Read the article titled: Smells like clean spirit: Nonconscious effects of scent

Read the article titled: Smells like clean spirit: Nonconscious effects of scent on cognition and behavior (Holland, Hendricks, & Aarts, 2005) and answer the following questions. This assignment is due by _______________. Each answer should be (at minimum) an undergraduate-level paragraph in length.
1) What are the design elements: (independent variable [IV], and dependent variable [DV]) and operational definitions for all three studies?
2) What are the potential confounding variables?
3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study designs?
4) In what situations might smell influence your behavior?
5) Could the activation of other senses (touch, taste, sound, sight) influence behavior and in what ways?
6) What other ways could one measure cleaning-related behaviors (observationally and nonobservationally)?
7) Evaluate each of the four validities that we covered in today’s lecture (Chapter 4) in terms of this article. How “valid” or strong are they?
Research Report
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 in- fluence people’s cognition and behavior without their being consciously aware of the influence. In two studies, we test- ed and confirmed that when participants were unobtru- sively 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 higher frequency of listing cleaning-related activities when 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 noncon- scious 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,
Address correspondence to Rob Holland, Department of Social Psy- chology, 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 Organi- zational Psychology, P.O. Box 80140, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Neth- erlands, e-mail: h.aarts@fss.uu.nl.
e.g., Goldstein, 1999), the influence of scents on cognition and behavior has been largely neglected.
Some studies have reported effects of scent on approach- avoidance 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 re- sponses 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, & Pres- cott, 1998), as well as semantic and episodic knowledge (Degel, Piper, & Ko ̈ster, 2001; Stevenson & Boakes, 2003). For exam- ple, by means of co-occurrences, the smell of pine trees may be associated with Christmas, and the scent of citrus may be as- sociated with cleaning. When the odor is perceived, such a se- mantic 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 ex- plore whether semantic associations that are activated upon odor perception may shape overt behavior, even outside con- scious 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 asso- ciated traits or behavior representations that, in turn, can guide further thinking and doing automatically in the situation at

Volume 16—Number 9 Copyright r 2005 American Psychological Society 689
Method
Participants and Design
STUDY 1
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 diffused in the cubicle by putting 45 ml of all-purpose cleaner in a bucket with 1.5 L of lukewarm water. The bucket was hidden in
1Across the three studies, no gender effects were found.
Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Behavior
hand. For example, in a study of the effects of stereotype priming on action, Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) primed participants with words that are stereotypical for the social category ‘‘eld- erly’’ (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 scents influence behavior, by the same mechanisms as those that purportedly guide ideo-motor action. We used 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 en- hances 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. Fol- lowing 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.
the cubicle behind a cupboard and was not visible to partici- pants. In the control condition, no scent was diffused.
In the lexical decision task, participants were asked to indi- cate as quickly and accurately as possible whether a letter string appearing on a computer screen was an existing word. Re- sponses 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’’; hy- gie ̈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 assessing participants’ thoughts regarding the possible purposes 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, partic- ipants 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 proce- dure 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 devia- tions 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 ex- tremely slow response latencies in general (more than 3 standard deviations from the mean for the sample). 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: cleaner vs. none; between participants) ? 2 (word type: cleaning vs. control; within participants) analysis of variance. This anal- ysis 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 Scent ? Word Type interaction was also significant, F(1, 47) 5 4.33, p 5 .04, Z2 5 .08. Ex- cluding 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 aware of the scent. In line with our prediction, participants in the scent condition responded faster to cleaning-related words than
690
Volume 16—Number 9
Fig. 1. Mean response latencies and standard deviations for cleaning-re- lated words and control words in the scent and control conditions, Study 1.
did participants in the control condition. The means for the control words were similar across experimental conditions. Furthermore, in the scent condition, responses to cleaning words were faster than responses to control words, whereas such a difference between word types was not manifested in the control condition.
