and 6, Room-Order condition; Correlations between

photograph ratings and absolute mood measures. Low and high conscious­ ness / attention subjects.

Experiment 5

Low attention Photo rating x

Absolute energy + well-being -0.839 *

High attention

-0.083

Photo rating x

Absolute pleasantness -0.652 -0.240

Low consciousness High consciousness Photo rating x

Absolute energy + well-being

Photo rating x Absolute pleasantness -0.345 * (-0.735 **) -0.588 * (-0.632 **) -0.127 -0.184 Experiment 6 Low consciousness Photo rating x

Absolute energy + well-being 0.699 (0.859 *) Photo rating x Absolute pleasantness 0.397 (0.531 *) High consciousness

0.088

* = one outlier removed ** = two outliers removed

condition in the two experiments. In Experiment 5 the baseline energy and well-being variable accounted for an of 4?.8% (p = 0.057) of the variance in predicting photograph ratings whereas the room energy and well-being component accounted for low and non-significant variance (R^ = 11.0%). In Experiment 6 this pattern was reversed and the room energy and well-being variable accounted for an R^ of 36*5% (p = O.O65) in predicting photograph ratings whereas the baseline energy and well­ being component accounted for low and non-significant variance (R^ = 12.8%). It is suggested that this difference was brought about by the presence of the experimenter at the baseline rating stage of experiment 5 in the reception room, thus prompting greater importance to be

attached to these initial ratings. Without the initial presence of the experimenter in Experiment 6 the subsequent experimental room scalings assumed greater importance in determining the main dependent measure.

Differences in the relative importance of the experimental room for the Room-Order conditions in the two experiments can be seen by examining

the mean scores for attention to the room, and also the norm scale measure of how much ’difference* the experimental room made to the results, this representing a measure of how normal or unexpected the experimental room was:

Room condition: Control Room-Order Salience Mean attention to room scores:

Experiment 5 7-8 6.4 7*7

Experiment 6 8.0 8.3 7*8

Mean ’difference’ norm scores:

The same pattern, although not significant, is apparent in the means for both measures. In the Room-Order condition the experimental room appears less attended to and more normal (or less unexpected) compared to the other conditions of Experiment 5. and more highly attended to Eind less normal compared to the other conditions of Experiment 6. A likely interpretation here is that the presence of the experimenter at the reception room in Experiment 5i in conjunction with the room-order manipulation, served to reduce the salience of the experimental room. Without the presence of the experimenter in the reception room in Experiment 6 the room order manipulation served to increase the

salience of the experimental room. This interpretation is in line with the earlier finding for the subjects scoring below the median level on the consciousness measure of greater predicting power for the baseline (reception room) measure in Experiment 5. and for greater predicting power for the experimental room measure in Experiment 6.

The earlier findings of this section show a trend of greater adaptation level effects for subjects scoring low on attention to the room or scoring low on consciousness thought to their ratings, and these trends requires some explanation. One possibility is "the restricting effects of awareness" (Dixon, I98I) which posits a difference between conscious and non conscious processing such that adaptation level anchoring may be more effective for anchors of which the subject is less aware. Dixon quotes work by Bevan and Pritchard (I963) with subliminal auditory stimuli where lowering the intensity of the anchor stimulus enhanced the adaptation effect. However another possible explanation here is in terms of attribution theory. For the subjects scoring low on attention to the room in the Room-Order condition of Experiment 5 the correla­

tions between attention to the room and the attribution theory measures of self and room attribution are -0.461 and 0.763 respectively, whereas for high attending subjects these same correlations are 0.494 (one outlier removed) and -0.584 respectively. In Experiment 6 the corresponding correlations are -0.601 and 0.?8l for low attending

subjects and 0.184 and 0.267 for high attending subjects. (Corrélations above O.65 here are significant at p = 0.05, two-tailed). Thus in ; accordance with attribution theory, although only for those subjects scoring low on attention to the room, subjects ascribed more of the cause of their mood to the room and less to themselves as they paid more attention to the room. For subjects scoring high on attention to the room the position is reversed in Experiment 5» or of negligible explanatory value in Experiment 6. Such greater attribution of the cause of mood to the room could well explain greater anchoring effects by the room's influence only in the case of low attending subjects.

In summary the change in procedure between the two experiments in the Room-Order condition has brought about different patterns of results for the dependent measures of performance and of attention and

hypothesis scaling. To speculate, the change in relative importance of baseline and room influence via experimenter involvement has brought about a fundamental change from contrast to assimilation in terms of adaptation level effects, but only for subjects paying low attention to the room. It is also possible to describe this pattern in terms of a trade off between experimenter and room influence. Locasso (1976) found non-significant trends in support of both contrast and assimilation dependent on the strength of stimulus rating material employed. He also noted a trade off between focal and environmental influence. In siny

and very sensitive such that changes in the salience of the anchoring stimuli, the subject's construal of the importance of the room in the procedure, and the level of attending to the stimuli all influence results. It is therefore not surprising that the level of experimenter involvement can dramatically alter the effects found.

Conclusion

The analysis of variance for the combined data for the two experiments demonstrates an experimenter effect here since this was the only

material difference between the two experiments. Further, the main analysis of covariance, with the hypothesis scaling measure as covariate, for the photograph ratings in Experiment 5 gave a

significant p = 0.011 result whereas the same analysis in Experiment 6 was not significant. Two aspects of experimenter involvement can be put forward to explain these differences, the mere presence of the

experimenter in a way which made certain stimuli more salient, and an experimenter-effect in that the experimenter biased subjects according to his construal of the experiment. It is difficult to separate these two potential influences.

Tests of the adaptation level and attribution theories put forward to explain previous experimental results appear therefore to have been confounded by experimenter involvement. Nevertheless some evidence has been found in support of the application of adaptation level theory to environmental influence and if this effect is dependent on, or

heightened by, the presence of a naive experimenter the result is still noteworthy. Experiment 6 can be seen as an unfair test of the theories since the experimenter was present on arrival at the experimental room but not at the reception room, whereas in Experiment 5 the experimenter

was present at both. It would appear that the mere presence of an experimenter can weight room affective judgments in accordance with adaptation level theory. A truer test of just environmental influence should seek to remove the experimenter totally, however this would be difficult to administer in practise and may yield results which are untypical and limited in terms of generalisation.

CHAPTER 7