Chem. Senses 24: 713-721,
1999
© Oxford University Press 1999
Odor and Affect: Individual Differences in the Impact of Odor on Liking for Places, Things and People
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109 1 Bryn Mawr College, USA 2 University of Pennsylvania, USA
Correspondence to be sent to: Amy Wrzesniewski, 44 W. 4th Street, Suite 7-55, New York, NY 10012-1126, USA. e-mail:awrzesni{at}stern.nyu.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionStudy 1Study 2General discussionReferences |
|---|
This paper provides evidence of substantial individual differences in the affective importance of odors, and offers initial validation for an eight-item scale of the impact of odor (AIO) on liking for people, places, foods and cosmetic/health products. In study 1, 116 American college students and 336 Flemish Belgian college students completed the AIO along with other measures of reactions to odors and to commercial products designed to mask body odors. There were substantial individual differences in AIO scores, but means were similar for males and females, and for US and Belgian respondents. Higher AIO scores were associated with more odor-mediated memory, more attention to odors and more liking or disliking for odors as a function of their association with liked and disliked persons. AIO scores were not related to preference for toiletries with artificial scents, to use of products to mask natural body odors, or to disgust sensitivity. In study 2, AIO scores were strongly related to a measure of evaluative conditioning (a form of Pavlovian associative learning) in the laboratory, using liked and disliked odors as unconditioned stimuli and pictures of faces as conditioned stimuli.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStudy 1Study 2General discussionReferences |
|---|
How important is smell in determining what we do and do not like? While researchers have focused on sensory acuity (Cain, 1982
), or individual differences in
liking
for various odors (Engen, 1974, 1991), we have
chosen to focus on the degree to which good and bad smells affect how much we like the places,
things and people we encounter. In the present paper we report the results of our initial efforts to
develop a scale to measure individual differences in the affective impact of odor, including some
initial evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. People do not ordinarily doubt the enormous importance of hearing and vision in their lives, but it is not uncommon for people to differ in talking about the importance of their sense of smell. In the present study, we asked 452 subjects to rank the relative desirability of permanent loss of their sense of smell, their hearing in one ear, or their left small toe. About 50% of subjects ranked loss of the sense of smell as most unacceptable. This finding supports the idea of high variability in the perceived importance of the sense of smell in life. In addition to high variability in judgements of general importance, the sense of smell differs from most other senses in its heavy affective loading. For humans, it seems that the sense of smell (along with taste) stands out as having more immediate and direct emotional impact.
The predominately emotional response to smells makes sense biologically. For most
mammals, the olfactory system is critically involved in recognition of food and mates.
Biologically
speaking, the olfactory system is very primitive in structure, although it has evolved to be
capable
of fine differentiation between smells. Unlike most other sensory receptors, smell receptors are
actually neurons. The olfactory nerve is the only sensory nerve that goes directly to the base of
each cerebral hemisphere without synapsing in the thalamus, reminding us that the human
forebrain evolved from tissue devoted to processing olfactory information. The olfactory system
has direct anatomical and phylogenetic linkages to the limbic system, making it the sensory
system
most closely related to the parts of the brain that seem to mediate emotion. Thus, compared to the
responses made to input from visual and auditory systems, responses to odors are relatively
emotional (Engen, 1974, 1991). Indeed
psychologists have been able to use odors in experimental manipulations of affect (Zillman et al., 1981; Baron, 1983, 1986), and have shown that odors aid the recall of emotional memories (Herz
and Cupchik, 1995). Our interest here is in the possibility that the impact of odor
may
be much greater for some individuals than for others.
Based on results from a pilot questionnaire developed in collaboration with Todrank (Todrank et al., 1995), we conducted a series of surveys aimed at
developing a questionnaire measure of individual differences in the affective impact of odor.