This first study provides initial support for the idea that a scent can facilitate access to behavior concepts that are semantical- ly associated with the scent without participants’ conscious awareness of this effect. Study 2 tested the prediction that scents may also guide action plans nonconsciously. Specifically, as- suming that the scent of all-purpose cleaner enhances the ac- cessibility 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.
STUDY 3
Method
Participants and Design
STUDY 2
Twenty-two Dutch undergraduates (6 males), receiving h1 in return, were randomly assigned to the scent or control condition.
Procedure
Participants first filled out a filler questionnaire in a cubicle with or without the citrus scent. Subsequently, they moved to another nearby room (in which no scent was diffused). There they were seated at a table and instructed to eat a round biscuit that usually produces crumbs when one bites into it. A hidden video camera recorded the participants’ hand movements at the table while consuming the biscuit. The dependent measure was the extent to which participants kept their table clean. Accordingly, two independent judges who were blind to conditions and the hy- pothesis counted the number of times participants removed crumbs from the table during the task. The correlation between the scores of the two judges was 1.0. Previous research (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003) suggests that this behavior measure is well suited to assessing the nonconscious influences of scents on behavior, because participants’ attention is directed to eating, and not to cleaning.
Finally, participants followed the funneled debriefing proce- dure. One participant had noticed the scent. However, none of the participants were aware of the hypothesis. Also, none of the participants had conscious thoughts about cleaning during the eating task.
Results and Discussion
The measure of cleaning behavior was subjected to a t test. Participants removed the crumbs substantially more often in the scent condition (M 5 3.54) than in the control condition (M 5 1.09), t(20) 5 2.37, p 5 .02, Z2 5 .23, thus showing a direct link between scent perception and behavior. Excluding
Fifty-six Dutch undergraduates (19 males) participated in this study, receiving h1 in return. Participants were randomly as- signed to the scent or control condition.
Procedure
The scent manipulation was identical to that in Study 1. The study was presented as being aimed at learning more about students’ daily activities, and participants were asked to write down five activities that they were planning to do during the rest of the day. As in the previous study, the funneled debriefing indicated that none of the participants was aware of the scent or the hypothesis.
Volume 16—Number 9
691
Rob W. Holland, Merel
Hendriks, and Henk Aarts

Two independent judges blind to condition and the hypothesis scored whether or not a cleaning-related activity (e.g., cleaning, tidying up) was listed. The interjudge reliability was high (k 5 .95), and disagreements were solved through discussion.
Results and Discussion
Participants in the scent condition more frequently listed a cleaning activity (36%) than participants in the control condi- tion (11%), w2(55, N 5 56) 5 4.91, p 5 .04. These findings further support the idea that citrus scent enhanced the acces- sibility of the cleaning concept and, as a result, increased the probability of mentioning cleaning activities in plans for future action. Impressed by these findings, in the next study we aimed to test direct effects of citrus scent on overt cleaning-related behavior.
Method
Participants and Design
Nonconscious Effects of Scent on Behavior
the participant who was aware of the scent did not change the pattern of results.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present research explored the nonconscious influence of scents on thinking and doing. Results of Studies 1 and 2 showed that the mere presence of the scent of a typical all-purpose cleaner enhanced the accessibility of the behavior concept of cleaning. Study 3 established that exposure to the scent influ- enced actual performance of cleaning behavior. Furthermore, awareness checks showed that only a few participants were aware of the presence of the scent (although we attest to the difficulty of controlling the thresholds of conscious odor per- ception; Doty, 1991; Laing, 1982). It is important to note that in none of the studies were participants aware of the fact that their cognition and behavior were affected by the scent. Together, then, these observations provide compelling evidence that scent can have a nonconscious influence on thinking and doing.
