{"paper_id":"2b74a6b2-a80f-4284-94a1-ec614813a531","body_text":"The interactive role of odor associations in friendship preferences | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article The interactive role of odor associations in friendship preferences J. M. Gaby, G. Gunaydin, V. Zayas This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4877114/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Apr, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Who we choose to befriend is highly personal, driven by idiosyncratic preferences about other individuals, including sensory cues. How does a person’s unique sensory evaluation of others’ body odor affect friendship formation? Female participants took part in a speed-friending event where they made judgments of friendship potential (FP) following a 4-minute live interaction. Prior to and following the speed-friending event, participants judged the FP of these women based solely on diplomatic odor (including daily perfume/hygiene products) presented on worn t -shirts. Participants also judged FP based on facial appearance (a 100-ms presentation of portrait photographs). Judgments based solely on diplomatic odor predicted FP judgments following in-person interactions, beyond the predictive ability of photograph-based judgments. Moreover, judgments based on the live interaction predicted changes in the second round of diplomatic odor judgments, suggesting that the quality of the live interaction modified olfactory perception. Results were driven more strongly by idiosyncratic preferences than by global perceiver or target effects. Findings highlight the dynamic role of ecologically relevant social olfactory cues in informing friendship judgments, as well as the involvement of odor-based associative learning during the early stages of friendship formation. Biological sciences/Psychology Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour Friendship First impressions Social Olfaction Odor Associations Multimodal perception Figures Figure 1 Author Note The present research was funded by a grant to Zayas and Gaby from the Cornell Center for Social Sciences (formerly known as the Institute for the Social Sciences (ISS)). Data, syntax, and study materials can be found at https://osf.io/4k7mg/?view_only=0a1c534d2e494a72aac09d66bbe429fc (this link will be amended with a public link when the study is published). We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. *Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jessica Gaby at [email protected] . Introduction Friendships are paramount to mental and physical wellbeing (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004; Myers, 2000). From an evolutionary perspective, friendships are adaptive, increasing survival and reproductive success (Seyfarth & Cheney, 2012). In the present work, we examine how diplomatic olfactory cues (including daily fragrances and hygiene products) forecast an inclination to befriend another person, and in turn, how these olfactory associations are modified by actual interactions. Sensory cues are assumed to serve as “heuristics,” allowing individuals to quickly assess whether a person is a potential friend or foe, to be trusted or not (Fiske et al., 2007; Oosterhof & Todorov, 2008). Much work focuses on how visual information, such as facial cues, shape interpersonal judgments (see Young & Bruce, 2011 for a review). Much less work has focused on the role of olfactory cues, although each person has a unique odor signature (Lenochová & Havlicek, 2008; Lundström & Olsson, 2010), and each social interaction takes place in the olfactory context of the other person’s body odor. Olfactory preferences are rooted both in genetics (Roberts et al., 2005; Trimmer et al., 2017) and experience (for review, see Ferdenzi et al., 2013), with strong, emotional odor associations forming after a minimal number of exposures (Li et al., 2008). Odor associations have been shown to modulate perception of other social cues (Gaby & Dalton, 2019; Li et al., 2008). Thus, olfactory associations with cosmetic and personal odors may influence social impressions such as evaluations of friendship potential. Body odors themselves are susceptible to associative learning, in contexts from maternal bonding (Schäfer et al., 2020) to threat perception (Kastner et al., 2016) to romantic partners (McBurney et al., 2006). As information is acquired about another person, olfactory associations may update to reflect the quality of social interactions with a given partner. As a friendship (or any relationship) develops, a person might learn to associate an individual’s body odor with the emotional outcome of their interactions experienced over time, with the person’s body odor increasing its rewarding value if the interaction was good, and acquiring aversive value if the interaction was poor. Such associative learning between body odor and emotional states likely accounts for learned responses to body odors, such as smelling a partner’s shirt for comfort during periods of separation (McBurney et al., 2006). Ultimately, associations with another person’s body odor might help reinforce social dynamics, including motivations and decisions about continued investment in a relationship (Gaby & Dalton, 2019; Hofer & Chen, 2020). Historically, social olfactory research has focused on mate choice (e.g., Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998; Porter et al., 1985), but increasingly, work has shown that body odors shape person perception more broadly, including impressions of aggression (Mutic et al., 2016), cooperativeness (Tognetti et al., 2022), and emotion (de Groot et al., 2021). Within this growing literature, the majority of work utilizes “natural” body odor (i.e., devoid of exogenous fragrances, deodorant, dietary influences, etc.), collected on t -shirts or pads, composed mostly of armpit, or axillary , sweat. In many cultures, however, individuals typically don’t encounter another person’s natural axillary odor. Instead, people encounter others’ diplomatic scent, which includes fragrances, deodorant, and other hygiene products. Gaby and Zayas (2017) found that social judgments based on diplomatic scent and social judgments based on natural body odor were only weakly correlated, suggesting that the two convey different information. These findings are consistent with research showing that fragrance modifies judgments of body odor (e.g., Lenochová et al., 2012), and highlight the importance of assessing the role of diplomatic odor in social interactions. In live, in-person interactions, individuals encounter not only diplomatic scent, but also a wealth of other information, including physical appearance, tone of voice, nonverbal behaviors, and the environmental context of the interaction. This information, especially the powerful influence of facial cues (Gunaydin et al., 2017), may eliminate, dilute or modify the effects of olfactory cues. Understanding how body odor is utilized in naturalistic, multimodal settings is critical to elucidating the functional role of body odor outside of the lab (Roberts et al., 2022). Two studies examining the use of natural olfactory cues in multimodal interactions draw contrasting conclusions. Roth et al. (2021) examined the role of natural body odor in romantic attraction in multimodal settings and found that natural olfactory cues failed to predict actual attraction (Roth et al., 2021). In contrast, Ravreby et al. (2022), using natural body odor in multimodal, non-romantic interactions, found that body odor similarity might be important in the formation of “click” friendships. Few studies have focused explicitly on diplomatic odor. In one investigation of the role of diplomatic body odor in semi-naturalistic settings (Gaby & Zayas, 2017), blindfolded and earplugged perceivers judged the likeability of “target” individuals who briefly sat beside them for one minute. In the absence of visual or auditory information, perceivers made reliable judgments based solely on these odor cues. The findings demonstrate that diplomatic olfactory cues encountered on whole bodies and at typical social distances are perceptible and can be utilized to make social judgments. The study did not, however, utilize a multimodal context to examine if such cues are utilized when other information is present. Studies utilizing semi-diplomatic odors (application of a study-specific perfume) in multimodal settings suggest that body odors are important in informing social judgments (Adenskaya & Dommeyer, 2011; Baron, 1983; Singh et al., 2019). Present Research To clarify the importance of diplomatic odors in non-romantic social judgments, the present work examined how perceivers use diplomatic olfactory cues in real, multimodal interactions to inform friendship preferences. Informed by past work showing modification of olfactory associations from learning, this work also investigated how the quality of live interactions might modify olfactory associations with an individual’s diplomatic odor. In a “speed-friending” paradigm, female participants had approximately ten four-minute interactions with other women; following each interaction, they judged the friendship potential (FP) of each partner. Prior to and following the speed-friending interaction, participants also made FP judgments based on diplomatic odor cues collected on t -shirts. Diplomatic olfactory cues may be related to judgments based on other single modality cues, such as facial cues (Puts et al., 2013; Roberts et al., 2011), which have been shown to predict liking judgments in live, in-person interactions (Cooper et al., 2012; Gunaydin et al., 2017; Roth et al., 2021). To examine the differential forecasting power of olfactory cues, participants also judged FP based on viewing a target’s portrait photograph for 100-ms. This design allowed us to investigate two central questions: First, to what extent do FP judgments based on diplomatic olfactory cues alone uniquely forecast FP judgments formed during face-to-face, multimodal interactions, beyond judgments based on visual cues alone? Second, to what extent do experiences in the live interaction subsequently predict changes in FP judgments of the same person’s diplomatic olfactory cues? Method Data Availability Statement Materials, data, and analysis code for this study are publicly available via OSF and can be accessed at https://osf.io/4k7mg/?view_only=0a1c534d2e494a72aac09d66bbe429fc . We report all conditions, measures, and data exclusions. This experiment received ethics approval from the Cornell IRB under Protocol 1203002865. Participants The study was advertised around campus as “Speed Friending?” Forty women ages 18–30 (mean age 21.1 years), all with a normal sense of smell (see SOM), participated in the study. They were compensated $ 35 at the end of the speed friending session for participating in all 4 parts of the study, with an option to receive course credit instead of cash. Given the repeated nature of our design, and that each participant judged approximately 10 targets on four liking judgments, we had a high number of observations to obtain strong statistical power. The degrees of freedom for a repeated measures correlation are approximately X ≈ K − 1 times greater than the degrees of freedom for the Pearson correlation, where K is the mean number of repeated pairs within individuals. In our study, K is approximately 40. Thus, our design allowed us to achieve at least 80% statistical power for our primary hypotheses to detect within-person associations (Bakdash & Marusich, 2017 ). Procedure The study consisted of four parts (see Fig. 1 ): A) an in-person pre-event session, wherein participants had their portraits (headshot) taken and were given materials for the odor collection phase, B) an online pre-event session wherein participants completed self-report measures and provided judgments of friendship potential (FP) based on visual cues alone (i.e., 100-ms exposure of targets’ portraits), C) a diplomatic odor collection phase, wherein participants wore the t -shirt given in part A for approximately 12 hours, as they went about their daily activities, and D) an in-person session, wherein participants provided (pre-interaction) FP judgments based on olfactory cues alone (i.e., smelling t -shirts worn by those in the session), followed by the live speed-friending session wherein they had four minute interactions with approximately ten partners, which was followed by a second round (post-interaction) of FP judgments based on olfactory cues alone (i.e., smelling the same t -shirts). Judgments of friendship potential (FP) Participants assessed the friendship potential (FP) of targets at four different times: based on visual cues (i.e., 100-ms exposure to targets’ portraits), pre-interaction olfactory cues (i.e.., diplomatic odor before the live interaction), live multimodal interaction (i.e., following the 4-minute interaction in the speed-friending session), and post-interaction olfactory cues (i.e., diplomatic odor following the live interaction). At each assessment, participants judged the extent to which the person “ … seems like a person whom… ”: “ I would like to get to know ,” “ I would like to share a social activity with ,” “ I would like to be friends with ,” or “ I would prefer NOT to hang out with ” (reverse-scored) using a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree ). Participants answered additional questions about targets when providing olfactory and live judgments (see OSF materials). Given that in the portrait judgment task participants only made a few judgments based on the briefly presented photograph, we did not assess these questions for the portrait photos. To keep all analyses consistent, we focus on the FP judgments that were assessed in a similar format across the different modalities. In-Person Pre-event Session Approximately two weeks before the speed-friending session, participants attended an in-person pre-event session where they provided written consent. They were also given materials and instructions for the diplomatic odor collection phase (i.e., a clean cotton t -shirt in a Ziplock bag; see Diplomatic Odor Collection section below). Participants were also asked to pose for a photograph to be used in the face judgment task. Photographs were taken against a plain white wall with participants looking straight at the camera. Smiling photographs (with glasses, if participants wore glasses) were used for the face judgment task, as these were assumed to better capture how individuals would appear when meeting someone for the first time. Photographs were cropped so that the participant’s face was centered in the photo, with minimal space at the top of the head. Bottom margins were aligned just below the collarbone and side margins were aligned approximately with the AC joint, where shoulders begin to slope downwards. Online Pre-event Session: Portrait Judgment Task and Self-report Measures Following the in-person pre-event session and at least two days before the live speed-friending session, participants completed the snap judgment task and self-report surveys including a demographic