What was the main hypothesis?

What was the IV, DV, and how was each operationally defined?

What research method was used (e..g, experiment, survey/correlational, quasi-experimental, case study, observation)?

Was it a between-participant or within-participant design?

Were there any issues related to internal validity? Were there any potential confounds?

Smells Like Clean Spirit Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Cognition and Behavior Rob W. Holland,1 Merel
Hendriks,1 and Henk Aarts2
1Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and 2Utrecht University, Utrecht, The
Netherlands
ABSTRACT—Three studies explored whether odor can
influencepeople’scognitionandbehaviorwithouttheirbeing consciously aware of the influence. In two
studies, we tested and confirmed that when participants were unobtrusively exposed to citrus-scented
all-purpose cleaner, the mental accessibility of the behavior concept of cleaning was enhanced, as was
indicated by faster identification of cleaning-related words in a lexical decision task and
higherfrequencyoflistingcleaning-relatedactivitieswhen describing expected behavior during the day.
Finally, a third study established that the mere exposure to the scent of all-purpose cleaner caused
participants to keep their direct environment more clean during an eating task. Awareness checks
showed that participants were unaware of this influence. The present studies reveal the nonconscious
influence that olfactory cues can have on thinking and doing.
Scents influence people’s thinking and doing. We all may have the experience of sniffing at a shirt before
deciding to wash it, taking in the odor of food to determine whether it is still edible, and perhaps
suddenly walking faster through a street when a garbage truck passes by. Scents are also expected to
modify consumer behavior. For example, aroma diffusers are installed in hotels, shopping malls, and
airports. Also, some neutral products are pleasantly scented before they are placed in the stores. Given
the potential impact of scents on thinking and doing, it is surprising that the relation between olfaction
and action has hitherto received only limited theoretical analysis and empirical attention. Whereas a
great deal of research has focused on the physiological features of odor perception (see,
e.g., Goldstein, 1999), the influence of scents on cognition and behavior has been largely neglected.
Some studies have reported effects of scent on approachavoidance tendencies. For example, research on
consumer behavior suggests that scents increase gambling in casinos (Hirsch, 1995), the time spent on a
decision task (Bone & Ellen, 1999; Mitchell, Kahn, & Knasko, 1995), and intentions to visit a store
(Spangenberg, Crowley, & Henderson, 1996). Moreover, some authors claim to have obtained effects of
pheromones on menstrual cycles (Russell, Switz, & Thompson, 1980; Weller & Weller, 1993) and even
human sexual behavior (Cutler, McCoy, & Friedmann, 1998; McCoy & Pitino, 2002). Such basic responses
are likely to emerge because of the direct link between the olfactory processing modules and parts of
the limbic system, which is known to be important for the regulation of affect and sexual activity.
However, the processing of odors does not stop at the limbic system. Associations may be formed
between odors and other sensory information (e.g., taste; see Stevenson, Boakes, & Prescott, 1998), as
well as semantic and episodic knowledge (Degel, Piper, & Ko ¨ster, 2001; Stevenson & Boakes, 2003). For
example, by means of co-occurrences, the smell of pine trees may be associated with Christmas, and the
scent of citrus may be associated with cleaning. When the odor is perceived, such a semantic association
may become activated. For instance, it has been shown that odors can cue memories of early childhood
(e.g., Chu & Downes, 2000). Yet semantic associations of scents may have consequences that go beyond
the sheer activation of associated memories. In the present research, we aimed to explore whether
semantic associations that are activated upon odor perception may shape overt behavior, even outside
conscious awareness. Our ideas are based on recent research concerning the direct link between social
perception and behavior (for overviews, see Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004). This research shows that the mere perception of social categories (e.g., persons, social stereotypes)
semantically activates associated traits or behavior representations that, in turn, can guide further
thinking and doing automatically in the situation at
Address correspondence to Rob Holland, Department of Social Psychology, Radboud University
Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands, e-mail: r.holland@psych.ru.nl, or to Henk
Aarts, Utrecht University, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 TC,
Utrecht, The Netherlands, e-mail: h.aarts@fss.uu.nl.
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Volume 16—Number 9 689 Copyright r 2005 American Psychological Society
hand.Forexample,inastudyoftheeffectsofstereotypepriming
onaction,Bargh,Chen,andBurrows(1996)primedparticipants with words that are stereotypical for the
social category ‘‘elderly’’ (e.g., Florida, grey, bingo) to enhance the accessibility of ‘‘being slow’’ and then
asked participants to walk down the hallway near the lab. Primed participants walked more slowly than
control participants. Participants had no clue whatsoever that their behavior was influenced by the
priming procedure. These results illustrate the ideo-motor principle—that the mere ideation about or
perception of behavior (e.g., being slow) is sufficient to increase the tendency to adjust ongoing
behaviors pertaining to the behavior concept (see also Carpenter, 1874; James, 1890). To extend
knowledge with regard to the processes underlying the influence of scent on behavior, we tested the
possibility that scentsinfluencebehavior,bythesamemechanismsasthosethat purportedly guide ideomotor action.Weused the scent of citrus that is typical for all-purpose cleaners. Obviously, this scent is
very often present when cleaning is taking place. Therefore, a strong semantic association between
