory and consumer science by enabling rapid, intuitive, and consumer-driven profiling of products across diverse contexts and applications.
Design and results. Participants were asked to place food products on a two-dimensional surface based on perceived similarities and differences. The resulting spatial configurations were analyzed using multivariate techniques (e.g., Generalized Procrustes Analysis) to extract meaningful sensory dimensions. The study showed that:
- Consumers could reliably differentiate products.
- The method produced interpretable sensory maps.
- It was efficient and scalable, suitable for early-stage product development.
What followed
Risvik et al.’s method inspired a wave of methodological innovations, using consumers to describe sensory perception (e.g. CATA, Flash Profiling, Sorting, among others). A range of practical applications, in academic and industrial research, have followed the development of PM:
- Linking sensory and non-sensory aspects of food perception like information provision, healthiness, satiety, etc., and to link to preferences.
- Consumer segmentation and cross-cultural studies to explore perceptual differences across populations.
- Used with special populations like children and older consumers’ research, where verbal descriptors are limited or cognitive capabilities impaired, as it can be adapted.
- Sensory Lexicon Development: Generating consumer-driven vocabulary.
- Widely used at industrial level in product development, and market exploration, allowing for whole category studies. And exploration of drivers of liking/disliking.
- Adaptations and variations since have included: partial PM, sorted PM, Polarized PM, Choice-based or hedonic-based PM
- Combinations with other methods and measurements: flash and ultra-flash profiling (UFP), check-all-that-apply (CATA), trained panel data, hedonic scales, intensity scales, repertory grid, temporal methods, word association, and instrumental measurements.
References
Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., Colwill, J., Rogers, R., & Lyon, D. H. (1994). Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference, 5(4), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(94)90041-8
Varela, P., & Ares, G. (2012). Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International, 48(2), 893–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.06.037
Moss, R., & McSweeney, M. B. (2022). Projective mapping as a versatile sensory profiling tool: A review of recent studies on different food products. Journal of Sensory Studies, 37(3), e12743. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12743
Chollet, S., & Valentin, D. (2023). Perception and representation: Sorting task and projective mapping. In Consumer Research Methods in Food Science (pp. 123–142). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3000-6_7
Dehlholm, C., Brockhoff, P. B., Meinert, L., Aaby, K., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2012). Rapid descriptive sensory methods – comparisons of Free Multiple Sorting, Projective Mapping and Napping. Food Quality and Preference, 26(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012
Carrillo, E., Varela, P., & Fiszman, S. (2012). Effects of food package information and sensory characteristics on the perception of healthiness and the acceptability of enriched biscuits. Food Research International, 48(1), 209-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.03.016