Comparison of Age Determination by Three Evaluation Methods: Self-assessment, Expert Grader and Naïve Grader

Jun 1, 2013 | Contact Author | By: Rosanna Mootoo, Nima Gohil, Cristina Stroever and Christian Oresajo, L’Oréal USA Research & Innovation
Your message has been sent.
(click to close)
Contact the Author
Save
This item has been saved to your library.
View My Library
(click to close)
Save to My Library
Title: Comparison of Age Determination by Three Evaluation Methods: Self-assessment, Expert Grader and Naïve Grader
agex perceptionx identityx self-assessmentx expert and naïve graderx objectivityx emotionsx
  • Article
  • Media
  • Keywords/Abstract
  • Related Material

Keywords: age | perception | identity | self-assessment | expert and naïve grader | objectivity | emotions

Abstract: This exploratory study investigates how consumers perceive age, using objective and subjective approaches. Results of this study suggest that when a subjective approach is implemented for age determination, subjects affix their emotions to the evaluation. The reverse logic was applicable for the expert and naïve grader methods, as grader results appeared more neutral than the self-assessment.

View citation for this article

R Mootoo, N Gohil, C Stroever and C Oresajo,

Market Data

  • Peptides are spreading beyond their core facial care market; melanin-activating peptides (MAPs) are gaining momentum in self-tanning.
  • Self-tanning accounts for only 5% of the global sun care market.
  • Self-tanning is restricted to developed markets, with North America and Western Europe making up almost 80% of total sales.
view full article

Excerpt Only This is a shortened version or summary of the article you requested. To view the complete article, please log in or create an account. Registration is Free!

This exploratory study investigates how consumers perceive age using objective and subjective approaches. It was found that younger graders rated subjects younger than their actual age. Conversely, older graders perceived subjects to be slightly older than their actual age. Results of this study suggest that when a subjective approach is implemented for age determination, subjects affix their emotions to the evaluation. The reverse logic was applicable for the expert and naïve grader methods. They did not harbor personal stances as they were not evaluating themselves. Finally, expert and naïve grader results appeared more neutral than the self-assessment as both groups were not swayed by the implications of an anti-aging prototype, whereas subjects may have been influenced after continued use to perceive a younger skin appearance (as a direct result of its assumed efficacy).

Age and Identity

Age is astutely classified as both a physiological and psychological aspect of one’s total identity. Physiological age is chiefly defined as one’s physical condition as affected by genetics and environmental stresses. These factors are not readily controlled by the individual. Conversely, psychological age relates more to how old one feels; that is, psychological age is tied closely to one’s emotional state, which is inevitably prone to fluctuation.

Excerpt Only This is a shortened version or summary of the article you requested. To view the complete article, please log in or create an account. Registration is Free!

This content is adapted from an article in GCI Magazine. The original version can be found here.

 

Close

Table 1. Expert grader versus self-assessment results at specific time points

Table 1. Expert grader versus self-assessment results at specific time points

Average age scores are shown in Table 1.

Table 2. Naïve grader results with segmentation by age group

Table 2. Naïve grader results with segmentation by age group

However, the data negated these hypotheses. Table 2 shows that consumers in the first bracket (18–35 years) showed no drastic or harshly exaggerated age ratings versus the subjects’ actual age.

Table 3. Expert vs. naïve grader for “number of years older/younger” at Week 4 and Week 8

Table 3. Expert vs. naïve grader for  “number of years older/younger” at Week 4 and Week 8

Table 3 shows that naïve graders across all age brackets saw no visual difference at 8 weeks, versus a 4.5-year age difference (younger) perceived by subjects in the self-assessment study.

Figure 1. Photographs obtained with imaging equipment, as shown to expert and naïve graders; left, subject actual age = 67; right, subject actual age = 54; both taken after four weeks of product use

Figure 1. Photographs obtained with imaging equipment, as shown to expert and naïve graders; left, subject actual age = 67; right, subject actual age = 54; both taken after four weeks of product use

Non-facial regions were obscured as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 2. Expert vs. naïve grader (consumer) ratings for Week 4 photographs from self-assessment

Figure 2. Expert vs. naïve grader (consumer) ratings for Week 4 photographs from self-assessment

Examining Figure 2, one will see the variability between these groups regarding 4-week photographs.

Figure 3. Expert vs. naïve grader (consumer) ratings for Week 8 photographs from self-assessment

Figure 3. Expert vs. naïve grader (consumer) ratings for Week 8 photographs from self-assessment

Figure 3 again shows that expert grader ratings produced less variability than naïve consumer ratings.

Footnote (CT1306 Mootoo)

a The VISIA-CR from Canfield was used for this study.

Next image >

 
 

Close

It's Free...

Register or Log in to get full access to this content

Registration includes:

  • Access to all premium content
  • One click ingredient sample requests
  • Save articles in the My Library tool

Create an Account or Log In