typical cleaner scent and cleaning behavior will be established. The first two studies tested the initial
hypothesis that exposure to cleaner scent enhances the accessibility of the cleaning concept
automatically, so that such exposure would speed up participants’ responses to cleaning-related words
in a lexical decision task (Study 1) and guide their expectations of future home activities (Study 2).
Finally, in Study 3, we examined the effect of cleaner scent on actual cleaning-related behavior. We tried
to demonstrate that the influence of scent on cognition and behavior can occur without a person’s
conscious awareness of this influence. Following previous research on nonconscious influences on
human functioning (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000; Dijksterhuis, Aarts, & Smith, 2005; Shanks & St. John,
1994), we checked whether participants did become aware of the presence of the scent and, if they did,
whether they were aware of the influence of the scent on their thinking and doing.
STUDY 1
Method
Participants and Design Fifty Dutch undergraduates (10 males1) participated, receiving h1 in return.
Participants were randomly assigned to either a cleaner-scent or a control condition.
Procedure Participants conducted a lexical decision task in a cubicle. In the scent condition, the citrus
scent of all-purpose cleaner was diffusedinthecubiclebyputting45mlofall-purposecleanerin
abucketwith1.5Loflukewarmwater.Thebucketwashiddenin
the cubicle behind a cupboard and was not visible to participants. In the control condition, no scent was
diffused. In the lexical decision task, participants were asked to indicateasquicklyandaccuratelyaspossiblewhetheraletterstring appearing on a computer screen was an
existing word. Responses were made by pressing a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ key on the keyboard. Across the 40
trials, 20 nonwords and 20 real words were presented. Six of the real words were cleaning-related words
(e.g., poetsen, ‘‘cleaning’’; opruimen, ‘‘tidying up’’; hygie ¨ne, ‘‘hygiene’’). The other 14 real words were
not related to cleaning (e.g., fietsen, ‘‘bicycling’’; tafel, ‘‘table’’; computer, ‘‘computer’’) and served as
control words. Experimental and control words were matched on valence, as determined in a pilot study.
Immediately after the task, participants filled out a two-page questionnaire examining their awareness of
the scent and of the influence of the scent on their performance (cf. Bargh & Chartrand, 2000).
Specifically, the first page included items assessingparticipants’thoughtsregardingthepossiblepurposes
and hypothesis of the study. On the second page, we explicitly asked whether they had noticed a specific
scent in the cubicle, and, if so, what kind of scent they had noticed. Finally, participants were asked
whether they thought that this scent might have affected their performance on the lexical decision task,
and, if so, how this occurred. This funneled debriefing procedure indicated that none of the participants
were able to guess the hypothesis under investigation. Six participants were aware of the presence of
the scent; however, none of them thought that the scent had influenced their performance.
Results and Discussion Incorrect (‘‘no’’) responses to words were excluded from the analyses (3%), as
were responses more than 3 standard deviations from the mean (3%). These errors and slow responses
were evenly distributed across the two types of words and conditions. One participant was dropped
from analyses because of extremelyslowresponselatenciesingeneral(morethan3standard deviationsfrom
the mean for thesample). The response times on the six target trials were averaged, as were those on
the control trials. These mean response latencies were subjected to a 2 (scent:
cleanervs.none;betweenparticipants)2(wordtype:cleaning vs. control; within participants) analysis of
variance. This analysis revealed a main effect of word type, F(1, 47) 5 5.97, p 5 .02,Z2 5 .11. Participants
responded faster to cleaning-related words than to control words. The ScentWord Type interaction was
also significant, F(1, 47) 5 4.33, p 5 .04, Z2 5 .08. Excluding participants who were aware of the scent did
not change the pattern of results. The nature of the results is illustrated in Figure 1, which depicts the
means for participants who were not awareofthescent.Inlinewithourprediction,participantsinthe scent
condition responded faster to cleaning-related words than1 Across the three studies, no gender effects
were found.
690 Volume 16—Number 9
Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Behavior
did participants in the control condition. The means for the control words were similar across
experimental conditions. Furthermore,inthescentcondition,responsestocleaningwords were faster than
responses to control words, whereas such a difference between word types was not manifested in the
control condition. Thisfirststudyprovidesinitialsupportfortheideathatascent can facilitate access to
behavior concepts that are semantically associated with the scent without participants’ conscious
awarenessofthiseffect.Study2testedthepredictionthatscents may also guide action plans nonconsciously.
Specifically, assuming that the scent of all-purpose cleaner enhances the accessibility of the cleaning
concept, we explored whether this scent increases the likelihood that participants will use the behavior
concept of cleaning in describing their future home activities.

CourseLover

(12)

Status NEW Posted 02 Oct 2017 06:10 AM My Price 10.00

----------- He-----------llo----------- Si-----------r/M-----------ada-----------m -----------Tha-----------nk -----------You----------- fo-----------r u-----------sin-----------g o-----------ur -----------web-----------sit-----------e a-----------nd -----------acq-----------uis-----------iti-----------on -----------of -----------my -----------pos-----------ted----------- so-----------lut-----------ion-----------. P-----------lea-----------se -----------pin-----------g m-----------e o-----------n c-----------hat----------- I -----------am -----------onl-----------ine----------- or----------- in-----------box----------- me----------- a -----------mes-----------sag-----------e I----------- wi-----------ll

Not Rated(0)

• Buy Answer