Written Assignment #1 Jordan Blackburn 1284666 PSYCO 104 LEC A4 The study in scenario B violates Correlation vs. causation because it concludes that smells can cause good first impressions of other people. “This conclusion is a fallacy because the fact that two variables are correlated doesn’t necessarily mean that one causes the other.''(Lilienfeld et al. 2011) The results are in fact not causal. There are too many other variables that can affect our first impressions and surveys are not good at showing causal relations(Hayward lecture, 2019). Instead researchers should create an experiment and fill the room with a scent while each subject rates the photographs. This style of information gathering would provide a more valid assessment of causation(Hayward lecture, 2019). Because the study is poorly designed the researchers will have a hard time replicating the study. Every participant has their own preferences in smell and facial impressions. Replicating the results with other participants would be difficult. “Replicability means that the study findings can be duplicated consistently. If they can’t be duplicated, it increases the odds that the original findings were due to chance.”(Lilienfeld et al. 2011) There are too many other variables affecting the result to be replicated reliably. The scenario also mentions that many studies have found aromatherapy doesn’t work and although aromatherapy contains a much broader focus, the way smell affects our relationships should be part of that. Scenario B does a bad job of ruling out rival hypotheses. The study makes notable claims based on their findings suggesting smells in our environment and around us affect first impressions. But then claim that meeting romantic partners and mending broken friendships would be as well. “Whenever we evaluate a psychological claim, we should ask ourselves whether we’ve excluded other plausible explanations for it.”(Lilienfeld et al. 2011) There are too many other explanations for improved relationships, mood and confidence level among many. The researchers should make conservitive claims like, if you smell good your first impressions will be better. More research needs to be done in order to make assertions about smell and interpersonal relations(Lilienfeld et al. 2011). This Scenario exploits overreliance on anecdotes. “Anecdotes don’t tell us anything about cause and effect… [they] don’t tell us anything about how representative the cases are… [and] anecdotes are often difficult to verify. ”(Lilienfeld et al. 2011) For instance does aromatherapy help with how attractive other people find you or are there other factors that contribute to scent? Who are the clients that Jean Smythe asked? Would more of her clients corroborate her assertions in an unbiased way? We can not interpret this as valid evidence(Lilienfeld et al. 2011). References Hayward, D.A. (2019, date). Studying Behaviour Scientifically, Introduction to Psychology. Edmonton, AB. Lilienfeld, S. O., Crammer, K. M., Namy, L. L., Lynn, S. J., Woolf, N. J., & Schmaltz, R. (2011). Psychology--from inquiry to understanding, 2nd Canadian edition Lilienfeld, Lynn, Namy, Woolf, Cramer, Schmaltz. Toronto: Pearson.