Initial
items were revised several times, and items that failed to show a relation to the rest of the scale
were dropped. The eight items composing our final scale of the affective impact of odor (AIO)
are presented in Table 1. These items ask about the impact of good or bad
smells in determining liking for new foods, new places, new cosmetic/ health products and new
persons. We intended for the AIO scale to measure individual differences in the extent to which
good and bad smells affect liking and memory for places, things and persons, and were interested
in evaluating the relationships between AIO and the strength of association of smells with
persons.
|
In order to begin providing some evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for our new scale, Study 1 included several measures of individual differences that we felt were possibly related to the affective impact of odor. Thus we included items to assess the extent to which odors evoke memories of people and places, the amount of attention paid to odor, whether an odor is liked or disliked because of its association with a liked or disliked person, use of odor-masking products, and preference for scented versus unscented products. A measure of sensitivity to disgust (Haidt et al., 1994
) was included in Study
1
for the US but not for the Belgian respondents.
In Study 2, we examined the usefulness of the AIO in predicting learned responses to faces
paired with pleasant, neutral or unpleasant odors in an evaluative conditioning paradigm.
Evaluative conditioning is a type of Pavlovian associative learning in which the hedonic value of
one entity (e.g. object, picture, odor) is changed as a result of its pairing with a positively or
negatively valenced entity. Evaluative conditioning can take place without the awareness of the
subject, and is thought to be critical in the formation of preferences (Levy and Martin,
1990)
|
Study 1 |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStudy 1Study 2General discussionReferences |
|---|
The goal of Study 1 was to examine the structure of our eight-item scale of the AIO in two samples of respondents, and to examine as well the relation of the AIO to the potential correlates introduced above.
Method
Respondents
The scale was completed by 116 students (70 females, 42 males and four of unreported
gender) enrolled in a midlevel psychology course at the University of Pennsylvania in order to
fulfill a research participation requirement. The sample was 74% white, 16% Asian and 10% of
other racial origin. The scale was also completed by 336 Flemish Belgian college students (255
female, 80 male, one of unreported gender), in a mid-level psychology course at the University
of
Leuven. For this sample, the scale was translated into Dutch and then back-translated to English
to check for accuracy of translation.
Measures
Affective impact of odor. The eight AIO items asked about the impact of liked and
disliked smells on reactions to new foods, new places, new cosmetic/health products and new
persons. The items were conceptually paired such that in each of the four domains, one item
asked about the impact of a pleasant odor and the other item asked about the impact of an
unpleasant odor. For example, the positively phrased item in the food domain asked,
‘When you like a new food, is it partly because you like the smell?’ The negative
complement asked, ‘When you don’t like a new food, is it partly because you
don’t like the smell’? The response format for these eight items was a four-point
scale (scored 0–3) with the choices: ‘never, rarely, sometimes, often.’ The
items are presented in Table 1, with paired positive/negative items listed
together, although the questionnaire presented first all the positive items and then their negative
complements. The AIO scale was calculated as the mean of the eight items, with higher scores
indicating more impact of odors on liking for people, places, foods, and cosmetic and health
products.
Odor-mediated memory. Four items (Table 1) assessed the frequency with which good and bad smells elicit memories of place and person. The ‘Memory’ scale was calculated as the mean of these four items, with higher scores indicating more odor-mediated memory.
Attention to odor. Three items (Table 1) assessed subjective attention to odors. The ‘Attention’ scale was calculated as the mean of these three items, with higher scores indicating more attention to odor.
Odor affect via association. Two items (Table 1) assessed whether an odor ever came to be liked or disliked because of association with a liked or disliked person. The ‘Association’ scale was calculated as the mean of these two items, with higher scores indicating more impact of affective responses to a person on affective responses to odors associated with the person.
Use of odor-masking products. Four items asked ‘How often do you use (breathmints/mouthsprays, mouthwash, chewing gum, perfume/cologne)’? on a scale of ‘never’, ‘once a week or less’, ‘2–3 times a week’, ‘every day’, ‘more than once a day’ (coded 0–4). A fifth item asked ‘How often do you brush your teeth’? on a scale of ‘less than once a day’, ‘once a day’, ‘twice a day’, ‘more than twice a day’ (coded 0–3). The ‘Masking’ scale was calculated as the mean of these five items, with higher scores indicating more use of odor-masking products.
