The Effect of Ambient Olfactory Stimuli on the Evaluation of a Common Consumer Product

No abstract could be found for this paper, so this page does not summarise it.

What our sources record

Reproduced as it was written when this source was checked, figures and all.

presented at the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Association for Chemoreception Sciences, relayed to marketers by Miller, C. (1991), 'Research Reveals How Marketers Can Win by a Nose', Marketing News, 25 (4 February), 1-2. Both references read off the reference list of Spangenberg, Crowley and Henderson 1996. IT WAS NEVER PEER-REVIEWED: a Crossref title and author search returned nothing, and every OpenAlex-indexed work by Alan R. Hirsch from 1988 to 1996 was retrieved, fourteen items, and the Nike study is not among them. AND THE RESULT WAS REPORTED NON-SIGNIFICANT, in the 1996 paper's own words: 'a highly publicized finding that Nike athletic shoes were evaluated more positively in a scented than in an unscented environment (Hirsch and Gay 1991; Miller 1991) is actually not statistically significant (Bone and Ellen 1994).' That critique is an unpublished working paper by Paula Fitzgerald Bone and Pam Scholder Ellen, West Virginia University; its published successor is Bone & Ellen (1999), Journal of Retailing 75(2), 243-262, confirmed at Crossref and NOT READ. WHERE EIGHTY-FOUR PER CENT FIRST APPEARS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED: every instance reached is a vendor page or a listicle, contradicting one another on the year, on what was measured and on the premium. NOT VERIFIED. NOT READ: Marketing News for 1991 and 1993, print only; the 1991 conference abstract; the Bone and Ellen working paper and its 1999 successor.