questionnaire online. During the face judgment task, participants judged friendship potential (FP) based on a 100-ms exposure of portrait photos of the other participants in the study. Participants judged approximately 20–24 unique target faces, approximately half of which they would interact with in the speed-friending event (see SOM for details). The specific FP questions were randomly presented throughout the task. At the end of the task, we asked participants if they had viewed photographs of anyone they knew. If the person was more than a passing acquaintance (e.g., “ This person is in my history class but I don’t know their name ”), we ensured that participants were moved to separate days or placed into non-interacting roles (i.e., both as targets or both as raters) so they would not evaluate each other in the speed-friending session. Diplomatic Odor Collection Between one and three days before the speed-friending event, we followed protocols for collecting diplomatic odor (Gaby & Zayas, 2017 ) and asked participants to wear their t -shirt for approximately 12 hours, as they went about their daily activities. Because we were interested in capturing daily diplomatic odors, participants were asked not to make any modifications to their daily hygiene or habitual routines. They were asked, however, to avoid smoking or drinking alcohol, as well as strenuous exercise, being in particularly smelly locations such as smoky bars, and engaging in sexual activity while wearing their shirts. If participants wore perfume or other fragranced products during odor collection, they were asked to wear the same products to the speed-friending session. At the end of the collection period, participants placed their t -shirt in the freezer in the provided Ziploc bag, then brought the shirt with them to the speed-friending session. Participants were also asked to fill out an activity log for the day of odor collection (see OSF materials). Most participants reported donning their t -shirts between 7 and 10 am and removing them between 7 pm and 12 am. In-person Speed-friending Event Prior to the speed-friending event, we randomly assigned participants to one of two groups; those in the stationary group were to remain seated throughout the speed-friending session, and those in the traveling group moved from one stationary participant to another. On the day of the speed-friending event, participants were asked to arrive in one of two locations to avoid meeting participants from the other group (who they would eventually interact with) before the speed-friending session. Participants completed a brief “day of” questionnaire about their health, mental state, and menstrual cycle (see OSF materials). They also turned in bags containing their t -shirts to the experimenters, who labeled them with a randomly-generated unique number. The t -shirts from each group were exchanged so that the stationary group smelled the t -shirts of the traveling group and vice versa. Pre-interaction Diplomatic Odor Judgments. Prior to the actual speed-friending event, participants (still in separate groups) were provided with gloves, a packet of rating sheets, a pen, and a randomized list of t -shirt numbers to ensure that t -shirts were smelled in a random order for each individual. T -shirts (in their bags) were placed individually on tables throughout the room. Participants were instructed to circulate to each t -shirt, while not talking with one another. For each t -shirt, participants were instructed to open the bag, take a single deep sniff, and close the bag before making FP judgments, using the same four questions used in the face judgment task. Speed-friending Event. The entire speed friending event took place in the graduate student union on Cornell University’s campus, a large, refurbished barn with a number of café tables spread throughout the first floor and an open mezzanine level. After providing their pre-interaction diplomatic odor judgments , stationary participants were led to chairs at one of the tables (“ meeting stations” ) throughout the main speed-friending room so that there was at least one empty table between each participant, distributed on both the first and second floor of the building. Once all stationary participants were seated, traveling participants were brought to the speed-friending location. Each traveling participant was randomly assigned to one of the meeting stations around the room for their first meeting, then proceeded from station to station in a clockwise rotation (Figure S1 ). In preparation for the speed friending session, all participants put on a name tag and received rating sheets including the questions to assess friendship potential. Both travelling and stationary participants were given identical information about meetings: each meeting would last four minutes, during which participants were to try to get to know the person seated opposite them. Following the meeting, traveling participants were to move to the next meeting station before both parties made their ratings, so that participants could not observe the ratings being made about their most recent meeting. After the four-minute live interaction, participants provided their FP judgments by answering the same four questions used in the face judgment task and diplomatic odor judgments. Participants had two minutes between meetings before the experimenter made an announcement for them to move to the next station (if traveling) and to make their ratings. Post-interaction Diplomatic Odor Judgments. At the end of the speed-friending event, participants returned to their original meeting places to complete the second round of diplomatic odor judgments. Participants were presented with the same t -shirts, but this time in a new randomized order, and again asked the same four questions to assess friendship potential. Debriefing . At the end of the session, participants were asked to fill out a brief survey asking them whether they thought they knew what the study was about, and, if so, to write down their guess as to the purpose of the study (see OSF materials). Participants were then debriefed, allowed to ask any questions, and provided with their compensation. Data Analytic Strategy Our primary questions focused on the extent to which judgments based on pre-interaction diplomatic olfactory cues forecasted judgments based on the live multimodal speed-friending session, and the extent to which the nature of the live interaction forecasted changes in judgments based on post-interaction olfactory cues. Given the nested nature of our data, we tested our primary hypotheses using multilevel models (MLMs) with a restricted maximum likelihood estimation (Hayes, 2006 ). In all MLMs, we treated perceiver, target, and perceiver \\(\\:\\times\\:\\) target as random factors. MLM analyses were run using lme4 (Bates et al., 2015 ) and for descriptive purposes, zero-order within-person correlations were run using rmcorr (Bakdash & Marusich, 2017 ) in R version 6.0. To test our first hypothesis, we treated diplomatic olfactory judgments as a fixed predictor. To isolate the unique predictive ability of diplomatic olfactory judgments on live FP judgments, we also included visual judgments (i.e., based on the 100-ms exposure to targets’ portrait) as a covariate, entering it into the model as a fixed predictor. Work using the speed-dating paradigm to examine romantic interest has shown that traveling (vs. staying stationary) leads to greater romantic interest (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). Thus, in our MLMs, we included whether participants had been randomly assigned to the traveling or the stationary group (traveling = 1; stationary = 0) as a fixed predictor. Traveling in the speed-friending event was not a statistically significant predictor of FP judgments or the likelihood of exchanging contact information, and therefore, not included in the MLMs. To test our second hypothesis regarding how olfactory associations may update following the quality of live multimodal interactions, we ran an MLM predicting post-interaction olfactory judgments from live judgments, and statistically controlled for pre-interaction olfactory judgments and portrait (visual) judgments, all entered as fixed predictors. Results Preliminary Analyses Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all key variables are reported in Table 1 . As shown, the within-person correlations revealed that judgments of friendship potential across modalities were correlated ( p s < .05). Perceivers who judged targets as having high friendship potential based on pre-interaction diplomatic olfactory cues alone were also more likely to judge the same targets as having high friendship potential based on portrait (visual) cues alone. Moreover, FP judgments based on single modalities were all correlated with friendship potential based on the live multimodal interaction. Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Zero-order Correlations (Between- and Within-person) among Portrait (Visual), Live, and Olfactory Friendship Potential (FP) Judgments Portrait (Visual) Pre-interaction Olfactory Live Multimodal Post-interaction Olfactory Mean SD Portrait (Visual) 4.57 .71 - 0.14*** 0.16*** 0.06* Pre-interaction Olfactory 4.31 .69 .37* - 0.08** .41*** Live Multimodal 5.21 .58 .41** .50*** - .06* Post-interaction Olfactory 4.31 .77 .35* .82*** .45** - Note . Between-person Pearson correlations are reported in the lower diagonal; Within-person correlations in the upper diagonal ( df = 106). Friendship potential judgments for all modalities were made on 7-point scales, with higher numbers reflecting greater friendship potential. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Do Pre-interaction Olfactory Judgments Predict Live Multimodal Judgments? We examined the extent to which friendship judgments based solely on pre-interaction diplomatic olfactory cues forecasted FP judgments following the actual four-minute live, multimodal interaction in the speed-friending session. Results of MLM are reported in Table 2 . Pre-interaction diplomatic olfactory judgments uniquely forecasted live judgments ( b = .16, p < .001, 95% CI [.11, .21]), even after statistically controlling for the predictive ability of portrait (visual) cues, which also forecasted FP judgments in the live interaction ( b = .08, p < .001, 95% CI [.04, .12]), consistent with past work (Gunaydin et al., 2017 ). Could these results be driven by universally opinionated perceivers (i.e., perceiver effects) or universally attractive targets (i.e., target effects)? We examined the robustness of these findings by first computing each participant’s mean and each target’s mean for each modality. We then entered these predictors as covariates into the MLM. The findings were robust even when we entered perceiver and target effects into the model (see Table S1 ). Table 2 Multilevel Model (MLM) Estimates of Pre-interaction Diplomatic Olfactory Judgments and Portrait (Visual) Judgments Predicting Live Multimodal Judgments in the Speed-Friending Session Live Multimodal Judgments Predictors Estimates 95% CI p (Intercept) 4.16 3.80–4.51 < 0.001 Portrait (Visual) 0.08 0.04–0.12 0.004 Pre-interaction Olfactory Judgments 0.16 0.11–0.21 < 0.001 Random Effects σ 2 0.39 Perceiver:Target 0.82 Perceiver 0.09 Target 0.30 ICC 0.76 N Perceiver 40 N Target 36 Observations 1398 Marginal R 2 / Conditional R 2 0.039 / 0.765 How Do Live Multimodal Interactions Forecast Shifts in Olfactory Judgments? We reasoned that the quality of the live interaction, as reflected in FP judgments, would predict updating olfactory associations, as reflected in post-interaction olfactory judgments. Results of the MLM revealed that live multimodal judgments predicted post-interaction olfactory judgments ( b = .12, p < .001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.16]; Table 3 ), above and beyond pre-interaction olfactory judgments. We included portrait (visual) judgments as a predictor in the MLM with post-interaction olfactory judgments as the outcome to keep the MLMs equivalent. Nonetheless, when we reran the MLM without portrait (visual) judgments as a covariate, FP judgments based on the live multimodal interaction remained a statistically significant predictor of FP judgments based on post-interaction olfactory cues ( b = .11, p < .001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.16]). Again, we performed robustness checks to examine the extent to which the results could be driven by perceiver effects or target effects. We entered each perceiver’s mean judgment and each target’s mean judgments as covariates into the MLM. The findings were robust even when we entered perceiver and target effects into the model (see Table S2). Table 3 Estimates of Live Interpersonal Judgments Predicting Post-interaction Olfactory Judgments, Statistically Controlling for Pre-interaction Olfactory Judgments and Portrait (Visual) Judgments Post-interaction Olfactory Judgments Predictors Estimates 95% CI p (Intercept) 2.33 1.95–2.71 < 0.001 Portrait (Visual) 0.03 -0.01–0.07 0.094 Pre-interaction Olfactory Judgments 0.29 0.24–0.34 < 0.001 Live Multimodal Judgments 0.12 0.07–0.16 < 0.001 Random Effects σ 2 0.32 Perceiver:Target 0.70 Perceiver 0.24 Target 0.10 ICC 0.76 N Perceiver 40 N Target 36 Observations 1394 Marginal R 2 / Conditional R 2 0.130 / 0.795 Discussion In our daily lives, evaluating other people is critical to navigating the social environment. Given the paramount importance of friendship to health and wellbeing, decisions regarding whom to befriend can have long-lasting impacts on emotional well-being, social status, and professional success. The present research highlights the understudied role of olfactory information in initial friendship preferences and the early stages of friendship development. In this study, we assessed the ability of olfactory cues to forecast social judgments in live, multimodal interactions, and the potential for the quality of those live interactions to modify olfactory preferences. As hypothesized, we found that judgments in friendship potential immediately following a four-minute live, multimodal interaction were uniquely predicted by both diplomatic olfactory and portrait (visual) judgments. Further, we found that judgments in the live interactions predicted judgments in the post-interaction t -shirt judgments, above and beyond the initial relationship between olfactory cues and live judgments, suggesting that olfactory associations are modified by learning during the live interaction. This iterative modification of odor perception following live interactions could underlie learned responses to familiar body odors, supporting the idea that olfactory cues may reinforce emotional connections as a friendship develops. Our study focused on how olfactory cues as encountered in everyday life may shape social judgments in platonic contexts. As platonic interactions make up the majority of social interactions on a daily basis for many individuals, this study sheds light on the influence of sensory cues in everyday life. It provides empirical evidence that these cues can be perceived in