1. M. Luisa Dematte, Robert OsterBauer, and Charles Spence (2007)

2. Warm Up!! – Attractiveness  Before we begin our next case study on “Olfactory Cues Modulate Facial Attractiveness”, lets discuss the idea of attractiveness.  On a separate sheet of paper, write a paragraph on what “attraction” means to you. How does it ‘work’…for both society and you? What does attraction mean? What does it mean to be attractive (certain characteristics)? Share this with a seat partner next to you. Were they similar and/or different? How?  Now, based on the paragraph that you have written, rate the photos, or faces, that you brought to class today on a scale from 1 – 9. 1 being the least attractive to 9 being the most attractive.  How do we select a “mate”? After all we have studied and read, generate a “psychological” and honest answer! Share with a seat partner next to you!

3. Olfactory Cues Modulate Facial Attractiveness  Case Study: Olfactory Cues Modulate Facial Attractiveness  Authors: Dematte, Osterbauer, and Spence Dematte et al.  Field of Psychology – Physiological Psychology Explores human behavior and experience by looking at people as if they were biological machines. ○ Sees humans as complicated machines with biological processes such as hormone release and brain activity governing our behavior. ○ Brain and body are altered by our world. Studies how smell and affect the brain in relation to attractiveness.  Key Words: Olfaction – sense of smell Modulate – effects or influence

4. Background to the Study  Facial attractiveness is a socially important cue and has been studied extensively. Example, facial symmetry and relationship to attractiveness.  Appearance is modulated by other sensory cues, such as one’s voice and smell Is attractiveness determined by other sensory cues, like olfaction?  This case study looks at unpleasant odors in addition to pleasant odors and focuses on just female participants because females are said to be more sensitive to olfactory cues than males, and that they might rely more on olfactory cures in mating behavior in males.

5. Background, Cont’d  Past studies have shown that we tend to rate those with direct or indirect pleasant scents higher than those without  Smell is the most primitive and provocative  We categorize it from appealing to repulsive (rarely neutral)  The nerves from the nose are attached directly to the amygdala and hippocampus (diagram next slide) Scents evoke emotional memories

6. Olfactory Anatomy

8. Background, Continued  Past research attempts to answer questions such as: What defines somebody as good looking? ○ Women look best at times of ovulation (yes, this was an actual study- stripper study- http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/cycle_effects_on_tips. pdf) http://www.unm.edu/~gfmiller/cycle_effects_on_tips. pdf ○ Women think men look best when they are ovulating Influence of the senses: ○ Voices have been show to influence a person’s perceived attractiveness Bond, James Bond Or the morning, raspy voice

9. ArticleArticle: The Pill Makes Women Pick Bad Mates by Jeanna Bryner Date: 12 August 2008 Birth-control pills could screw up a woman's ability to sniff out a compatible mate, a new study finds. While several factors can send a woman swooning, including big brains and brawn, body odor can be critical in the final decision, the researchers say. That's because beneath a woman's flowery fragrance or a guy's musk the body sends out aromatic molecules that indicate genetic compatibility. Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are involved in immune response and other functions, and the best mates are those that have different MHC smells than you. The new study reveals, however, that when women are on the pill they prefer guys with matching MHC odors. MHC genes churn out substances that tell the body whether a cell is a native or an invader. When individuals with different MHC genes mate, their offspring's immune systems can recognize a broader range of foreign cells, making them more fit.

10. Background  Previous research did not vary olfactory cues (which Dematte does here)  Numerous studies confer that women have a better sense of smell than men (sharpest at ages 20-40)  Current study only presented male faces to females because: previous studies suggest that females are more sensitive to olfactory cues Suggested that females might rely more on olfactory cures for mating behaviors than males.

11. Aims/Hypothesis  To discover whether olfactory cues influence people’s judgments of attractiveness.  More specifically, whether pleasant odors cause higher ratings of male attractiveness and whether unpleasant odors cause lower ratings of male attractiveness.

