A Sleeper Variable in Small Groups Research: The Experimenter

Mills, Theodore M.

doi:10.2307/1388274

“…If he had been an actual participant, his behavior may have been perceived as a violation of the authority-group role relationship. AsMills (1962) argued in his reanalysis ofSchachter's (1951) classic study, this frustration might have resulted in the scapegoating of a group member. We wished to avoid this possible confounding factor.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

External threat and the definition of deviance.

Lauderdale¹,

Smith-Cunnien²,

Parker³

et al. 1984

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research ( Lauderdale , 1976; Schachter , 1951) suggests that an external threat to a group can lead to the rejection of deviant members of the group and alteration of group communication patterns and solidarity. This study sought to extend those findings, integrate them with concepts from Simmel 's (1917/1955) work on group conflict, and link them to key issues in the societal reaction approach to deviant behavior. We examined the effect of variation in level of threat, the relationship between deviant status and nonconformity to the central task norm, the role of high-status actors in deviance designation, the relationship between rejection and negative definition of the deviant, and the effects of rejection and negative definition on group solidarity. Hypotheses were tested in an experimental design involving three conditions (strong threat, weak threat, and no threat). The results suggest that (a) the level of threat is directly related to the extent of rejection and negative definition, (b) nonconformity to the central task norm is not systematically related to deviant status, (c) high-status actors are more involved in the rejection of the deviant, (d) sociometric rejection of the deviant is accompanied by negative definition in the strong-threat condition, and (e) the level of group solidarity is related to the extent of rejection and negative definition. Implications of these findings are discussed relative to the societal reaction approach to deviant behavior and analogous processes in other social groups.

show abstract

“…Rosenberg (1965) and Riecken (1962), for example, have pomted to the importance of the fact that the experiment is a place where subjects are watched and evaluated by the expenmenter This can, at least partially, account for the general stress of bemg m the experiment and the mvolvement and accompanymg arousal encountered m performing the expenmental tasks. Also apropos here is Mills's (1962) suggestion that subjects develop certam expectations about the expenment and experimenter, which if violated by the experimenter may lead to reactions not consistent with the hypotheses bemg tested. Through the use of qualitative measures we have shown that such events, usually difiBcult to account for, are meaningful to expenmental subjects As we expected, reactions to the expenmental situation vaned accordmg to personahty differences among the subjects.…”

Section: Effects On the Dependent Variable Of Conformitymentioning

confidence: 87%

“…

An expenmental subject approaches the expenmental situation at two levels At one level, he takes the situation at face value, listens to the mstnictions, perfonns according to them, and reacts to the properly mtroduced expenmental vanables. From another pomt of view, however, he seems to approach the situation as a whole He wonders what it is about, he wants to help the expenmenter and feels apprehension m this novel and essentially ambiguous situation This double performance of the subject has been recognized for a long time by students of the experiment and this recognition forms the basis of much of the criticisms of the social-psychological experiment (Mills, 1962, Orne, 1962 Recent work on physiological reactions durmg experiments has thrown light on these different approaches and has shown that subjects simultaneously view the experimental situation m these two ways Lazarus (1966) compared both the physiological reactions of subjects and their ratings of anxiety durmg threatenmg and benign films The American subjects became aroused only dunng the threatenmg film as mdicated by both the physiological measure and the anxiety ratings The Japanese reacted m the same way on their ratmgs but remamed physiologically aroused throughout the whole session Lazarus' mterpretation was that the Japanese, unaccustomed to the laboratory situation and the "subject role," reacted to the whole situation at the physiological level. Persky, Korchm, Basowitz, Board, Sabshm, Hamburg, and Grinker (1959) found that anxious subjects were physiologically aroused during all of the experimental

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In-between times and experimental stress1

Back

¹

,

Wilson

²

,

Bogdonoff

³

et al. 1967

J Personality

3

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An expenmental subject approaches the expenmental situation at two levels At one level, he takes the situation at face value, listens to the mstnictions, perfonns according to them, and reacts to the properly mtroduced expenmental vanables. From another pomt of view, however, he seems to approach the situation as a whole He wonders what it is about, he wants to help the expenmenter and feels apprehension m this novel and essentially ambiguous situation This double performance of the subject has been recognized for a long time by students of the experiment and this recognition forms the basis of much of the criticisms of the social-psychological experiment (Mills, 1962, Orne, 1962 Recent work on physiological reactions durmg experiments has thrown light on these different approaches and has shown that subjects simultaneously view the experimental situation m these two ways Lazarus (1966) compared both the physiological reactions of subjects and their ratings of anxiety durmg threatenmg and benign films The American subjects became aroused only dunng the threatenmg film as mdicated by both the physiological measure and the anxiety ratings The Japanese reacted m the same way on their ratmgs but remamed physiologically aroused throughout the whole session Lazarus' mterpretation was that the Japanese, unaccustomed to the laboratory situation and the "subject role," reacted to the whole situation at the physiological level. Persky, Korchm, Basowitz, Board, Sabshm, Hamburg, and Grinker (1959) found that anxious subjects were physiologically aroused during all of the experimental

show abstract

“…Beyond simple demand characteristics induced by the experimental design, experimenter expectancy effects are also problematic. Research has long suggested that experimenters influence the results of the studies they conduct (e.g., Kintz, Delprato, Mettee, Persons, & Schappe, 1965; Mills, 1962; Rosenthal, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1968). Experimenters often know the intention and hypotheses of the experiment, and may unintentionally act in ways to confirm their expectations.…”

Section: Experimental Concerns: Experimenter Expectancy Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practicing What We Preach (and Sometimes Study): Methodological Issues in Experimental Laboratory Research

Nichols

¹

,

Edlund

²

2015

Review of General Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the core of any causal claim is an experimental study, and laboratory research often provides the most valid arena for conducting experiments. Laboratory experiments allow researchers to provide internal validity to any phenomena they examine. However, researchers must consider and address certain methodological concerns when conducting lab research. Before participants ever agree to participate, forces are beginning to affect how they will respond to experimental manipulations. These and additional concerns continue during and after the completion of the experiment, yet many researchers do not fully understand their implications. As serious as these issues have always been, the introduction of social media and Internet data collection only highlight the importance of understanding and addressing methodological issues in laboratory experiments. In the following article, we discuss potential methodological flaws in laboratory research, examine research relevant to these problems, review evidence that suggests problems actually do contaminate our data, and suggest areas for future research. We conclude by providing recommendations for eliminating or alleviating these problems in future research, considering the role of replication studies as a post-hoc means of detecting these issues, and apply our conclusions to experimental research performed outside or a laboratory. In all, we believe that addressing these concerns in experimental research and practice will strengthen the validity of our conclusions, the replicability of our findings, and science as a whole.

show abstract

A Sleeper Variable in Small Groups Research: The Experimenter

Cited by 22 publications

References 6 publications

External threat and the definition of deviance.

External threat and the definition of deviance.

In-between times and experimental stress1

Practicing What We Preach (and Sometimes Study): Methodological Issues in Experimental Laboratory Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About