Preference for scented products. Four items asked ‘What kind of (bath/shower soap, toilet paper, laundry detergent, deodorant) do you prefer?’ on a scale of ‘unscented’, ‘no preference’, ‘scented’ (coded 0–2). The ‘scented’ scale was calculated as the mean of these four items, with higher scores indicating preference for scented products.
Disgust. Disgust sensitivity may also be related to the affective importance of
odors;
many elicitors of disgust (body products, spoiled foods) have strong and generally disliked odors.
US but not Belgian respondents completed a short (16 item) version of the Disgust Scale (Haidt et al., 1994).
Questionnaire
The items just described appeared in the questionnaire in the following order: attention to
odor; affective impact of odor; disgust; unscented versus scented products; and odor-masking
behaviors. A variety of other items about food and flavor, other reactions to odor, and standard
demographic variables were also included.
Results
General indicators of variation in importance of odors
The responses of both US and Belgian respondents confirm the wide range of importance of
odors. We can identify in both samples people whose likes and dislikes are intensely influenced
by
odors and also people who show general indifference to odors, as illustrated by ranges in the AIO
score from near zero (two subjects: never influenced by odor) to three (four subjects often
influenced by odor in evaluating new persons, places, foods and cosmetics/health products). Figure 1 presents the range of AIO scores for the US and Belgian
respondents. In the combined samples, 1.7% of subjects scored <1 (odors influence liking less
than rarely) and 46% scored >2 (odors influence liking more than sometimes).
|
Gender and culture differences
Table 2 presents the mean scale scores for males and females, separately for US and Belgian respondents. Statistical comparisons among the four means for each scale are difficult to interpret because of the wide variation in number of respondents contributing to the different means. Thus we take a conservative approach in noting only substantive differences, where a mean differs by more than half of its standard deviation from other means for the same scale.
|
Overall, gender and national differences on our scales are surprisingly small, especially in light of a documented higher odor sensitivity in females (Doty et al., 1984
) (Table 2). Belgian females scored higher on AIO than
American females [2.07 versus 1.77, t(323) = –4.97, P < 0.001].
There were no other significant gender or culture differences on the AIO scale, or on the Memory
or Scented scales. Belgian males stood out for their low score on Association, which was
significantly lower than all other groups [0.48 versus 0.68, 0.74, 0.74, t range 3.65 to
4.42, Ps< 0.001]. The scale that showed the most substantial differences was
Masking: this was higher in females for both nationalities [1.40 versus 1.14 for Belgians, t(333) = 3.24, P < 0.001; 2.03 versus 1.63 for US respondents, t(110) =
3.12, P < 0.05] and higher in Americans than Belgians [2.03 versus 1.40 for females, t(323) = 7.34, P < 0.001; 1.63 versus 1.14 for males, t(120) = 3.98, P < 0.001]. In our subsequent analyses, we will merge male and female data, but we will maintain parallel analyses for the Belgian and US respondents.
Composition and scoring of the scales
Our first analyses examine inter-item correlations of the AIO scale and of the various other
scales to be correlated with the AIO. We also report the mean and SD of each scale for the US
and Belgian respondents (Table 3).
|
Affective impact of odor. The mean AIO scores for both US and Belgian respondents fall near the middle of the 0–3 range, at 1.79 and 2.05 (seeTable 3).
The inter-item correlations were subjected to principal components analysis and showed one dominant factor accounting for 29% of the total variance for US respondents and 36% of the total variance for Belgian respondents (eigenvalues >1.0 were 2.83 and 1.36 for US and 2.92, 1.11 and 1.08 for Belgian respondents). All eight items loaded above 0.52 on the first factor, and factor rotation showed no hint of a distinction between liked and disliked odors. Thus the factor analysis supported representing the affective impact of odor in a single AIO score. Cronbach’s alpha for the AIO measure was 0.73 for US respondents and 0.75 for Belgian respondents.
