2002
DOI: 10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.535a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications.

Abstract: It is to the highest degree probable that the subject['s] . . . general attitude of mind is that of ready complacency and cheerful willingness to assist the investigator in every possible way by reporting to him those very things which he is most eager to find, and that the very questions of the experimenter . . . suggest the shade of reply expected .... Indeed . . . it seems too often as if the subject were now regarded as a stupid automaton -A. H. Pierce, 1908 This document is copyrighted by the American Psy… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
131
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(132 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
131
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such cues to the experimental hypothesis are called demand characteristics. Behavioral experiments involving humans are typically conducted within a social setting (involving experimenters interacting with participants); if participants believe they know the experimental hypotheses, they may feel compelled to produce responses that support those hypotheses, perhaps in order to fulfill an implied social contract (Durgin et al, 2009; Orne, 1962). In studies investigating action-specific perceptual effects, a particular concern is that when participants arrive at the experimental setting, they may hold preexisting beliefs about the linkage between action capabilities and their experiences when interacting with the world.…”
Section: Output-level Factors As Alternative Explanationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such cues to the experimental hypothesis are called demand characteristics. Behavioral experiments involving humans are typically conducted within a social setting (involving experimenters interacting with participants); if participants believe they know the experimental hypotheses, they may feel compelled to produce responses that support those hypotheses, perhaps in order to fulfill an implied social contract (Durgin et al, 2009; Orne, 1962). In studies investigating action-specific perceptual effects, a particular concern is that when participants arrive at the experimental setting, they may hold preexisting beliefs about the linkage between action capabilities and their experiences when interacting with the world.…”
Section: Output-level Factors As Alternative Explanationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, there are substantial individual differences in the frequency of the McGurk effect, from 0 % to 100 % across different participants (Keil et al, 2012; McKenna Benoit et al, 2010; Nath & Beauchamp, 2012; Sekiyama, Braida, Nishino, Hayashi, & Tuyo, 1995; Stevenson, Zemtsov, & Wallace, 2012; Tremblay et al, 2007a). Third, different studies use different experimental procedures, and a procedure that incorporates experimenter expectations (“did the stimulus sound like da?”) might give different results than one that does not (“what did the stimulus sound like?”) (Colin, Radeau, & Deltenre, 2005; Orne, 1962). In order to assess the possible contributions of differences in the stimuli, participants, and procedures to the variation in the published estimates of McGurk frequency, we tested 360 individuals, 20 different McGurk stimuli, and open-choice and forced-choice experimental procedures.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The possibility of the “Hawthorne effect” (Landsberger, 1958) might also explain the changes in the attendees’ self-assessment because survey respondents might state improved attitude and skill sets simply in response to the fact that they know they are being observed. In addition, there is the possibly of a “good subject effect” (Orne, 1962) if the respondents try to answer in a way that they think pleases the conference organizers. Finally, participants might suffer from simple recall bias and their responses might not truly reflect their knowledge prior to the conference simply due to inability to recall information.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%