Search

The free-choice paradigm is a widely used paradigm in psychology. It has been used to show that after a choice between two similarly pleasant stimuli, the pleasantness of the chosen one tends to increase, whereas the pleasantness of the rejected one tends to decrease-a spreading of alternatives. However, the methodological validity of the free-choice paradigm to study choice-induced preference change has recently been seriously questioned [Chen, K. M., & Risen, J. L. (2010). How choice affects and reflects preferences: Revisiting the free-choice paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 573-594. doi:10.1037/a0020217]. According to this criticism, the classically reported spreading of alternatives between the first and second rating sessions cannot be unambiguously interpreted to reflect a true change in preferences and can be observed even for completely static preferences. Here, we used two measurement sequences, a classical Rating 1-choice-Rating 2 sequence and a control Rating 1-Rating 2-choice sequence, to disentangle the spreading of alternatives driven by the effect of choice from the artefactual effect highlighted by Chen and Risen. In two studies using different stimulus material (faces and odours), we find that choice has a robust modulatory impact on preferences for rejected odours, but not for chosen odours and not for faces.

The investigation of the semantic space associated with subjective affective experiences or feelings linked to odour perception has recently emerged. Because of the specificity of the emotional effects of odours, the terms derived from traditional models of emotion are unlikely to optimally account for odour-associated feelings. In this study, sets of terms derived from two traditional models, basic emotions and valence by arousal by dominance dimensional emotions, were compared with a recently elaborated olfaction-specific set of terms (Geneva Emotion and Odour Scale; GEOS). Three main criteria were considered: (1) the feeling's intensity reported in response to odours; (2) the inter-rater agreement concerning the reported feelings; and (3) the power to discriminate feelings evoked by various odorous substances. The evidence strongly suggested that the set of terms proposed by GEOS outperformed the terms derived from the two classical models in measuring the subjective affective experience elicited by odours. These results are interpreted with respect to a good correspondence between the functions of olfaction and the meaning conveyed by GEOS terms.

Do affective responses to odors vary as a function of culture? To address this question, we developed two self-report scales in the United Kingdom (Liverpool: LEOS) and in Singapore (city of Singapore: SEOS), following the same procedure as used in the past to develop the Geneva Emotion and Odor Scale (GEOS: Chrea, Grandjean, Delplanque et al., 2009). The final scales were obtained by a three-step reduction of an initial pool of 480 affective terms, retaining only the most relevant terms to describe odor-related subjective affective states and comprised of six (GEOS) or seven affective dimensions (LEOS and SEOS). These included dimensions that were common to the three cultures (Disgust, Happiness Well-being, Sensuality Desire, and Energy), common to the two European samples (Soothing Peacefulness), and dimensions that were culture specific (Sensory Pleasure in Geneva; Nostalgia and Hunger Thirst in Liverpool; Intellectual Stimulation, Spirituality, and Negative Feelings in Singapore). A comparative approach showed that the dimensional organization of odor-related affective terms in a given culture better explained data variability for that culture than data variability for the other cultures, thus highlighting the importance of culture-specific tools in the investigation of odor-related affect.