olfactorily “messy” environments and at social distances in multimodal interactions. Further, our use of diplomatic odor—and live interactions—is a rare approach (Roberts et al., 2022 ) and provides support for the idea that olfactory cues are operating in ecologically relevant contexts, not just in laboratory settings. To the best of our knowledge, only two other studies have examined olfactory and visual modalities in tandem with a live interaction (Ravreby et al., 2022 ; Roth et al., 2021 ). In a mating context, Roth et al. ( 2021 ) found that judgments based on photographs (presented for longer than in our study) predicted liking in a live speed dating setting (see also Cooper et al., 2012 ), but importantly, judgments based on natural odor did not. They suggested that perhaps diplomatic odor would be a better predictor of liking, and indeed that is what we find here. Ravreby et al. ( 2022 ) found that similarity of visual cues (face and torso) predicted how well women would get along with a female partner in a platonic social interaction, and so did similarity of natural olfactory cues as rated by an e-nose. However, they did not directly test whether a person’s liking judgments based solely on olfactory cues of a specific individual predicted the quality of an actual interaction with that person, nor did they examine diplomatic odor. Interestingly, human raters did not demonstrate an ability to predict the potential for perceived friendliness when evaluating body odors, though the e-nose did. Again, it is possible that this discrepancy is due to the use of natural rather than diplomatic body odor. The present research highlights the importance of using diplomatic odor to maximize ecological relevance. Our data also show that visual and olfactory judgments were related to one another (see Table 1 ), providing support for the notion that olfactory signals provide complimentary, rather than redundant, information in social interactions. In a recent meta-analysis of research using more traditional methodology and focused on mate selection, the authors found weak but statistically significant cross-modal associations between body odor and visual attractiveness (Třebický et al., 2023 ). Our study focused on platonic interactions also found small but statistically significant within-person correlations, but that olfactory and visual information each uniquely predicted judgments made in live interactions. Thus, our results support the idea that olfactory and visual information contribute different types of social information in the realm of first impressions and assessments of friendship potential. There are some important constraints on generality to consider for this work. This study examined the responses of heterosexual females at an American university in a fairly narrow age range. College-age women are an appropriate population of interest given the importance of peer relations in this developmental period. Yet, it is possible that there might be some differences in how these cues function for older or younger women, or women in more mixed age groups, as well as how they might be utilized among men. Use of deodorant and fragranced products is common among American women. Future studies might consider a wider age range, investigate individuals at different stages of development, focus on how these cues function in male-male platonic interactions, or examine how scent in daily interactions shapes friendship judgments in other cultures. Our findings are consistent with the proposition that olfactory cues shape the inferences we make about other individuals, as well as our own behaviors towards others. If you find someone’s odor pleasant, even if you aren’t consciously registering it, that odor may help to set your expectations about their behaviors. Additional interactions with this individual may help to strengthen (or weaken) the valence of associations with their body odor, functioning as a reinforcing cue in future interactions. This study demonstrates the complex, multimodal nature of platonic interpersonal interactions, and highlights the importance of diplomatic olfactory information in real life impression formation. Declarations Public Significance Statement In this work, we provide evidence that social olfactory cues that include typical product use, including perfumes and deodorant, forecast judgments of friendship potential following a live interaction, and that the quality of the interactions predicts the subsequent value of the odor cues. Extant work on social olfaction often eliminates exogenous odorants, which are common in the US and elsewhere. Many studies focus on mate choice and/or sweat samples presented in controlled laboratory settings. Here, we investigate evaluations of body odor in platonic interactions as they occur in multimodal “noisy” environments that people encounter in their daily life. This work emphasizes the powerful role of scent in shaping initial impressions and fostering connections, and demonstrates the interactive nature of social judgments and the potential for odor-based learning early in relationship formation. The findings also highlight that olfactory cues convey information that overlaps but is distinct from visual cues. Research Transparency Statement Conflicts of interest: We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. Funding: The present research was funded by a grant to Zayas and Gaby from the Cornell Center for Social Sciences (formerly known as the Institute for the Social Sciences (ISS)). Ethics: This experiment received ethics approval from the Cornell IRB under Protocol 1203002865. Preregistration: This study was not preregistered, as the data were collected in 2014 before preregistration of this type of work was common. Materials, data, and analysis scripts are available at https://osf.io/4k7mg/?view_only=0a1c534d2e494a72aac09d66bbe429fc. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Gaby, J.M. and Zayas, V.; Methodology: Gaby, J.M., Gunaydin, G., and Zayas, V.; Data analysis: Zayas, V. in consultation with Gaby, J.M.; Writing – Original draft preparation: Gaby, J.M. and Zayas, V.; Writing: Review and editing: Gaby, J.M., Gunaydin, G., Zayas, V.; Funding acquisition: Zayas, V. and Gaby, J.M. Data Availability Materials, data, and analysis scripts are available at https://osf.io/4k7mg/?view_only=0a1c534d2e494a72aac09d66bbe429fc References Adenskaya, L., & Dommeyer, C. J. (2011). Can Perfume Increase The Response Rate To A Face-To-Face Survey? International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 3(2), 37–44. Bakdash, J. Z., & Marusich, L. R. (2017). Repeated measures correlation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(MAR), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456 Baron, R. (1983). \" Sweet Smell of Success \"? The Impact of Pleasant Artificial Scents on Evaluations of Job Applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 709–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.709 Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software2, 67(1), 1–48. Cooper, J. C., Dunne, S., Furey, T., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2012). Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex Mediates Rapid Evaluations Predicting the Outcome of Romantic Interactions. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(45), 15647–15656. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2558-12.2012 de Groot, J. H. B., Kirk, P. A., & Gottfried, J. A. (2021). Titrating the Smell of Fear: Initial Evidence for Dose-Invariant Behavioral, Physiological, and Neural Responses. Psychological Science, 32(4), 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620970548 Ferdenzi, C., Roberts, S. C., Schirmer, A., Delplanque, S., Cekic, S., Porcherot, C., Cayeux, I., Sander, D., & Grandjean, D. (2013). Variability of affective responses to odors: Culture, gender, and olfactory knowledge. Chemical Senses, 38(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjs083 Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 Gaby, J. M., & Dalton, P. (2019). Discrimination Between Individual Body Odors Is Unaffected by Perfume. Perception, July, 030100661987205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619872055 Gaby, J. M., & Zayas, V. (2017). Smelling is telling: Human olfactory cues influence social judgments in semi-realistic interactions. Chemical Senses, 42(5), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjx012 Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings. Biological Sciences / The Royal Society, 265(1399), 927–933. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0380 Gunaydin, G., Selcuk, E., & Zayas, V. (2017). Impressions based on a portrait predict, one-month later, impressions following a live interaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616662123 Hayes, A. F. (2006). A primer on multilevel modeling. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00281.x Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1435–1446. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1522 Hofer, M. K., & Chen, F. S. (2020). The Scent of a Good Night’s Sleep: Olfactory Cues of a Romantic Partner Improve Sleep Efficiency. Psychological Science, 31(4), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620905615 Kastner, A. K., Flohr, E. L. R., Pauli, P., & Wieser, M. J. (2016). A scent of anxiety: Olfactory Context Conditioning and its Influence on Social Cues. Chemical Senses, 41(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjv067 Lenochová, P., & Havlicek, J. (2008). Human body odor individuality. In J. L. Hurst, R. J. Beynon, S. C. Roberts, & T. D. Wyatt (Eds.), Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 11. Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73945-8 Lenochová, P., Vohnoutová, P., Roberts, S. C., Oberzaucher, E., Grammer, K., & Havlíček, J. (2012). Psychology of fragrance use: Perception of individual odor and perfume blends reveals a mechanism for idiosyncratic effects on fragrance choice. PLoS ONE, 7(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033810 Li, W., Howard, J. D., Parrish, T. B., & Gottfried, J. A. (2008). Aversive Learning Enhances Perceptual and Cortical Discrimination of Indiscriminable Odor Cues. Science, 319(5871), 1842–1845. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152837.Aversive Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). What Is Beautiful Is Good and More Accurately Understood: Physical Attractiveness and Accuracy in First Impressions of Personality. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1777–1782. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610388048 Lundström, J. N., & Olsson, M. J. (2010). Functional neuronal processing of human body odors. Vitamins and Hormones, 83(C), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0083-6729(10)83001-8 McBurney, D. H., Shoup, M. L., & Streeter, S. A. (2006). Olfactory Comfort: Smelling a Partner ’ s Clothing During. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36(9), 2325–2335. Mutic, S., Parma, V., Brünner, Y. F., & Freiherr, J. (2016). You smell dangerous: Communicating fight responses through human chemosignals of aggression. Chemical Senses, 41(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjv058 Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56 Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(32), 11087–11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105 Pandey, G., & Zayas, V. (2021). What is a face worth? Facial attractiveness biases experience-based monetary decision-making. British Journal of Psychology, 112(4), 934–963. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12495 Porter, R. H., Cernoch, J. M., & Balogh, R. D. (1985). Odor signatures and kin recognition. Physiology and Behavior, 34(3), 445–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(85)90210-0 Puts, D. A., Bailey, D. H., Cárdenas, R. A., Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L. M., Wheatley, J. R., & Dawood, K. (2013). Women’s attractiveness changes with estradiol and progesterone across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 63(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.11.007 Ravreby, I., Snitz, K., & Sobel, N. (2022). There is chemistry in social chemistry. Science Advances, 8(25). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn0154 Roberts, S. C., Kralevich, A., Ferdenzi, C., Saxton, T. K., Jones, B. C., Debruine, L. M., Little, A. C., & Havlicek, J. (2011). Body odor quality predicts behavioral attractiveness in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1111–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9803-8 Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Gosling, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Carter, V., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I., & Petrie, M. (2005). MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.09.002 Roberts, S. C., Třebická Fialová, J., Sorokowska, A., Langford, B., Sorokowski, P., Třebický, V., & Havlíček, J. (2022). Emotional expression in human odour. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 4, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2022.44 Roth, T. S., Samara, I., & Kret, M. E. (2021). Multimodal mate choice: Exploring the effects of sight, sound, and scent on partner choice in a speed-date paradigm. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(5), 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.04.004 Schäfer, L., Sorokowska, A., Sauter, J., Schmidt, A. H., & Croy, I. (2020). Body odours as a chemosignal in the mother–child relationship: New insights based on an human leucocyte antigen-genotyped family cohort. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1800). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0266 Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2012). The evolutionary origins of friendship. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100337 Singh, A., Beekman, T. L., & Seo, H.-S. (2019). Olfactory Cues of Restaurant Wait Staff Modulate Patrons’ Dining Experiences and Behavior. Foods, 8(619). Tognetti, A., Durand, V., Dubois, D., Barkat-Defradas, M., Hopfensitz, A., & Ferdenzi, C. (2022). The smell of cooperativeness: Do human body odours advertise cooperative behaviours? British Journal of Psychology, 113(2), 531–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12544 Třebický, V., Delplanque, S., Ferdenzi, C., Fink, B., Jelínková, L., Pátková, Ž., Roberts, S. C., Röder, S., Saxton, T. K., Schwambergová, D., Štěrbová, Z., Fialová, J. T., & Havlíček, J. (2023). Cross-modal associations of human body odour attractiveness with facial and vocal attractiveness provide little support for the backup signals hypothesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.11.001 Trimmer, C., Keller, A., Murphy, N. R., Snyder, L. L., Willer, J. R., Nagai, M., Katsanis, N., Vosshall, L. B., Matsunami, H., & Mainland, J. D. (2017). Genetic variation across the human olfactory receptor repertoire alters odor perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(19), 9475–9480. https://doi.org/10.1101/212431 Young, A. W., & Bruce, V. (2011). Understanding person perception. British Journal of Psychology, 102(4), 959–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02045.x Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SpeedFriendingMSsupplemental.SBIrevised.