Other scales. Means, standard deviations and reliability estimates are similarly presented inTable 3 for the five scales that represent potential correlates of the AIO. As for the AIO, reliability estimates for these scales were calculated from mean inter-item correlations. These scales depend on fewer items than the AIO and show generally lower reliability estimates. One notable exception is the scale of odor-mediated memory (Memory), for which reliability estimates are surprisingly high—0.80 for US respondents and 0.77 for Belgian respondents—even though the scale depends on only four items.
Correlations of AIO with other scales
The correlations of AIO with other scales are shown for both samples in Table 4. The US and Belgian correlations are very similar. In both cases, AIO is
significantly
and substantially correlated with odor-mediated memory (Memory), attention to odor (Attention)
and odor affect via association (Association). Memory, Attention and Association are themselves
intercorrelated in a way that suggests that individual differences in the importance of odor may
not be limited to the impact of odor on liking. This point will be taken up in the Discussion.
|
Use of odor-masking products (Masking) and preference for unscented products (Scented) are negatively related in a reasonable way (users of odor-masking products tend to prefer scented products), but Masking and Scented are not correlated with AIO. Nor is sensitivity to disgust (Disgust) related to AIO.
Discussion
Our eight-item scale of the affective impact of odor had mean inter-item correlations of 0.26 and 0.27 with Cronbach’s alpha estimates of 0.73 and 0.75 for the US and Belgian samples respectively. This level of reliability is adequate for a research scale.
The results of Study 1 offered some surprises. Individual differences in the affective impact of odor were significantly related to differences in the frequency of odor-related memory, differences in attention to odor and differences in the impact of personal associations on liking for odor. It seems that the affective impact of odor—the degree to which odors affect liking for new people, places and things—may be part of a larger individual difference construct. Perhaps odor is affectively more important for some individuals than for others, not just in determining liking for what is associated with an odor, but in determining liking of odors for what they are associated with, in greater attention to odor, and in greater power of odor to evoke memory.
|
Study 2 |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStudy 1Study 2General discussionReferences |
|---|
To provide additional evidence of convergent validity, we returned to the experimental research on evaluative conditioning that had originally suggested the importance of individual differences in the affective importance of odor (Todrank et al., 1995
). We predicted that high scorers on AIO should show stronger evaluative
conditioning than low scorers in a cross-modal evaluative conditioning experiment using liked
and
disliked odors as unconditioned stimuli and photographs of faces as conditioned stimuli. In the
original study (Todrank et al., 1995), photographs of faces rated
as neutral in valence were paired with odors rated as positive or negative in valence and given to
subjects to look at and smell repeatedly in an attempt to show that the pairings could cause the
ratings of the photographs to match that of the odors in a post-test. The logic behind our
prediction that those with high AIO scores should show stronger evaluative conditioning is that
individuals who are more likely to evaluate people, places and things on the basis of their odors
should be more easily conditioned to evaluate faces on the basis of the odors associated with
these
faces. As part of the pretest required for selection of positive and negative odors, Study 2 had subjects rate ten odors (selected to produce a range of affective responses) on a hedonic scale. We predicted that individuals high on AIO, Memory, Attention or Association would assign a wider range of hedonic ratings to the odor set and would be less inclined to rate odors as neutral. This prediction was based on the evidence in Study 1 that linked AIO to Memory, Attention and Association: if AIO is part of a larger tendency to link evaluation and odor, then individuals high on AIO or its correlates should show more variation of evaluation in relation to odors and should be less likely to react to odors without evaluation.
Method
Respondents
The scale was completed by 23 students (16 females, seven males) from the University of
Pennsylvania who were participating in a cross-modal evaluative conditioning experiment.
