manipulations to test the application of the adaptation level theory and attribution theory accounts when compared to a Control condition. Briefly, the independent manipulation to test the attribution theory consisted of a 'salience' manipulation by the experimenter whereby the subject's attention was drawn to the room as a cause of poor mood. This manipulation was designed to increase misattribution to the room and was therefore predicted to promote higher photograph ratings compared to the Control condition which did not contain the salience manipu lation. The independent manipulation to test the adaptation level account consisted of a 'Room-Order' condition whereby subjects went initially to another unpleasant room, similar aesthetically to the experimental unpleasant room, instead of going initially to the Common room as in the Control condition. The baseline ratings were therefore completed in the unpleasant reception room instead of the Common room. According to the adaptation level account the experimental room should therefore be relatively less unpleasant, the subject having first visited another unpleasant room. The photograph ratings made in contrast against the background of a less unpleasant room were
therefore predicted to be lower in the Room-Order condition than in the Control condition. A methodological problem in the Room-Order condition when running the experiment meant that subjects first went to the
Common room before then being taken by the experimenter to the
unpleasant reception room and this would have weakened the power of the adaptation level test by weakening the anchoring influence of the
unpleasant reception room. This difference may well have been critical to the test. The results from Experiment 5 showed a non-significant trend of lower mean photograph rating scores in the Room-Order
condition compared to the Control condition, which is in the direction predicted by the adaptation level account. The results also showed lower photograph rating scores in the Salience condition compared to the Control condition which is opposite to that predicted by the attribution theory account. However Experiment 5 also found evidence for experimenter effects, most evident in trends for differences between baseline photograph ratings in the different room conditions. Therefore Experiment 6 was carried out as a replication of Experiment 5 but with the removal of most of the opportunity for experimenter
influence. In Experiment 6 the Room-Order and Salience manipulations were carried out by written instructions to the subjects. The data from Experiment 6 showed the mean levels for the photograph rating scores to be very similar across the three conditions, therefore casting doubt on the adaptation level account of the data from Experiment 5»
The data from Experiment 5 do support the application of adaptation level effects in terms of a trend of lower photograph ratings in the Room-Order condition compared to the Control condition, in line with that predicted for the test. The experiment also showed negative correlations of the order of -0.6 between absolute mood and the photograph ratings, which can be seen as a contrast effect and
be addressed. Firstly, in Experiment 5 the Salience condition
photograph scores UlCO . also lower than in the Control condition and without knowledge of the mechanism here it is not possible to rule out an account whereby this mechanism which brought about lower scores in the Salience condition also brought about the lower scores in the Room- Order condition. However the data do suggest that a different mechanism was involved in the Salience condition which makes this account less likely. Whereas negative correlations between absolute mood and the photograph scores were found in the Control and Room-Order conditions of Experiment 5» these correlations were extremely low in the Salience condition. Also the most powerful predictor of the photograph ratings in the Room-Order and Salience conditions was the hypothesis scaling measure. However for the Room-Order condition the power of the
hypothesis scaling measure to predict the photograph ratings was not significant (p = 0.09), but was significant for the Salience condition
(p = 0.027). This more powerful influence by a measure of the subject’s scaling of the room importance in the experiment implicates the
experimenter in this influence, since the experimenter was involved here in a specific manipulation with respect to the experimental room. Whereas both independent manipulations involved the experimenter in room-specific manipulations the salience manipulation required the experimenter to highlight the experimental room as a cause of poor mood. It is thus possible to see that the Salience condition, which required greater experimenter involvement in the procedure, therefore also brought about a more experimenter-mediated and different mechanism to that in the Room-Order and Control conditions. As such an
interpretation of the data from just the Room-Order and Control conditions in terms of adaptation level theory may still be valid.
The second problem with the adaptation level interpretation of the trend in the data for the Room-Order and Control conditions of
Experiment 5 is the lack of such trend in Experiment 6. However, whilst