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Apr, 2025 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 24 Oct, 2024 Reviews received at journal 03 Oct, 2024 Reviews received at journal 06 Sep, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Aug, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Aug, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 19 Aug, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 19 Aug, 2024 Editor invited by journal 16 Aug, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 16 Aug, 2024 First submitted to journal 07 Aug, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-4877114\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":350994575,\"identity\":\"7235a648-1ed0-4128-9200-0da488e5b281\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"J. M. Gaby\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Middle Tennessee State University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"J.\",\"middleName\":\"M.\",\"lastName\":\"Gaby\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":350994576,\"identity\":\"12071ffd-999d-464f-bbeb-2924649ef486\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"G. Gunaydin\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Sabancı University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"G.\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Gunaydin\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":350994577,\"identity\":\"76bbd4be-7259-4c77-bb19-b446f3fe9c43\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"V. Zayas\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Cornell University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"V.\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Zayas\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2024-08-07 22:29:14\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4877114/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4877114/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[{\"content\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94350-1\",\"type\":\"published\",\"date\":\"2025-04-02T15:56:58+00:00\"}],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":64168161,\"identity\":\"fa49d240-dcf6-4287-a31d-679cc292afb8\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-09-09 09:58:36\",\"extension\":\"jpg\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":635634,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eSchematic Representation of Study Procedures and Key Measures. \\u003c/em\\u003eThe study design consisted of four parts. (A) An in-person pre-interaction session wherein participants provided their consent, had their photographs taken, and were given materials for the odor collection phase, B) an online pre-event session wherein participants completed self-report measures and a portrait judgment task (i.e., based on a 100-ms exposure to targets’ portrait), C) a diplomatic odor collection phase wherein participants wore a \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirt as they took part in their daily activities, and D) an in-person speed-friending session that included a pre-interaction rating of \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts worn by those in the session, the live speed-friending session, and post-interaction rating of the same \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"figure1SBI300dpi.jpg\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4877114/v1/678e26517e6567cb30c532ea.jpg\"},{\"id\":80081963,\"identity\":\"9dde4a2e-3047-4cd7-b372-ec85a3804168\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-04-07 16:03:40\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1479993,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4877114/v1/664a828c-4bbe-4efe-942f-50394e65c8ab.pdf\"},{\"id\":64168160,\"identity\":\"aea65298-b42a-4241-8007-039592b87e35\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-09-09 09:58:36\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":64262,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"SpeedFriendingMSsupplemental.SBIrevised.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4877114/v1/e7e4958a32872c421615c7f2.docx\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"The interactive role of odor associations in friendship preferences\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Author Note\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe present research was funded by a grant to Zayas and Gaby from the Cornell Center for Social Sciences (formerly known as the Institute for the Social Sciences (ISS)). Data, syntax, and study materials can be found at https://osf.io/4k7mg/?view_only=0a1c534d2e494a72aac09d66bbe429fc (this link will be amended with a public link when the study is published).\\u0026nbsp; We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.\\u0026nbsp; *Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jessica Gaby at jmg525@cornell.edu.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eFriendships are paramount to mental and physical wellbeing\\u0026nbsp;(Helliwell \\u0026amp; Putnam, 2004; Myers, 2000). From an evolutionary perspective, friendships are adaptive, increasing survival and reproductive success\\u0026nbsp;(Seyfarth \\u0026amp; Cheney, 2012). In the present work, we examine how \\u003cem\\u003ediplomatic\\u003c/em\\u003e olfactory cues (including daily fragrances and hygiene products) forecast an inclination to befriend another person, and in turn, how these olfactory associations are modified by actual interactions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSensory cues are assumed to serve as \\u0026ldquo;heuristics,\\u0026rdquo; allowing individuals to quickly assess whether a person is a potential friend or foe, to be trusted or not\\u0026nbsp;(Fiske et al., 2007; Oosterhof \\u0026amp; Todorov, 2008). Much work focuses on how visual information, such as facial cues, shape interpersonal judgments\\u0026nbsp;(see Young \\u0026amp; Bruce, 2011 for a review). Much less work has focused on the role of olfactory cues, although each person has a unique odor signature\\u0026nbsp;(Lenochov\\u0026aacute; \\u0026amp; Havlicek, 2008; Lundstr\\u0026ouml;m \\u0026amp; Olsson, 2010), and each social interaction takes place in the olfactory context of the other person\\u0026rsquo;s body odor.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eOlfactory preferences are rooted both in genetics\\u0026nbsp;(Roberts et al., 2005; Trimmer et al., 2017)\\u0026nbsp;and experience\\u0026nbsp;(for review, see Ferdenzi et al., 2013), with strong, emotional odor associations forming after a minimal number of exposures\\u0026nbsp;(Li et al., 2008). Odor associations have been shown to modulate perception of other social cues\\u0026nbsp;(Gaby \\u0026amp; Dalton, 2019; Li et al., 2008). Thus, olfactory associations with cosmetic and personal odors may influence social impressions such as evaluations of friendship potential.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBody odors themselves are susceptible to associative learning, in contexts from maternal bonding\\u0026nbsp;(Sch\\u0026auml;fer et al., 2020)\\u0026nbsp;to threat perception\\u0026nbsp;(Kastner et al., 2016)\\u0026nbsp;to romantic partners\\u0026nbsp;(McBurney et al., 2006). As information is acquired about another person, olfactory associations may update to reflect the quality of social interactions with a given partner. As a friendship (or any relationship) develops, a person might learn to associate an individual\\u0026rsquo;s body odor with the emotional outcome of their interactions experienced over time, with the person\\u0026rsquo;s body odor increasing its rewarding value if the interaction was good, and acquiring aversive value if the interaction was poor. Such associative learning between body odor and emotional states likely accounts for learned responses to body odors, such as smelling a partner\\u0026rsquo;s shirt for comfort during periods of separation\\u0026nbsp;(McBurney et al., 2006). Ultimately, associations with another person\\u0026rsquo;s body odor might help reinforce social dynamics, including motivations and decisions about continued investment in a relationship\\u0026nbsp;(Gaby \\u0026amp; Dalton, 2019; Hofer \\u0026amp; Chen, 2020).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eHistorically, social olfactory research has focused on mate choice\\u0026nbsp;(e.g., Gangestad \\u0026amp; Thornhill, 1998; Porter et al., 1985), but increasingly, work has shown that body odors shape person perception more broadly, including impressions of aggression\\u0026nbsp;(Mutic et al., 2016), cooperativeness\\u0026nbsp;(Tognetti et al., 2022), and emotion\\u0026nbsp;(de Groot et al., 2021).\\u0026nbsp;Within this growing literature, the majority of work utilizes\\u0026nbsp;\\u0026ldquo;natural\\u0026rdquo; body odor\\u0026nbsp;(i.e., devoid of exogenous fragrances, deodorant, dietary influences, etc.), collected on \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts or pads, composed mostly of armpit, or \\u003cem\\u003eaxillary\\u003c/em\\u003e, sweat. In many cultures, however, individuals typically don\\u0026rsquo;t encounter another person\\u0026rsquo;s natural axillary odor. Instead, people encounter others\\u0026rsquo; \\u003cem\\u003ediplomatic\\u003c/em\\u003e scent, which includes fragrances, deodorant, and other hygiene products. Gaby and Zayas (2017) found that social judgments based on diplomatic scent and social judgments based on natural body odor were only weakly correlated, suggesting that the two convey different information. These findings are consistent with research showing that fragrance modifies judgments of body odor\\u0026nbsp;(e.g., Lenochov\\u0026aacute; et al., 2012), and highlight the importance of assessing the role of diplomatic odor in social interactions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn live, in-person interactions, individuals encounter not only diplomatic scent, but also a wealth of other information, including physical appearance, tone of voice, nonverbal behaviors, and the environmental context of the interaction. This information, especially the powerful influence of facial cues\\u0026nbsp;(Gunaydin et al., 2017), may eliminate, dilute or modify the effects of olfactory cues. Understanding how body odor is utilized in naturalistic, multimodal settings is critical to elucidating the functional role of body odor outside of the lab\\u0026nbsp;(Roberts et al., 2022). Two studies examining the use of natural olfactory cues in multimodal interactions draw contrasting conclusions. Roth et al. (2021) examined the role of natural body odor in romantic attraction in multimodal settings and found that natural olfactory cues failed to predict actual attraction\\u0026nbsp;(Roth et al., 2021). In contrast, Ravreby et al. (2022), using natural body odor in multimodal, non-romantic interactions, found that body odor similarity might be important in the formation of \\u0026ldquo;click\\u0026rdquo; friendships.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFew studies have focused explicitly on diplomatic odor. In one investigation of the role of diplomatic body odor in semi-naturalistic settings\\u0026nbsp;(Gaby \\u0026amp; Zayas, 2017), blindfolded and earplugged \\u0026nbsp;perceivers judged the likeability of \\u0026ldquo;target\\u0026rdquo; individuals who briefly sat beside them for one minute. In the absence of visual or auditory information, perceivers made reliable judgments based solely on these odor cues. The findings demonstrate that diplomatic olfactory cues encountered on whole bodies and at typical social distances are perceptible and can be utilized to make social judgments. The study did not, however, utilize a multimodal context to examine if such cues are utilized when other information is present. Studies utilizing semi-diplomatic odors (application of a study-specific perfume) in multimodal settings suggest that body odors are important in informing social judgments\\u0026nbsp;(Adenskaya \\u0026amp; Dommeyer, 2011; Baron, 1983; Singh et al., 2019).\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003ePresent Research\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eTo clarify the importance of diplomatic odors in non-romantic social judgments, the present work examined how perceivers use diplomatic olfactory cues in real, multimodal interactions to inform friendship preferences. Informed by past work showing modification of olfactory associations from learning, this work also investigated how the quality of live interactions might modify olfactory associations with an individual\\u0026rsquo;s diplomatic odor.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn a \\u0026ldquo;speed-friending\\u0026rdquo; paradigm, female participants had approximately ten four-minute interactions with other women; following each interaction, they judged the friendship potential (FP) of each partner. Prior to and following the speed-friending interaction, participants also made FP judgments based on diplomatic odor cues collected on \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts. Diplomatic olfactory cues may be related to judgments based on other single modality cues, such as facial cues (Puts et al., 2013; Roberts et al., 2011), which have been shown to predict liking judgments in live, in-person interactions (Cooper et al., 2012; Gunaydin et al., 2017; Roth et al., 2021). To examine the differential forecasting power of olfactory cues, participants also judged FP based on viewing a target\\u0026rsquo;s portrait photograph for 100-ms. This design allowed us to investigate two central questions: First, to what extent do FP judgments based on diplomatic olfactory cues alone uniquely forecast FP judgments formed during face-to-face, multimodal interactions, beyond judgments based on visual cues alone? Second, to what extent do experiences in the live interaction subsequently predict changes in FP judgments of the same person\\u0026rsquo;s diplomatic olfactory cues?\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Method\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec5\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eData Availability Statement\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMaterials, data, and analysis code for this study are publicly available via OSF and can be accessed at \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://osf.io/4k7mg/?view_only=0a1c534d2e494a72aac09d66bbe429fc\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://osf.io/4k7mg/?view_only=0a1c534d2e494a72aac09d66bbe429fc\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWe report all conditions, measures, and data exclusions. This experiment received ethics approval from the Cornell IRB under Protocol 1203002865.