12. Psychological Jargon  Olfaction (olfactory cues)  Modulate  Attractiveness  9 – point visual rating scale  Labeled Magnitude Scale  Olfactometer  Pleasantness  Odorants  Vision  Control  Demand Characteristics  Counterbalancing  Repeated Measure Design  Construct Validity  Reductionism  Nature vs. Nurture  Halo – Dumping  Ethnocentrism

13. Essential Vocabulary  Demand Characteristics Definition: participants (sample) form an interpretation of the purpose of the experiment and either consciously or subconsciously change their behavior to give the experiment what he/she is looking for. ○ Bias of the participants Application: The participant might have determined exactly what was being study, leading to low ecological validity.  Counterbalancing Definition: all possible orders of presenting the variables are included. Application: To counterbalance the presentation of each face/odor combination, the 40 faces were divided into sub-groups of 10 each- 5 high and 5 low attractiveness per group  Repeated Measure Design Definition: each individual participates in each condition of the experiment. Application: all participants smelled all four odors and clean air. This meant that ratings of attractiveness were done by the same person across all five conditions.

14. Essential Vocabulary, Cont’d  Nature vs. Nurture Definition: A person’s development is predetermined by his/her genetics (DNA) or is development determined by environment. Application: Is smell and attractiveness learned or inherited?  Halo – Dumping (effect) Definition: when asked to evaluate sensory qualities of an odor, people sometimes tend to use terms that refer to other sensory experiences. ○ Smells sweet Application: Sample participants were mixing the smells with attractiveness. ○ Rated the faces on the smell instead of the purpose (attraction).  Ethnocentrism Definition: the belief that an individuals society, group, or culture is superior to others. Application: ○ this could influence attractiveness as women judge the 40 faces. ○ The sample was generated from only one area of society, therefore it is the views, or perception, of only one subgroup of the population.

15. Essential Vocabulary, Cont’d  Reductionism Definition: Complex behavior can be explained by simple principles; we can break something down into its component parts and study each more effectively. Application: Dematte et al. controlled many extraneous variables and isolated just one (IV) which was smell (easy to do in a LAB!!!). ○ Shows the effect of unpleasant smells on the perception of attractiveness. Success!

16. 6 Experimental Controls in Dematte  The 6 controls in Dematte were: Questionnaire before the study to determine ability to detect smell (e.g. ‘Are you currently suffering from a cold/flu?’ and ‘Do you suffer from asthma or any air – born allergy?’). Presentations of each face – odor were counterbalanced. Presentations of pleasant – unpleasant odors were counterbalanced. Presentation time was standardized at 500 milliseconds. Time for tone presentation and odor release was standardized. Odor “strength” was standardized for each participant.

17. Methods of the Experiment  40 male faces were chosen 20 faces from “high” and 20 from “low” facial attractiveness.  Neutral odor of ‘clean medical air’ and 4 odors chosen from pilot research 2 pleasant – Gravity (male fragrance) and geranium 2 unpleasant – rubber and synthetic body odor 2M3M.  Custom built olfactometer was used to deliver the odorants. Flow was modulated through a regular at adjusted concentrations to standardize procedure.

18. Methodology- Design  IV- variations of odor ○ (pleasant [cologne/geranium], unpleasant [body odor/rubber], or neutral [clean medical air]) ○ Attractiveness of the image (high or low)  DV- rating of perceived attractiveness of male faces (1-9 scale with 1 lowest and 9 highest)

19. Methodology- Design  Lab design- within-participants repeated measures design  Overall experimental session consisted of 3 blocks of 40 randomized trials (3 sets × 40 faces = 120 total)  Each face was randomly presented 3 times during each experimental session (once with pleasant odor, once with unpleasant odor, & once with neutral odor)  To counterbalance the presentation of each face/odor combination, the 40 faces were divided into sub-groups of 10 each- 5 high and 5 low attractiveness per group (next slide) Presented with one different pleasant-unpleasant odor combo  Same odor was never presented on consecutive trials  Experiment lasted about 50 minutes total