Procedure
The procedure is described in detail elsewhere (Todrank et al., 1995). The results reported in this study were from the random replication (Experiment 5)
in Todrank et al. (Todrank et al., 1995). Respondents
first rated a set of photographs of people’s faces according to how much they thought
they
would like the person in the photograph if they actually met them. Respondents then rated a set
of
ten odors (selected to represent a wide range of affective responses) according to how much they
liked the odors (scale of –10 to +10). For each respondent, three neutrally rated
photographs were chosen by the experimenter and randomly paired with one negative, one
neutral
and one positive odor according to the respondent’s own ratings of the odors.
Respondents were then exposed to each odor– photograph pair eight times over a period
of 15–30 min. Finally, respondents again separately rated the odors and photographs. An
elaborate cover story was used to avoid demand characteristics. The story involved the
experimenter testing for a possible relationship between preferences for sensory stimuli and skin
conductance responses to those stimuli. Thus, subjects were attached to sensors that were said to
measure skin conductance, and the experimenter appeared to be watching the data appear on a
computer as the experiment progressed. Subjects were told that they were given the unpaired
photographs and odors to rate in order to obtain measures of their responses, and then these
would be randomly paired in an attempt to determine what would happen if stimuli that had
elicited different responses were paired. Finally, subjects were told that the final rating of
unpaired
photographs and odors was necessary to determine if the skin conductance responses had
remained stable relative to the initial rating.
Subjects completed the AIO and related measures following their participation in the experiment.
Results
We developed four measures from the evaluative conditioning experiment to relate to the AIO and to the other odor-related scales. One was the range of ratings assigned to the ten pretest odors, a second was the number of odors assigned a neutral (0) value. The third and fourth were measures of the success of evaluative conditioning: decrease in the rating of the face paired with the unpleasant odor, and increase in the rating of the face paired with the pleasant odor. The evaluative conditioning experiment produced a significant negative conditioning effect, but not a significant positive conditioning effect. In light of this result, we would expect any link between AIO and conditioning to appear most clearly in the negative conditioning correlation.
The correlations between evaluative conditioning measures, the AIO and the other five odor-related scales are presented in Table 5. Note the substantial and significant correlation in the predicted direction (r = 0.63, P < 0.001), between negative changes in the CS paired with the unpleasant odor and AIO score. The Association scale was similarly associated with more conditioning of dislike for the photograph paired with the negative odor (r = –0.39, P < 0.05). The lack of any significant correlations with positive conditioning is not surprising, given the absence of a significant positive conditioning effect.
|
Our predictions about odor range were not substantiated. There was not a significant positive correlation between AIO score and the range of ratings given to the odors presented. As predicted, however, there was a significant correlation (r = –0.38, P < 0.05) such that high AIO was associated with assignment of fewer neutral values to odors. Similarly, high scores on Memory and Association were associated with assignment of fewer neutral values to odors (rs = –0.33 and –0.40). The Attention scale did not relate significantly to any of the measures of responsiveness to odors or conditioning success.
|
General discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStudy 1Study 2General discussionReferences |
|---|
We began our research with the idea that there are large individual differences in the extent to which good and bad smells affect liking and disliking for a variety of things. Open-ended questions and pilot studies led to eight questionnaire items assessing the impact of odor on feelings toward places, things and persons. Study 1 showed that these eight items formed a scale of adequate reliability for assessing the affective importance of odor. AIO scale means, SDs and reliabilities were generally quite similar for US and Belgian respondents.
Our exploration of relations between AIO and other measures led to some surprises. AIO was substantially correlated with Memory, Attention and Association, and these other scales were themselves intercorrelated. The affective impact of odor on liking for people, places and things appears to be at the center of a larger circle of covariation, such that individuals who are high on the AIO tend also to be more likely to report odor-evoked memories, to be more sensitive to odors and to like or dislike odors because of their association with liked or disliked persons. This widening circle of covariation needs to be tested further with scales that are better developed and more reliable than our initial versions; the AIO had some preliminary piloting and refinement before the two studies reported here, but the Memory, Attention and Association scales were included in the reported research as initial explorations.
