Each subject was asked at the end of each session if they had any ideas as to what the experiment was about other than what they already

recorded just prior to the commencement of each session.

As in Experiment 1 two sets of materials were employed, applied

alternately to subjects and an alternate set applied for repeat session subjects.

Procedure

From initial subject recruitment the experiment was described only in pretext terms of interest with styles of problem solving. Subjects were also told that it was not an intelligence test and that there was no time limit so as to reduce any potential test anxiety and increase spontaneity. The subjects were met by the experimenter in the

Department's Common room where a brief expectation of the format of the experiment was given. This included an explanation of a 5 minute break at the beginning of the session. The break was explained in terms of the pretext that due to the nature of the experiment it was important to try and establish a neutral mood baseline for all subjects and to reduce effects such as just having come from a harrowing lecture or running late. Also, to reduce potential anxiety from the heart rate measure, subjects were told that their heart rate was to be measured by a simple sensor clipped to the ear lobe, similar in principle to the machines seen at swimming baths etc. where a finger is inserted in to a sensor. Subjects were then taken to the experimental room, the ear lobe sensor attached and the apparatus started (a simple press of the space bar on the keyboard), and then left by themselves to carry out the tasks. On completing all the tasks subjects returned to the experiment­ er in the Common room.

pressed the play button on a cassette recorder which was on the desk. The recording (not in an experimenter's or the author's voice) stated that "the story will begin in 5 minutes", and then this was followed by 5 minutes of silence. At the end of the 5 minutes the recording stated that "the story will now begin". The story lasted for 5 minutes and then the recording asked the subject to switch off the recorder and open the envelope on the desk. The envelope was marked "Do not open until instructed". Following the instructions to the tests enclosed, subjects completed the primary tasks, photograph and personality state scalings, and then placed these completed tests in an envelope and sealed it before opening a second envelope which contained the incidental memory and story recall tests and the room and task scalings. (Thus the room scaling came right at the end of the

experiment). At the end of the tasks the subject removed the ear lobe sensor and returned to the experimenter in the Common room. Each subject was then asked if they had any ideas or hypotheses as to what the experiment was about other than what they had already been told and their answers were recorded on a cassette recorder.

Results and Discussion

Replay of the recording containing the responses to the post- experimental question revealed that no subjects were aware of the involvement of the room furniture or decoration in the experiment, despite the obvious poor state of the UR. Questioning by the author of the experimenters at the end of their work also showed that they were naive to the purpose of the experiment and the main independent

manipulation. No significant differences or interactions were found for the room temperature measures, humidity measures or session times.

test were not significant. Results from Easterbrook's hypothesis incidental memory test were also not significant.

Photograph ratings

Since data was only available for two of the four experimenters in the repeat sessions a full analysis with all independent variables for both first and repeat session data was not possible. Therefore an analysis was carried out for the first sessions only which is valid since the first sessions can be considered as an experiment in their own right. Two subjects completed the photograph ratings incorrectly and these scores are treated as missing data values in the analyses.

A f - w a y analysis of variance was carried out with the sum of the energy and well-being scores as the dependent variable, and rooms, experimenters and subject sex as the independent variables (see Table 2). The main effect of room condition was significant (F(l,42) =

p < 0.01). Photograph rating scores were higher in the unpleasant room (UR) compared to the pleasant room (PR), a result in direct contradic­ tion to the Maslow and Mintz result. The mean score in the PR was 17.15

(SD = 2.8l), and in the UR, 19.14 (SD = 2.27). Separate analyses of variance were calculated for the energy and well-being scores which showed that the energy scores were significantly different between the rooms (F(1,46) = 6.34, p < 0.025), as were the well-being scores

(F(l,46) = 6.07, P < 0.025). Energy and well-being scores were found to correlate positively (0.57, P < 0.01, 2-tailed). The main analysis of variance for the sum of the energy and well-being scores also showed a ^sex effect (F(l,4&) = 4.0%"^ p r O . O ^ ) with mean photograph rating

scores for male subjects being 17*36 (SD = 2.99), and 18.92 (SD = 2.38) for female subjects, although this effect was not as strong as the room

effect and it is not directly relevant to the Maslow and Mintz result. Table 2

Experiment 2; Analysis of variance of photograph rating scores First sessions only

Source of variation_________________ df___________ MS___________ F____ Sex 1 22.25 4.05 Room 1 48.01 7.40 * Sex X Room 1 1.57 0.24 Error 42(2) 6.49 * p < 0.01

Postscript: Separate analyses of variance in each room condition with the sum of energy and well-being scores as dependent variable, and subject sex and experimenters as dependendent variables, were not significant. This adds justification to the collapsing of the experimenter variable in the above analysis.

Since experimenter effects were not observed the experimenter variable was collapsed to enable an analysis of variance including the repeat session data. A three-way analysis of variance was carried out with the sum of the energy and well-being scores as the dependent variable, and rooms, subject sex (between subjects) and session (first or repeat session, within subjects) as the independent variables (see Table 3). The analysis showed a main effect of room condition (F(l,40) = 4.36, p < 0.05) with photograph rating scores still significantly higher in the UR compared to the PR. Also the interaction term session x sex was significant (F(l,40) = 6.84, p < 0.025). Mean scores for male subjects in the repeat sessions were higher than for the first sessions, while mean scores for female subjects in the repeat sessions were lower than for the first sessions. No obvious explanation for this effect is

suggested in the data and in any event it is not relevant to the Maslow and Mintz effect. None of the other control variables were significant, nor were any of their interactions.

Table 3

Experiment 2; Analysis of variance of photograph rating scores First and repeat sessions

Source of variation df MS Between subjects Session Room Sex Session x Room Session x Sex Room X Sex

Session x Room x Sex