Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (650,000)
U of G (30,000)
PSYC (4,000)
Lecture 2

PSYC 2040 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: John Tukey, Bar Chart


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC 2040
Professor
Naseem Al- Aidroos
Lecture
2

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
Running&head:&EFFECT&OF&SMELL&ON&RATE&OF&ATTRACTIVENESS&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&1&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Effect of Smell on Rate of Attractiveness:
Difference of Attractiveness Rating between different types of Perfumes
Dalia Ahmed 0824311
September 27, 2014
Research Statistics PSYC*2040*0106
University of Guelph
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

EFFECT&OF&SMELL&ON&RATE&OF&ATTRACTIVENESS&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&2&
Part 1:
I examined the extent to which men’s ratings of a woman’s attractiveness varied as a
result of how she smells (No Perfume, No Name Perfume, Pop Star Perfume, or Movie
Star Perfume) using a one-way analysis of variance. The ANOVA homogeneity of
variance assumption was not violated, Lavene’s F(3, 36) = .28, ns. The smell had a
significant effect on the men’s rating of attractiveness of the women, F(3, 36) = 4.26, p <
.05, η2= .26, see figure 1. Specifically, girls who wore no perfume (M = 16.00, SE =
1.21) received a significantly higher attractiveness rating from men than girls who wore
NoName perfume (M = 10.00, SE = 1.39), q(4, 36) = 4.53, p < .05, d = 1.46, and girls
who wore MovieStar perfume (M = 10.80, SE = 1.33), q(4, 36) = 3.93, p < .05, d = 1.29,
but not higher than those that wore PopStar perfume (M = 11.00, SE = 1.36), q(4, 36) =
3.77, ns, d = 1.23. In addition, the men’s rating of attractiveness of women who wore
NoName perfume (M = 10.00, SE = 1.39) was not significantly higher than that of those
who wore PopStar perfume (M = 11.00, SE = 1.36), q(4,36) = .75, ns, d = .23. It was also
not significantly higher than that of those who wore MovieStar perfume (M = 10.80, SE
= 1.33), q(4,36) = .60, ns, d = .19. The men’s rating of women who wore Popstar perfume
(M = 11.00, SE = 1.36) was not significantly higher than those who wore MovieStar
perfume (M = 10.80, SE = 1.33), q(4,36) = .15, ns, d = .05. Thus, wearing no perfume
improved the men’s rating of attractiveness for women; however, wearing NoName
perfume, Popstar perfume, or MovieStar perfume did not improve the men’s rating of
attractiveness for women.
Part 2:
Levene’s Test
H0: µNo Perfume = µNo Name = µPopStar = µMovieStar
H1: Not all standard deviations are the same.
ANOVA
H0: µNo Perfume = µNo Name = µPopStar = µMovieStar
H1: Not all population means are the same.
Tukey (An example)
H0: The mean of No Perfume and the mean of No Name are equal
H1: The mean of No Perfume and the mean of No Name are not equal
&
Part 3:
I would advice my female friends who are interested in being perceived as attractive to
not wear perfume over wearing NoName Perfume and MovieStar perfumes as not
wearing perfume makes men perceive them significantly more attractive. I would advice
them to not wear PopStar perfume over NoName perfume as they are not significantly
different. I would not advice them to use NoName perfume over PopStar and MovieStar
perfumes as there was no significant difference between them. In addition, I would not
advice them to use Popstar perfume over MovieStar perfume as they are also not
significantly different from one another.
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version