The results were surprising also in that the AIO was not related to use of odor-masking products (Masking) or to preference for scented toiletries (Scented). We had surmised that individuals who were more affected by odor in evaluating other people would be more concerned with masking their own bad breath or body odor, and would prefer more scented toiletries that could help to mask body odors. Similarly we expected that individuals high on AIO might be high in sensitivity to disgust. None of these expectations was supported, although Masking and Scented were correlated with sensitivity to disgust as expected (rs = 0.24 and 0.34; more use of odor-masking products associated with more preference for scented toiletries). These results must again be taken as tentative to the extent that the Masking and Scented scales were initial and exploratory measures with weak reliabilities.
The second study directly linked AIO to reactions to odors in an experiment on evaluative conditioning. This convergence of independent measures is worthy of note because the correlation cannot be inflated by common method variance: the AIO is a self-report measure whereas evaluative conditioning was assessed as change in evaluation of photographs from beginning to end of an experiment. The convergence of measures is further remarkable because the experimental measure was obtained from respondents working under a cover story that obscured the actual purpose of the experiment in such a way that respondents were unlikely to know whether or how much their photo evaluations had changed as a function of the associated odors.
The absence of a correlation between AIO and the size of the range used to rate odors in the evaluative conditioning experiment suggests that AIO is not related to a wider range of evaluation of odors as positive or negative. It appears that those with high AIO scores are not more sensitive to positive and negative odors—if that were so, stronger positive and negative ratings would have been used by this group in rating the odors. In light of this finding, we can see in retrospect why AIO scores were not related to use of odor-masking products or preference for scented versus unscented products. Avoiding or seeking out odors is presumably a function of the evaluation of the odors: the worse the smell, the greater the effort to avoid it; the better the smell, the greater the effort to experience it. Therefore, we expected that high AIO scores would be related to more frequent use of odor-masking products and to a stronger preference for scented products. But if, as we found, high and low scorers on AIO do not differ systematically in the direction or extremity of their evaluation of a smell, then they will not differ in their preferences for scented products nor in their motivation to mask body odors.
Similarly, the lack of relationship between AIO scores and sensitivity to disgust is understandable if individual differences in disgust have to do more with how bad a disgusting smell smells than with the evaluation of the person, place, or thing associated with the smell. Future research might test this interpretation by determining whether spoiled food, for instance, smells worse for individuals high on sensitivity to disgust than for individuals low on the disgust scale, but smells no different to individuals high and low on AIO. It is consistent with this interpretation that disgust scores were significantly, but weakly, correlated with use of odor-masking products (r = 0.24).
Thus our understanding of the construct assessed by the AIO scale has been sharpened by evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity. The AIO scale assesses individual differences in the extent to which good and bad smells affect liking and memory for places, things and persons; the evaluative conditioning results confirm this interpretation of the scale for bad smells. AIO is related to attention to odors, memory evoked by odors, and the extent to which smells are liked or disliked because of associations with liked or disliked persons. The AIO is not related to use of odor-masking products or preference for scented products. Taken together, this pattern suggests that the AIO is measuring individual differences in the strength of the linkage between affect for odor and affect for things associated with odor, rather than simply the degree of affective reaction to odor.
It would be of interest to further the validation of the AIO by measuring odor thresholds and odor psychophysical functions for people with different AIO and Attention scores. Since AIO and Attention are positively correlated, it may be that part of AIO is mediated by attention to odors, and part of Attention is mediated by olfactory acuity or other sensory/perceptual variables.
It is worth noting that individual differences in affective importance of odors may have
commercial implications. Even if most people agree that a particular scent—perfume or
cologne—is pleasant and attractive, our results suggest that not all of those who like it will
be equally impressed by it in evaluating the wearer (Baron, 1983). The
power of odor to affect feelings for people is evidently quite variable. It may be possible to learn
something about the origins or correlates of this variation, although neither gender nor
nationality
was consistently associated with AIO scores for our respondents. It might be of interest to
determine AIO and attention to odors from subjects in studies involving olfaction, as in mood
induction studies. AIO scores might help to identify subjects who are likely to show
odormanipulation effects.