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec6\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eParticipants\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe study was advertised around campus as \\u0026ldquo;Speed Friending?\\u0026rdquo; Forty women ages 18\\u0026ndash;30 (mean age 21.1 years), all with a normal sense of smell (see SOM), participated in the study. They were compensated \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e35 at the end of the speed friending session for participating in all 4 parts of the study, with an option to receive course credit instead of cash. Given the repeated nature of our design, and that each participant judged approximately 10 targets on four liking judgments, we had a high number of observations to obtain strong statistical power. The degrees of freedom for a repeated measures correlation are approximately X\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026asymp;\\u0026thinsp;\\u003cem\\u003eK\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026minus;\\u0026thinsp;1 times greater than the degrees of freedom for the Pearson correlation, where \\u003cem\\u003eK\\u003c/em\\u003e is the mean number of repeated pairs within individuals. In our study, \\u003cem\\u003eK\\u003c/em\\u003e is approximately 40. Thus, our design allowed us to achieve at least 80% statistical power for our primary hypotheses to detect within-person associations (Bakdash \\u0026amp; Marusich, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec7\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eProcedure\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe study consisted of four parts (see Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e): A) an in-person pre-event session, wherein participants had their portraits (headshot) taken and were given materials for the odor collection phase, B) an online pre-event session wherein participants completed self-report measures and provided judgments of friendship potential (FP) based on visual cues alone (i.e., 100-ms exposure of targets\\u0026rsquo; portraits), C) a diplomatic odor collection phase, wherein participants wore the \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirt given in part A for approximately 12 hours, as they went about their daily activities, and D) an in-person session, wherein participants provided (pre-interaction) FP judgments based on olfactory cues alone (i.e., smelling \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts worn by those in the session), followed by the live speed-friending session wherein they had four minute interactions with approximately ten partners, which was followed by a second round (post-interaction) of FP judgments based on olfactory cues alone (i.e., smelling the same \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eJudgments of friendship potential (FP)\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e Participants assessed the friendship potential (FP) of targets at four different times: based on visual cues (i.e., 100-ms exposure to targets\\u0026rsquo; portraits), pre-interaction olfactory cues (i.e.., diplomatic odor before the live interaction), live multimodal interaction (i.e., following the 4-minute interaction in the speed-friending session), and post-interaction olfactory cues (i.e., diplomatic odor following the live interaction). At each assessment, participants judged the extent to which the person \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003e\\u0026hellip; seems like a person whom\\u0026hellip;\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo;: \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003eI would like to get to know\\u003c/em\\u003e,\\u0026rdquo; \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003eI would like to share a social activity with\\u003c/em\\u003e,\\u0026rdquo; \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003eI would like to be friends with\\u003c/em\\u003e,\\u0026rdquo; or \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003eI would prefer NOT to hang out with\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo; (reverse-scored) using a Likert scale (1\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;\\u003cem\\u003estrongly disagree\\u003c/em\\u003e to 7\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;\\u003cem\\u003estrongly agree\\u003c/em\\u003e). Participants answered additional questions about targets when providing olfactory and live judgments (see OSF materials). Given that in the portrait judgment task participants only made a few judgments based on the briefly presented photograph, we did not assess these questions for the portrait photos. To keep all analyses consistent, we focus on the FP judgments that were assessed in a similar format across the different modalities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec9\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eIn-Person Pre-event Session\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e Approximately two weeks before the speed-friending session, participants attended an in-person pre-event session where they provided written consent. They were also given materials and instructions for the diplomatic odor collection phase (i.e., a clean cotton \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirt in a Ziplock bag; see \\u003cspan refid=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003eDiplomatic Odor Collection\\u003c/span\\u003e section below).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipants were also asked to pose for a photograph to be used in the face judgment task. Photographs were taken against a plain white wall with participants looking straight at the camera. Smiling photographs (with glasses, if participants wore glasses) were used for the face judgment task, as these were assumed to better capture how individuals would appear when meeting someone for the first time. Photographs were cropped so that the participant\\u0026rsquo;s face was centered in the photo, with minimal space at the top of the head. Bottom margins were aligned just below the collarbone and side margins were aligned approximately with the AC joint, where shoulders begin to slope downwards.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec10\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eOnline Pre-event Session: Portrait Judgment Task and Self-report Measures\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFollowing the in-person pre-event session and at least two days before the live speed-friending session, participants completed the snap judgment task and self-report surveys including a demographic questionnaire online.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDuring the face judgment task, participants judged friendship potential (FP) based on a 100-ms exposure of portrait photos of the other participants in the study. Participants judged approximately 20\\u0026ndash;24 unique target faces, approximately half of which they would interact with in the speed-friending event (see SOM for details). The specific FP questions were randomly presented throughout the task. At the end of the task, we asked participants if they had viewed photographs of anyone they knew. If the person was more than a passing acquaintance (e.g., \\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003eThis person is in my history class but I don\\u0026rsquo;t know their name\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026rdquo;), we ensured that participants were moved to separate days or placed into non-interacting roles (i.e., both as targets or both as raters) so they would not evaluate each other in the speed-friending session.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eDiplomatic Odor Collection\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBetween one and three days before the speed-friending event, we followed protocols for collecting diplomatic odor (Gaby \\u0026amp; Zayas, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e) and asked participants to wear their \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirt for approximately 12 hours, as they went about their daily activities. Because we were interested in capturing daily diplomatic odors, participants were asked not to make any modifications to their daily hygiene or habitual routines. They were asked, however, to avoid smoking or drinking alcohol, as well as strenuous exercise, being in particularly smelly locations such as smoky bars, and engaging in sexual activity while wearing their shirts. If participants wore perfume or other fragranced products during odor collection, they were asked to wear the same products to the speed-friending session. At the end of the collection period, participants placed their \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirt in the freezer in the provided Ziploc bag, then brought the shirt with them to the speed-friending session. Participants were also asked to fill out an activity log for the day of odor collection (see OSF materials). Most participants reported donning their \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts between 7 and 10 am and removing them between 7 pm and 12 am.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eIn-person Speed-friending Event\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePrior to the speed-friending event, we randomly assigned participants to one of two groups; those in the stationary group were to remain seated throughout the speed-friending session, and those in the traveling group moved from one stationary participant to another. On the day of the speed-friending event, participants were asked to arrive in one of two locations to avoid meeting participants from the other group (who they would eventually interact with) before the speed-friending session.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipants completed a brief \\u0026ldquo;day of\\u0026rdquo; questionnaire about their health, mental state, and menstrual cycle (see OSF materials). They also turned in bags containing their \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts to the experimenters, who labeled them with a randomly-generated unique number. The \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts from each group were exchanged so that the stationary group smelled the \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts of the traveling group and vice versa.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003ePre-interaction Diplomatic Odor Judgments.\\u003c/b\\u003e Prior to the actual speed-friending event, participants (still in separate groups) were provided with gloves, a packet of rating sheets, a pen, and a randomized list of \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirt numbers to ensure that \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts were smelled in a random order for each individual. \\u003cem\\u003eT\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts (in their bags) were placed individually on tables throughout the room. Participants were instructed to circulate to each \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirt, while not talking with one another. For each \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirt, participants were instructed to open the bag, take a single deep sniff, and close the bag before making FP judgments, using the same four questions used in the face judgment task.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eSpeed-friending Event.\\u003c/b\\u003e The entire speed friending event took place in the graduate student union on Cornell University\\u0026rsquo;s campus, a large, refurbished barn with a number of caf\\u0026eacute; tables spread throughout the first floor and an open mezzanine level. After providing their \\u003cem\\u003epre-interaction diplomatic odor judgments\\u003c/em\\u003e, stationary participants were led to chairs at one of the tables (\\u0026ldquo;\\u003cem\\u003emeeting stations\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/em\\u003e) throughout the main speed-friending room so that there was at least one empty table between each participant, distributed on both the first and second floor of the building. Once all stationary participants were seated, traveling participants were brought to the speed-friending location. Each traveling participant was randomly assigned to one of the \\u003cem\\u003emeeting stations\\u003c/em\\u003e around the room for their first meeting, then proceeded from station to station in a clockwise rotation (Figure \\u003cspan refid=\\\"MOESM1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003eS1\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e In preparation for the speed friending session, all participants put on a name tag and received rating sheets including the questions to assess friendship potential. Both travelling and stationary participants were given identical information about meetings: each meeting would last four minutes, during which participants were to try to get to know the person seated opposite them. Following the meeting, traveling participants were to move to the next meeting station before both parties made their ratings, so that participants could not observe the ratings being made about their most recent meeting. After the four-minute live interaction, participants provided their FP judgments by answering the same four questions used in the face judgment task and diplomatic odor judgments. Participants had two minutes between meetings before the experimenter made an announcement for them to move to the next station (if traveling) and to make their ratings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003ePost-interaction Diplomatic Odor Judgments.\\u003c/b\\u003e At the end of the speed-friending event, participants returned to their original meeting places to complete the second round of diplomatic odor judgments. Participants were presented with the same \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts, but this time in a new randomized order, and again asked the same four questions to assess friendship potential.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eDebriefing\\u003c/b\\u003e. At the end of the session, participants were asked to fill out a brief survey asking them whether they thought they knew what the study was about, and, if so, to write down their guess as to the purpose of the study (see OSF materials). Participants were then debriefed, allowed to ask any questions, and provided with their compensation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec13\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eData Analytic Strategy\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOur primary questions focused on the extent to which judgments based on pre-interaction diplomatic olfactory cues forecasted judgments based on the live multimodal speed-friending session, and the extent to which the nature of the live interaction forecasted changes in judgments based on post-interaction olfactory cues. Given the nested nature of our data, we tested our primary hypotheses using multilevel models (MLMs) with a restricted maximum likelihood estimation (Hayes, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2006\\u003c/span\\u003e). In all MLMs, we treated perceiver, target, and perceiver \\u003cspan class=\\\"InlineEquation\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"mathinline\\\"\\u003e\\\\(\\\\:\\\\times\\\\:\\\\)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e target as random factors. MLM analyses were run using lme4 (Bates et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e) and for descriptive purposes, zero-order within-person correlations were run using rmcorr (Bakdash \\u0026amp; Marusich, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e) in R version 6.0.