20. 1 block of trials breakdown (example) 10 faces 5 high + 5 low/medium Clean air Geranium Body odor Clean air Cologne Rubber Clean air Geranium Rubber Clean air Cologne Body odor

21. Methodology – Procedure  To help us review our case study “Olfactory Cues Modulate Facial Attractiveness” summarize the procedure of the experiment. Answer can be written step by step (1, 2, 3, etc.) Start with “Participants sat 27 ½ inches from computer screen utilizing a chin rest to view the 5×7 image” End with “After rating selection, process started over”. To help complete the warm up, utilize: ○ Case study “Procedure”, pg. 606 ○ “Figure 1”, pg. 606 ○ Case study chart used in class.  As we review, make adjustments to your methods!

22. Methodology - Procedure  Participants (Ps) sat 27 ½ inches from computer screen utilizing a chin rest to view the 5×7 image  Told to look at the ‘X’ focal point on the screen  Hearing the ‘quiet tone’- Ps start exhaling via nose  Hearing the ‘loud tone’- Ps start inhaling via nose  Odor then delivered where the participant confirmed the scent by pushing a button on the keyboard  1 second later, a face appears for a ½ second

23. Methodology - Procedure  Screen then goes black, clean air pumped in again  A 9-point scale was then presented on the screen for the Ps to rate the facial attractiveness of the picture 1 least attractive, 5 neutral, 9 most attractive  After rating selection, process started over…  Repeated three more times, = 480 trials and 40 faces seen.

24. Methodology - Procedure  Clean medical air was presented throughout the trials except when the odorant was delivered  Ps given a 5 minute break after each trial (40 faces) to limit fatigue and/or olfactory adaptation  At end of the experimental session, Ps were asked to smell the odors individually and rate each on intensity, pleasantness, & familiarity from 0-100 Labeled Magnitude Scale (image on next slide)  Presentation of odors and scales were randomized among Ps

25. Presentation of Odor Sequence

26. Labeled Magnitude Scale

27. Participants/Sample  16 females from the University of Oxford.  Age range: 20 – 34 Mean age of 26.  All were naïve as to the purpose of the experiment. To reduce demand characteristics  All answered a questionnaire for control purposes: Good health and no cold/flu, and/or allergies. Normal sense of olfactory and visual senses. Ability to perceive odors and colors.

28. Contravene Ethical Guidelines?  Unlike our previous two social psychology studies, ethics may have been challenged once in this case study. The participants were not informed (deception) of the exact purpose of the study to reduce demand characteristics.

29. Data Collection  Data was gathered quantitatively in two ways: Rating scale 1 – 9 Labeled Magnitude Scale (LMS) from 0 – 100. ○ Rating the odors for intensity, pleasantness, and familiarity.

30. Main Results of the Study  Revealed a significant main effect of odor pleasantness on participants’ facial attractiveness rating  Participants considered the faces as being significantly less attractive when presented with an unpleasant odor (body odor/rubber) compared to a pleasant odor (cologne/geranium), or the clean air  There was no significant difference between pleasant versus neutral air ratings

31. Results of the Study

32. Extra Results of the Study  Odor intensity scores revealed that the pleasant and unpleasant odors were perceived as more intense than the clean air  Odor intensity scores revealed no significant difference b/w the intensity of the pleasant odor & the unpleasant odor  Analysis of the odor familiarity data revealed that the 3 categories of odors were equally familiar to Ps

33. Methodological Issues  Study is hailed a success, it is valid (measured what its supposed to measure) and is reliable (same results should be obtained if completed again).  However, ecological validity can be questioned. Is there actual real world application?  Possible problems with the questionnaire? Sexual orientation was never discussed.