The results of Study 2 suggest that the scent brought the cleaning concept into consciousness. This ‘‘entering of con- sciousness’’ effect may not be a direct cause of the exposure to the scent itself, but rather may have emerged because partici- pants relied on accessible information in order to list activities for future action. As the results of Study 1 demonstrated, the cleaning concept showed enhanced accessibility as a result of exposure to the scent. Such nonconscious influence of knowl- edge activation has been repeatedly observed in the research on social perception and judgment (e.g., Higgins, 1996). However, this should not be taken to mean that participants consciously decided to keep the table clean or were aware of cleaning the table when eating the biscuit in Study 3. More likely, the cleaning concept was applicable to the task at hand, and, hence, the enhanced accessibility of the behavior representation en- abled participants to directly guide and adjust their movements while eating the biscuit (see also Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003). Thus, nonconsciously activated information (e.g., the activation of the cleaning concept by exposure to citrus scent) can guide a person’s behavior without the need for that person to become aware of the source causing the behavior (e.g., Ferguson & Bargh, 2004; Strack & Deutsch, 2004). This is especially true when, as in our third study, the person is not cognizant of the behavior (e.g., see also Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002).
Hitherto, the rare psychological research on the link between odors and human behavior focused on affective mechanisms and studied mainly approach-avoidance behavior as a function of odor pleasantness. In contrast, we focused on a cognitive route by which scent influences behavior. The present research is the first to show that behavior is brought in line with semantic as- sociations that become activated upon the perception of a scent.
The primary aim of the present research was to advance un- derstanding with regard to the processes underlying effects of scent on behavior. However, this research also contributes to
the perception-behavior literature. Although a large number of studies have provided evidence for an automatic link between perception of the environment and behavior, these studies have focused almost exclusively on visual perception. We are the first to show that perception-behavior links also exist within the domain of olfactory perception. Furthermore, the ‘‘environment’’ is often operationalized in research as words that are flashed on a computer screen or used in a scrambled-sentence task. In a way, using scent as an environmental cue can be considered a more ecological test of the perception-behavior link. In our studies, individuals smelled their environment, and it smelled like clean spirit.
Acknowledgments—The work in this article was supported by grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Re- search (NWO; VENI Grant 451-04-063 and VIDI Grant 452-02- 047).
REFERENCES
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Envi- ronment, situational norm and social behavior. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 84, 18–28.
Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H.T. Reis & C.M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). The automaticity of social behaviour: Direct effects of trait concept and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230– 244.
Bone, P.F., & Ellen, P.S. (1999). Scents in the marketplace: Explaining a fraction of olfaction. Journal of Retailing, 75, 243–262.
Carpenter, W.B. (1874). Principles of mental physiology. New York: Appleton.
Chu, S., & Downes, J.J. (2000). Long live Proust: The odour-cued au- tobiographical memory bump. Cognition, 75, B41–B50.
Cutler, W.B., McCoy, N.L., & Friedmann, E. (1998). Pheromonal in- fluences on sociosexual behavior of men. Archives of Sexual Be- havior, 27, 1–13.
Degel, J., Piper, D., & Ko ̈ster, E.G. (2001). Implicit learning and im- plicit memory for odors: The influence of odor identification and retention time. Chemical Senses, 26, 267–280.
Dijksterhuis, A., Aarts, H., & Smith, P.K. (2005). The power of the subliminal: On subliminal persuasion and other potential appli- cations. In R. Hassin, J.S. Uleman, & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unin- tended thought 2: The new unconscious (pp. 77–106). New York: Oxford University Press.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J.A. (2001). The perception-behavior ex- pressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social be- havior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1–39.
Doty, R.L. (1991). Olfactory system. In T.V. Getchell, R.L. Doty, L.M. Bartoshuk, & G.B. Snow, Jr. (Eds.), Smell and taste in health and disease (pp. 449–462). New York: Raven.
Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S.L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 82, 62–68.
692
Volume 16—Number 9
Rob W. Holland, Merel Hendriks, and Henk Aarts
Ferguson, M.J., & Bargh, J.A. (2004). How social perception auto- matically can influence behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 33–39.
Goldstein, E.B. (1999). Sensation and perception (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Higgins, E.T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicabil- ity, and salience. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford Press.