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo test our first hypothesis, we treated diplomatic olfactory judgments as a fixed predictor. To isolate the unique predictive ability of diplomatic olfactory judgments on live FP judgments, we also included visual judgments (i.e., based on the 100-ms exposure to targets\\u0026rsquo; portrait) as a covariate, entering it into the model as a fixed predictor. Work using the speed-dating paradigm to examine romantic interest has shown that traveling (vs. staying stationary) leads to greater romantic interest (Eastwick \\u0026amp; Finkel, 2008). Thus, in our MLMs, we included whether participants had been randomly assigned to the traveling or the stationary group (traveling\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;1; stationary\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;0) as a fixed predictor. Traveling in the speed-friending event was not a statistically significant predictor of FP judgments or the likelihood of exchanging contact information, and therefore, not included in the MLMs. To test our second hypothesis regarding how olfactory associations may update following the quality of live multimodal interactions, we ran an MLM predicting post-interaction olfactory judgments from live judgments, and statistically controlled for pre-interaction olfactory judgments and portrait (visual) judgments, all entered as fixed predictors.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003ePreliminary Analyses\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDescriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all key variables are reported in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e. As shown, the within-person correlations revealed that judgments of friendship potential across modalities were correlated (\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003es\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.05). Perceivers who judged targets as having high friendship potential based on pre-interaction diplomatic olfactory cues alone were also more likely to judge the same targets as having high friendship potential based on portrait (visual) cues alone. Moreover, FP judgments based on single modalities were all correlated with friendship potential based on the live multimodal interaction.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Zero-order Correlations (Between- and Within-person) among Portrait (Visual), Live, and Olfactory Friendship Potential (FP) Judgments\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePortrait (Visual)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePre-interaction\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOlfactory\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLive Multimodal\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePost-interaction\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOlfactory\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eMean\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eSD\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePortrait (Visual)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.57\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.71\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.14***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.16***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.06*\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePre-interaction\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOlfactory\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.31\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.69\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.37*\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.08**\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.41***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLive Multimodal\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5.21\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.58\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.41**\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.50***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.06*\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePost-interaction\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOlfactory\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.31\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.77\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.35*\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.82***\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e.45**\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003ctfoot\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e\\u003ctd colspan=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eNote\\u003c/em\\u003e. Between-person Pearson correlations are reported in the lower diagonal; Within-person correlations in the upper diagonal (\\u003cem\\u003edf\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;106). Friendship potential judgments for all modalities were made on 7-point scales, with higher numbers reflecting greater friendship potential. *\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.05. **\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.01. *** \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001.\\u003c/td\\u003e\\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tfoot\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec16\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eDo Pre-interaction Olfactory Judgments Predict Live Multimodal Judgments?\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWe examined the extent to which friendship judgments based solely on pre-interaction diplomatic olfactory cues forecasted FP judgments following the actual four-minute live, multimodal interaction in the speed-friending session. Results of MLM are reported in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e. Pre-interaction diplomatic olfactory judgments uniquely forecasted live judgments (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.16, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [.11, .21]), even after statistically controlling for the predictive ability of portrait (visual) cues, which also forecasted FP judgments in the live interaction (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.08, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [.04, .12]), consistent with past work (Gunaydin et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCould these results be driven by universally opinionated perceivers (i.e., perceiver effects) or universally attractive targets (i.e., target effects)? We examined the robustness of these findings by first computing each participant\\u0026rsquo;s mean and each target\\u0026rsquo;s mean for each modality. We then entered these predictors as covariates into the MLM. The findings were robust even when we entered perceiver and target effects into the model (see Table \\u003cspan refid=\\\"MOESM1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003eS1\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eMultilevel Model (MLM) Estimates of Pre-interaction Diplomatic Olfactory Judgments and Portrait (Visual) Judgments Predicting Live Multimodal Judgments in the Speed-Friending Session\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"5\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLive Multimodal Judgments\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c2\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003ePredictors\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eEstimates\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e95% CI\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c2\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(Intercept)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4.16\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3.80\\u0026ndash;4.51\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c2\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePortrait (Visual)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.08\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.04\\u0026ndash;0.12\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0.004\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c2\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePre-interaction Olfactory Judgments\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"2\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.16\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.11\\u0026ndash;0.21\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"6\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eRandom Effects\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eσ\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.39\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePerceiver:Target\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.82\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePerceiver\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.09\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTarget\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.30\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eICC\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.76\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eN\\u003csub\\u003ePerceiver\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e40\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eN\\u003csub\\u003eTarget\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e36\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eObservations\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"5\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1398\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMarginal R\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;/ Conditional R\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"5\\\" nameend=\\\"c6\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.039 / 0.765\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec17\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eHow Do Live Multimodal Interactions Forecast Shifts in Olfactory Judgments?\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWe reasoned that the quality of the live interaction, as reflected in FP judgments, would predict updating olfactory associations, as reflected in post-interaction olfactory judgments. Results of the MLM revealed that live multimodal judgments predicted post-interaction olfactory judgments (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.12, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.16]; Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e), above and beyond pre-interaction olfactory judgments. We included portrait (visual) judgments as a predictor in the MLM with post-interaction olfactory judgments as the outcome to keep the MLMs equivalent. Nonetheless, when we reran the MLM without portrait (visual) judgments as a covariate, FP judgments based on the live multimodal interaction remained a statistically significant predictor of FP judgments based on post-interaction olfactory cues (\\u003cem\\u003eb\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;.11, \\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [0.07, 0.16]).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAgain, we performed robustness checks to examine the extent to which the results could be driven by perceiver effects or target effects. We entered each perceiver\\u0026rsquo;s mean judgment and each target\\u0026rsquo;s mean judgments as covariates into the MLM. The findings were robust even when we entered perceiver and target effects into the model (see Table S2).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab3\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 3\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eEstimates of Live Interpersonal Judgments Predicting Post-interaction Olfactory Judgments, Statistically Controlling for Pre-interaction Olfactory Judgments and Portrait (Visual) Judgments\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePost-interaction Olfactory Judgments\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003ePredictors\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eEstimates\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003e95% CI\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003ep\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(Intercept)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e2.33\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1.95\\u0026ndash;2.71\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePortrait (Visual)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.03\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e-0.01\\u0026ndash;0.07\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.094\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePre-interaction Olfactory Judgments\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.29\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.24\\u0026ndash;0.34\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLive Multimodal Judgments\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.12\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.07\\u0026ndash;0.16\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e\\u0026lt;\\u0026thinsp;0.001\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"4\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eRandom Effects\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eσ\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.32\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePerceiver:Target\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.70\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePerceiver\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.24\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTarget\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.10\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eICC\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.76\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eN\\u003csub\\u003ePerceiver\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e40\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eN\\u003csub\\u003eTarget\\u003c/sub\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e36\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eObservations\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e1394\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMarginal R\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;/ Conditional R\\u003csup\\u003e2\\u003c/sup\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c4\\\" namest=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e0.130 / 0.795\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eIn our daily lives, evaluating other people is critical to navigating the social environment. Given the paramount importance of friendship to health and wellbeing, decisions regarding whom to befriend can have long-lasting impacts on emotional well-being, social status, and professional success. The present research highlights the understudied role of olfactory information in initial friendship preferences and the early stages of friendship development. In this study, we assessed the ability of olfactory cues to forecast social judgments in live, multimodal interactions, and the potential for the quality of those live interactions to modify olfactory preferences.