34. Strengths and Weaknesses  Strengths ‘Standardized’ questioning to reduce variables of Ps Controlled lab setting increases validity & replicable Presentation of faces counterbalanced to control for order effects Faces used from the standardized database  Weaknesses Demand characteristics possibilities ○ Participants form an interpretation of the experiment’s purpose and subconsciously change their behavior to fit that interpretation. Possible Halo dumping effect Low validity (ecological, construct) Low generalization (population/sample size) Ethnocentric

35. Ecological Validity & Ethical Concerns  Ecological Validity due to lab setting, it is low sample- Oxford students not comparable to general population overall (ethnocentric)  Ethical Considerations Overall ok (low chance of long term effects) Naïve to purpose of study (but necessary) No mention of RTW (but would have been on submitted and approved paperwork)

36. Thoughts for Future Application  How does this study fit into the physiological approach?  How does this study apply to everyday life?  How could this study be improved upon to increase ecological validity?  What other methodological and data collection approaches could be used instead?

37. Experimental Controls  In order to make sure that it is the manipulation of the IV (independent variable) that is CAUSING the change in the DV (dependent variable), it is important for the researcher to control any confounding variables. These are factors apart from the IV that may affect the DV. Make the experiment equally measure what it is trying to measure! Remains constant for everybody, or test subject  Question: What are the 6 controls of the experiment?

38. 6 Experimental Controls in Dematte  The 6 controls in Dematte were: Questionnaire before the study to determine ability to detect smell (e.g. ‘Are you currently suffering from a cold/flu?’ and ‘Do you suffer from asthma or any air – born allergy?’). Presentations of each face – odor were counterbalanced. Presentations of pleasant – unpleasant odors were counterbalanced. Presentation time was standardized at 500 milliseconds. Time for tone presentation and odor release was standardized. Odor “strength” was standardized for each participant.

39. Reductionism vs. Holism  Read the excerpt about reductionism After reading the case study and excerpt, complete the following questions: ○ Briefly outline what it is meant by the reductionism in psychology. ○ Give two arguments supporting reductionism. ○ In you own words, explain how the Dematte, et. al study was a reductionist study. Evaluate the pros and cons of the study using the reductionist perspective.

40. Dematte et. Al & Counterbalancing  Counterbalancing was used in Dematte et. al to eliminate bias and fatigue. Researchers counterbalance by using all of the possible orders and combinations of conditions to stop subjects from recognizing a certain pair (practice) or become bored (fatigue).

41. Dematte et. al: Halo – Dumping  Results of the study may have shown instances of the ‘halo dumping effect’ Can occur whenever the appropriate response alternative for a relevant attribute is unavailable to participants. This can lead participants to ‘dump’ the values for a relevant attribute that is not available in the range of alternative response scales provided In this case they might have been expressing their like or dislike of the odor on the attractiveness scale Possible as they only had one scale to use, so couldn’t separate their evaluations (may have used facial attractiveness scale to rate the odors)

42. Validity in AICE Psychology  Validity is concerned with whether an experiment or procedure for collecting data actually measures or tests what it claims to measure or test. Types of validity: ○ Construct validity (Does the test measure the theory, or theories, it is supposed to measure) ○ Criterion validity ○ Concurrent validity ○ Predictive validity ○ Face validity  Your task!! – Make an argument both for and against the strength of the study’s construct validity.

43. Dematte et. al – Construct Validity Arguments  Yes They were measuring the link between facial attractiveness & smell because the technique used made sure to check for cross-modal interactions They were measuring the link between facial attractiveness & smell because presentations of the odors were brief so that smell did not influence mood and therefore perceptions. Counterbalancing was used so the findings could not be contributed to order effects but instead to the link between facial attractiveness & the smell Attractiveness is a natural & easy characteristic to rate so it is unlikely that the participants were confused and likely that they were measuring the link between attractiveness & smell.  No: The unpleasant smells may have distracted the participants’ attention causing them to find the faces less attractive rather than actually affecting the perception of the face. The participants may have been halo-dumping. That is measuring the smell as attractive or unattractive, when that is they way they should measure the face.