Another area of particular interest, explored in a parallel paper derived from the same data
base, has to do with the relation of AIO to interest in foods (P. Rozin et al., unpublished
data). There are grounds to believe that the responsiveness to external odors gauged in the scales
described in this study may be independent of responses to the retronasally experienced odors
involved in the experience of flavor (Rozin, 1982), and we have collected
evidence that supports this hypothesis (P. Rozin et al., unpublished data).
In conclusion, this research documents, for the first time, a wide range in affective response to and attention to odors, and demonstrates that the differences in affective response extend across sensory domains. The results add another dimension to our understanding of the role of odor in life. We have introduced a new eight-item instrument—the AIO—which may be of use as a moderating variable in studies of human olfaction, or as a means of market segmentation for commercial uses of odors and fragrances.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We would like to thank the Whitehall Foundation for its support of this work through a grant to Paul Rozin.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionStudy 1Study 2General discussionReferences |
|---|
Baron, R.A. (1983) The ‘sweet smell of success’? The impact of pleasant artificial scents on evaluation of job applicants. J. Appl. Psychol., 68, 709–713.[Web of Science]
Baron, R.A. (1986) Self-presentation in job interviews: when there can be ‘too much of a good thing’. J. Appl. Social Psychol., 16, 16–28.
Cain, W.S. (1982) Odor identification by males and
females: predictions versus performance. Chem. Senses, 7, 129–142.
Doty, R.L., Shaman, P., Applebaum, S.L., Giberson, R., Siksorski, L.and Rosenberg, L. (1984) Smell identification ability: changes with
age. Science, 226, 1441–1443.
Engen, T. (1974) Method and theory in the study of odor preferences. In Turk, A., Johnston, J.W. and Moulton, D.G. (eds), Human Responses to Environmental Odors. Academic Press, New York, pp. 121–141.
Engen, T. (1982) The Perception of Odors. Academic Press, New York.
Engen, T. (1991) Odor Sensation and Memory. Praeger, New York.
Haidt, J., McCauley, C.R. and Rozin, P. (1994) Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: a scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personal. Indiv. Diffs, 16, 701–713.
Herz, R.S. and Cupchik, G.C. (1995) The
emotional distinctiveness of odor-evoked memories. Chem. Senses, 20, 517–528.
Levy, A.B. and Martin, I. (1990) Evaluative conditioning: overview and further options. Cognit. Emot., 4, 31–37.
Rozin, P. (1982) ‘Taste–smell confusions’ and the duality of the olfactory sense. Percept. Psychophys., 31, 397–401.[Web of Science][Medline]
Todrank, J., Byrnes, D., Wrzesniewski, A. and Rozin, P. (1995) Odors can change preferences for people in photographs: a cross-modal evaluative conditioning study of olfactory USs and visual CSs. Learn. Motiv., 26, 116–140.
Zillman, D., Baron, R. A. and Tamborini, R. (1981) Social costs of smoking: effects of tobacco smoke on hostile behavior. J. Appl. Social Psychol., 11, 548–561.
Accepted August 2, 1999
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. A.M. Smeets, H. N.J. Schifferstein, S. R. Boelema, and G. Lensvelt-Mulders The Odor Awareness Scale: A New Scale for Measuring Positive and Negative Odor Awareness Chem Senses, October 1, 2008; 33(8): 725 - 734. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Ferdenzi, G. Coureaud, V. Camos, and B. Schaal Human awareness and uses of odor cues in everyday life: Results from a questionnaire study in children International Journal of Behavioral Development, September 1, 2008; 32(5): 422 - 431. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. U. Jonsson, A. Tchekhova, P. Lonner, and M. J. Olsson A Metamemory Perspective on Odor Naming and Identification Chem Senses, May 1, 2005; 30(4): 353 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Herz A Naturalistic Analysis of Autobiographical Memories Triggered by Olfactory Visual and Auditory Stimuli Chem Senses, March 1, 2004; 29(3): 217 - 224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||