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAs hypothesized, we found that judgments in friendship potential immediately following a four-minute live, multimodal interaction were uniquely predicted by both diplomatic olfactory and portrait (visual) judgments. Further, we found that judgments in the live interactions predicted judgments in the post-interaction \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirt judgments, above and beyond the initial relationship between olfactory cues and live judgments, suggesting that olfactory associations are modified by learning during the live interaction. This iterative modification of odor perception following live interactions could underlie learned responses to familiar body odors, supporting the idea that olfactory cues may reinforce emotional connections as a friendship develops.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOur study focused on how olfactory cues as encountered in everyday life may shape social judgments in platonic contexts. As platonic interactions make up the majority of social interactions on a daily basis for many individuals, this study sheds light on the influence of sensory cues in everyday life. It provides empirical evidence that these cues can be perceived in olfactorily \\u0026ldquo;messy\\u0026rdquo; environments and at social distances in multimodal interactions. Further, our use of diplomatic odor\\u0026mdash;and live interactions\\u0026mdash;is a rare approach (Roberts et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e) and provides support for the idea that olfactory cues are operating in ecologically relevant contexts, not just in laboratory settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo the best of our knowledge, only two other studies have examined olfactory and visual modalities in tandem with a live interaction (Ravreby et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Roth et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). In a mating context, Roth et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e) found that judgments based on photographs (presented for longer than in our study) predicted liking in a live speed dating setting (see also Cooper et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e), but importantly, judgments based on natural odor did not. They suggested that perhaps diplomatic odor would be a better predictor of liking, and indeed that is what we find here. Ravreby et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e) found that similarity of visual cues (face and torso) predicted how well women would get along with a female partner in a platonic social interaction, and so did similarity of natural olfactory cues as rated by an e-nose. However, they did not directly test whether a person\\u0026rsquo;s \\u003cem\\u003eliking judgments\\u003c/em\\u003e based solely on olfactory cues of a specific individual predicted the quality of an actual interaction with that person, nor did they examine diplomatic odor. Interestingly, human raters did not demonstrate an ability to predict the potential for perceived friendliness when evaluating body odors, though the e-nose did. Again, it is possible that this discrepancy is due to the use of natural rather than diplomatic body odor. The present research highlights the importance of using diplomatic odor to maximize ecological relevance.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOur data also show that visual and olfactory judgments were related to one another (see Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e), providing support for the notion that olfactory signals provide complimentary, rather than redundant, information in social interactions. In a recent meta-analysis of research using more traditional methodology and focused on mate selection, the authors found weak but statistically significant cross-modal associations between body odor and visual attractiveness (Třebick\\u0026yacute; et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Our study focused on platonic interactions also found small but statistically significant within-person correlations, but that olfactory and visual information each uniquely predicted judgments made in live interactions. Thus, our results support the idea that olfactory and visual information contribute different types of social information in the realm of first impressions and assessments of friendship potential.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThere are some important constraints on generality to consider for this work. This study examined the responses of heterosexual females at an American university in a fairly narrow age range. College-age women are an appropriate population of interest given the importance of peer relations in this developmental period. Yet, it is possible that there might be some differences in how these cues function for older or younger women, or women in more mixed age groups, as well as how they might be utilized among men. Use of deodorant and fragranced products is common among American women. Future studies might consider a wider age range, investigate individuals at different stages of development, focus on how these cues function in male-male platonic interactions, or examine how scent in daily interactions shapes friendship judgments in other cultures.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOur findings are consistent with the proposition that olfactory cues shape the inferences we make about other individuals, as well as our own behaviors towards others. If you find someone\\u0026rsquo;s odor pleasant, even if you aren\\u0026rsquo;t consciously registering it, that odor may help to set your expectations about their behaviors. Additional interactions with this individual may help to strengthen (or weaken) the valence of associations with their body odor, functioning as a reinforcing cue in future interactions. This study demonstrates the complex, multimodal nature of platonic interpersonal interactions, and highlights the importance of diplomatic olfactory information in real life impression formation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003ePublic Significance Statement\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIn this work, we provide evidence that\\u0026nbsp;social olfactory cues that include typical product use, including perfumes and deodorant, forecast judgments of friendship potential following a live interaction, and that the quality of the interactions predicts the subsequent value of\\u0026nbsp;the odor cues. Extant work on social olfaction often eliminates exogenous odorants, which are common in the US and elsewhere. Many studies focus on mate choice\\u0026nbsp;and/or sweat samples presented in controlled laboratory settings.\\u0026nbsp;Here, we investigate evaluations of body odor in platonic interactions as they occur in multimodal \\u0026ldquo;noisy\\u0026rdquo; environments that people encounter in their daily life. This work emphasizes the powerful role of scent in shaping initial impressions and fostering connections, and demonstrates the interactive nature of social judgments and the potential for odor-based learning early in relationship formation. The findings also highlight that olfactory cues convey information that overlaps but is distinct from visual cues.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eResearch Transparency Statement\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eConflicts of interest: We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. \\u0026nbsp;Funding: The present research was funded by a grant to Zayas and Gaby from the Cornell Center for Social Sciences (formerly known as the Institute for the Social Sciences (ISS)).\\u0026nbsp;Ethics:\\u0026nbsp;This experiment received ethics approval from the Cornell IRB under Protocol 1203002865.\\u0026nbsp;Preregistration: This study was not preregistered, as the data were collected in 2014 before preregistration of this type of work was common. Materials, data, and analysis scripts are available at\\u0026nbsp;https://osf.io/4k7mg/?view_only=0a1c534d2e494a72aac09d66bbe429fc.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthor Contributions\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eConceptualization: Gaby, J.M. and Zayas, V.; Methodology: Gaby, J.M., Gunaydin, G., and Zayas, V.; Data analysis: Zayas, V. in consultation with Gaby, J.M.; Writing \\u0026ndash; Original draft preparation: Gaby, J.M. and Zayas, V.; Writing: Review and editing: Gaby, J.M., Gunaydin, G., Zayas, V.; Funding acquisition: Zayas, V. and Gaby, J.M.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eData Availability\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMaterials, data, and analysis scripts are available at https://osf.io/4k7mg/?view_only=0a1c534d2e494a72aac09d66bbe429fc\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAdenskaya, L., \\u0026amp; Dommeyer, C. J. (2011). Can Perfume Increase The Response Rate To A Face-To-Face Survey? International Business \\u0026amp; Economics Research Journal (IBER), 3(2), 37\\u0026ndash;44.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBakdash, J. Z., \\u0026amp; Marusich, L. R. (2017). Repeated measures correlation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(MAR), 1\\u0026ndash;13. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00456\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBaron, R. (1983). \\\" Sweet Smell of Success \\\"? The Impact of Pleasant Artificial Scents on Evaluations of Job Applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 709\\u0026ndash;713. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.709\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.709\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., \\u0026amp; Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software2, 67(1), 1\\u0026ndash;48.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCooper, J. C., Dunne, S., Furey, T., \\u0026amp; O\\u0026rsquo;Doherty, J. P. (2012). Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex Mediates Rapid Evaluations Predicting the Outcome of Romantic Interactions. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(45), 15647\\u0026ndash;15656. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2558-12.2012\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2558-12.2012\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ede Groot, J. H. B., Kirk, P. A., \\u0026amp; Gottfried, J. A. (2021). Titrating the Smell of Fear: Initial Evidence for Dose-Invariant Behavioral, Physiological, and Neural Responses. Psychological Science, 32(4), 558\\u0026ndash;572. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620970548\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0956797620970548\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFerdenzi, C., Roberts, S. C., Schirmer, A., Delplanque, S., Cekic, S., Porcherot, C., Cayeux, I., Sander, D., \\u0026amp; Grandjean, D. (2013). Variability of affective responses to odors: Culture, gender, and olfactory knowledge. Chemical Senses, 38(2), 175\\u0026ndash;186. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjs083\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1093/chemse/bjs083\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., \\u0026amp; Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77\\u0026ndash;83. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGaby, J. M., \\u0026amp; Dalton, P. (2019). Discrimination Between Individual Body Odors Is Unaffected by Perfume. Perception, July, 030100661987205. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0301006619872055\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0301006619872055\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGaby, J. M., \\u0026amp; Zayas, V. (2017). Smelling is telling: Human olfactory cues influence social judgments in semi-realistic interactions. Chemical Senses, 42(5), 405\\u0026ndash;418. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjx012\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1093/chemse/bjx012\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGangestad, S. W., \\u0026amp; Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women\\u0026rsquo;s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings. Biological Sciences / The Royal Society, 265(1399), 927\\u0026ndash;933. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0380\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1098/rspb.1998.0380\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGunaydin, G., Selcuk, E., \\u0026amp; Zayas, V. (2017). Impressions based on a portrait predict, one-month later, impressions following a live interaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 36\\u0026ndash;44. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616662123\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/1948550616662123\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHayes, A. F. (2006). A primer on multilevel modeling. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 385\\u0026ndash;410. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00281.x\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00281.x\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHelliwell, J. F., \\u0026amp; Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1435\\u0026ndash;1446. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1522\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1098/rstb.2004.1522\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHofer, M. K., \\u0026amp; Chen, F. S. (2020). The Scent of a Good Night\\u0026rsquo;s Sleep: Olfactory Cues of a Romantic Partner Improve Sleep Efficiency. Psychological Science, 31(4), 449\\u0026ndash;459. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620905615\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0956797620905615\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKastner, A. K., Flohr, E. L. R., Pauli, P., \\u0026amp; Wieser, M. J. (2016). A scent of anxiety: Olfactory Context Conditioning and its Influence on Social Cues. Chemical Senses, 41(2), 143\\u0026ndash;153. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjv067\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1093/chemse/bjv067\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLenochov\\u0026aacute;, P., \\u0026amp; Havlicek, J. (2008). Human body odor individuality. In J. L. Hurst, R. J. Beynon, S. C. Roberts, \\u0026amp; T. D. Wyatt (Eds.), Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 11. Springer Science\\u0026thinsp;+\\u0026thinsp;Business Media. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73945-8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/978-0-387-73945-8\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLenochov\\u0026aacute;, P., Vohnoutov\\u0026aacute;, P., Roberts, S. C., Oberzaucher, E., Grammer, K., \\u0026amp; Havl\\u0026iacute;ček, J. (2012). Psychology of fragrance use: Perception of individual odor and perfume blends reveals a mechanism for idiosyncratic effects on fragrance choice. PLoS ONE, 7(3), 1\\u0026ndash;10. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033810\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1371/journal.pone.0033810\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLi, W., Howard, J. D., Parrish, T. B., \\u0026amp; Gottfried, J. A. (2008). Aversive Learning Enhances Perceptual and Cortical Discrimination of Indiscriminable Odor Cues. Science, 319(5871), 1842\\u0026ndash;1845. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152837.Aversive\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1126/science.1152837.Aversive\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., \\u0026amp; Human, L. J. (2010). What Is Beautiful Is Good and More Accurately Understood: Physical Attractiveness and Accuracy in First Impressions of Personality. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1777\\u0026ndash;1782. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610388048\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0956797610388048\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLundstr\\u0026ouml;m, J. N., \\u0026amp; Olsson, M. J. (2010). Functional neuronal processing of human body odors. Vitamins and Hormones, 83(C), 1\\u0026ndash;23. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0083-6729(10)83001-8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/S0083-6729(10)83001-8\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMcBurney, D. H., Shoup, M. L., \\u0026amp; Streeter, S. A. (2006). Olfactory Comfort: Smelling a Partner \\u0026rsquo; s Clothing During. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36(9), 2325\\u0026ndash;2335.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMutic, S., Parma, V., Br\\u0026uuml;nner, Y. F., \\u0026amp; Freiherr, J. (2016). You smell dangerous: Communicating fight responses through human chemosignals of aggression. Chemical Senses, 41(1), 35\\u0026ndash;43. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjv058\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1093/chemse/bjv058\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMyers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56\\u0026ndash;67. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.56\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOosterhof, N. N., \\u0026amp; Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(32), 11087\\u0026ndash;11092. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1073/pnas.0805664105\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePandey, G., \\u0026amp; Zayas, V. (2021). What is a face worth? Facial attractiveness biases experience-based monetary decision-making. British Journal of Psychology, 112(4), 934\\u0026ndash;963. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12495\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/bjop.12495\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePorter, R. H., Cernoch, J. M., \\u0026amp; Balogh, R. D. (1985). Odor signatures and kin recognition. Physiology and Behavior, 34(3), 445\\u0026ndash;448. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(85)90210-0\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/0031-9384(85)90210-0\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePuts, D. A., Bailey, D. H., C\\u0026aacute;rdenas, R. A., Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L. M., Wheatley, J. R., \\u0026amp; Dawood, K. (2013). Women\\u0026rsquo;s attractiveness changes with estradiol and progesterone across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 63(1), 13\\u0026ndash;19. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.11.007\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.11.007\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRavreby, I., Snitz, K., \\u0026amp; Sobel, N. (2022). There is chemistry in social chemistry. Science Advances, 8(25). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn0154\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1126/sciadv.abn0154\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRoberts, S. C., Kralevich, A., Ferdenzi, C., Saxton, T. K., Jones, B. C., Debruine, L. M., Little, A. C., \\u0026amp; Havlicek, J. (2011). Body odor quality predicts behavioral attractiveness in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1111\\u0026ndash;1117. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9803-8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s10508-011-9803-8\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRoberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Gosling, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Carter, V., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I., \\u0026amp; Petrie, M. (2005). MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 213\\u0026ndash;226. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.09.002\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.09.002\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRoberts, S. C., Třebick\\u0026aacute; Fialov\\u0026aacute;, J., Sorokowska, A., Langford, B., Sorokowski, P., Třebick\\u0026yacute;, V., \\u0026amp; Havl\\u0026iacute;ček, J. (2022). Emotional expression in human odour. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 4, 1\\u0026ndash;22. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2022.44\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1017/ehs.2022.44\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRoth, T. S., Samara, I., \\u0026amp; Kret, M. E. (2021). Multimodal mate choice: Exploring the effects of sight, sound, and scent on partner choice in a speed-date paradigm. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(5), 461\\u0026ndash;468. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.04.004\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.04.004\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSch\\u0026auml;fer, L., Sorokowska, A., Sauter, J., Schmidt, A. H., \\u0026amp; Croy, I. (2020). Body odours as a chemosignal in the mother\\u0026ndash;child relationship: New insights based on an human leucocyte antigen-genotyped family cohort. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1800). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0266\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1098/rstb.2019.0266\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSeyfarth, R. M., \\u0026amp; Cheney, D. L. (2012). The evolutionary origins of friendship. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 153\\u0026ndash;177. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100337\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100337\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSingh, A., Beekman, T. L., \\u0026amp; Seo, H.-S. (2019). Olfactory Cues of Restaurant Wait Staff Modulate Patrons\\u0026rsquo; Dining Experiences and Behavior. Foods, 8(619).\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eTognetti, A., Durand, V., Dubois, D., Barkat-Defradas, M., Hopfensitz, A., \\u0026amp; Ferdenzi, C. (2022). The smell of cooperativeness: Do human body odours advertise cooperative behaviours? British Journal of Psychology, 113(2), 531\\u0026ndash;546. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12544\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/bjop.12544\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eTřebick\\u0026yacute;, V., Delplanque, S., Ferdenzi, C., Fink, B., Jel\\u0026iacute;nkov\\u0026aacute;, L., P\\u0026aacute;tkov\\u0026aacute;, Ž., Roberts, S. C., R\\u0026ouml;der, S., Saxton, T. K., Schwambergov\\u0026aacute;, D., Štěrbov\\u0026aacute;, Z., Fialov\\u0026aacute;, J. T., \\u0026amp; Havl\\u0026iacute;ček, J. (2023). Cross-modal associations of human body odour attractiveness with facial and vocal attractiveness provide little support for the backup signals hypothesis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44(1), 19\\u0026ndash;29. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.11.001\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.11.001\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eTrimmer, C., Keller, A., Murphy, N. R., Snyder, L. L., Willer, J. R., Nagai, M., Katsanis, N., Vosshall, L. B., Matsunami, H., \\u0026amp; Mainland, J. D. (2017). Genetic variation across the human olfactory receptor repertoire alters odor perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(19), 9475\\u0026ndash;9480. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1101/212431\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1101/212431\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYoung, A. W., \\u0026amp; Bruce, V. (2011). Understanding person perception. British Journal of Psychology, 102(4), 959\\u0026ndash;974. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02045.x\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02045.x\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":true,\"hideJournal\":false,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":true,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"scientific-reports\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"scirep\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"\",\"title\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"Friendship, First impressions, Social Olfaction, Odor Associations, Multimodal perception\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4877114/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4877114/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eWho we choose to befriend is highly personal, driven by idiosyncratic preferences about other individuals, including sensory cues. How does a person\\u0026rsquo;s unique sensory evaluation of others\\u0026rsquo; body odor affect friendship formation? Female participants took part in a speed-friending event where they made judgments of friendship potential (FP) following a 4-minute live interaction. Prior to and following the speed-friending event, participants judged the FP of these women based solely on \\u003cem\\u003ediplomatic\\u003c/em\\u003e odor (including daily perfume/hygiene products) presented on worn \\u003cem\\u003et\\u003c/em\\u003e-shirts. Participants also judged FP based on facial appearance (a 100-ms presentation of portrait photographs). Judgments based solely on diplomatic odor predicted FP judgments following in-person interactions, beyond the predictive ability of photograph-based judgments. Moreover, judgments based on the live interaction predicted changes in the second round of diplomatic odor judgments, suggesting that the quality of the live interaction modified olfactory perception. Results were driven more strongly by idiosyncratic preferences than by global perceiver or target effects. Findings highlight the dynamic role of ecologically relevant social olfactory cues in informing friendship judgments, as well as the involvement of odor-based associative learning during the early stages of friendship formation.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"The interactive role of odor associations in friendship preferences\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2024-09-09 09:58:31\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4877114/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0},{\"type\":\"decision\",\"content\":\"Revision requested\",\"date\":\"2024-10-24T09:31:05+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-10-03T10:51:02+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-09-06T10:28:23+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"172186205570542273401467580131930681434\",\"date\":\"2024-08-29T07:19:46+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewerAgreed\",\"content\":\"204435524159446732888119736277542153590\",\"date\":\"2024-08-28T12:05:36+00:00\",\"index\":\"hide\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"reviewersInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-08-19T23:23:15+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorAssigned\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-08-19T23:13:38+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"editorInvited\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-08-16T22:35:05+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"checksComplete\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2024-08-16T05:17:45+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"submitted\",\"content\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"date\":\"2024-08-07T22:27:33+00:00\",\"index\":\"\",\"fulltext\":\"\"}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"scientific-reports\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":false,\"externalIdentity\":\"scirep\",\"sideBox\":\"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"\",\"title\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"twitterHandle\":\"\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":true,\"editorialSystem\":\"stoa\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"Scientific Reports\",\"inReviewEnabled\":true,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"b7e86766-5373-4c40-b074-66e1fd5ddd85\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"September 9th, 2024\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"published-in-journal\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":37270411,\"name\":\"Biological sciences/Psychology\"},{\"id\":37270412,\"name\":\"Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2025-04-07T15:58:41+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":{\"articleIdentity\":\"rs-4877114\",\"link\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94350-1\",\"journal\":{\"identity\":\"scientific-reports\",\"isVorOnly\":false,\"title\":\"Scientific Reports\"},\"publishedOn\":\"2025-04-02 15:56:58\",\"publishedOnDateReadable\":\"April 2nd, 2025\"},\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2024-09-09 09:58:31\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"10.1038/s41598-025-94350-1\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94350-1\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-4877114\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-4877114\",\"identity\":\"rs-4877114\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}