Hirsch, A.R. (1995). Effects of ambient odors on slot-machine usage in a Las Vegas casino. Psychology and Marketing, 12, 585–594.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London: Macmillan. Laing, D.G. (1982). Characterisation of human behaviour during odour
perception. Perception, 11, 221–230.
McCoy, N.L., & Pitino, L. (2002). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual
behavior in young women. Physiology and Behavior, 75, 367–375. Mitchell, D.J., Kahn, B.E., & Knasko, S.C. (1995). There’s something in the air: Effects of congruent and incongruent ambient odor on consumer decision-making. Journal of Consumer Research, 22,
229–238.
Russell, M.J., Switz, G.M., & Thompson, K. (1980). Olfactory influ-
ences on the human menstrual cycle. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 13, 737–738.
Shanks, D.R., & St. John, M.F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367– 447.
Spangenberg, E., Crowley, A., & Henderson, P.W. (1996). Improving the store environment: The impact of ambient scent on evaluations of and behaviors in a store. Journal of Marketing, 60, 67–80.
Stevenson, R.J., & Boakes, R.A. (2003). A mnemonic theory of odor perception. Psychological Review, 110, 340–364.
Stevenson, R.J., Boakes, R.A., & Prescott, J. (1998). Changes in odor sweetness resulting from implicit learning of a simultaneous odor- sweetness association: An example of learned synesthesia. Learn- ing and Motivation, 29, 113–132.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determi- nants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247.
Weller, L., & Weller, A. (1993). Human menstrual synchrony: A critical assessment. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 17, 427– 439.
(RECEIVED 9/17/04; REVISION ACCEPTED 2/18/05; FINAL MATERIALS RECEIVED 3/7/05)
Volume 16—Number 9
693.
second thing :
Chapter 5- Practice with Event Sample Template
Use this sample version of the event sample template to record interactions in the three videos
you will watch.
Description of
Interaction
Location
of
Interacti
on
Duration
of
Interactio
n
Interaction
Type
EXAMPLE Child said “Can you
build a block tower with
me?” I replied “Yes!”
Block
Area
10
minutes
Child to
adult
Interaction
1
(Video 1)
Interaction
2
(Video 2)
Interaction
3
(Video 3).
For this assignment, you will practice utilizing the event sample template that you will fill out during each observation. There are three videos, and you will fill out a shortened version of the template for this assignment. Download the template for this assignment here.Download Download the template for this assignment here.
Video #1:
Video #2:
Video #3:
second thing
Technology in ECE- What Do You Think?
The use of technology in the early childhood classroom has been hotly debated over the last several years. Create a discussion post responding to the following questions. Use the textbook and the article linked below to support your position.
• Should computers and other interactive media be incorporated into ECE curriculum? If yes how should this technology be incorporated? If not, explain why.
• At what age is it appropriate? It is ok for young infants to be exposed to technology? Why or why not?
• Is all technology created equal?
Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8Links to an external site.
this is assignment is due by _________________. Each answer should be (at minimum) an undergraduate-level paragraph in length.
Cement your research topic – decide which specific phenomenon or behavior you will be presenting your research upon
Bring in three research articles (at minimum) related to the topic that you intend to research
Finally, based on the articles, answer the following questions:
1) What are the variables you’re interested in studying? How will you plan on measuring
these variables? Clearly define the IV and DV, as well as the operational definition for the DV.
2) What scale of measurement do you think your variables will be? (Nominal, Ordinal,
Interval, Ratio) Be sure to list each variable and the scale that is most appropriate for it.
3) How do you think you would get your data? Specifically, how would you find
participants? What would you have them do?
4) What problems can you predict? Honesty? Finding participants? What confounding
variables might be present? Any limitations?
5) Choose one of your articles for this portion. What is the article you have selected? What
are the variables in that study? What were the main findings? What limitations were noted, if any? List the methodological strengths and weaknesses. Also, include the full reference in proper APA format.
Requirements: 1