Racial "experimenter effects" in experimentation, testing, interviewing, and psychotherapy,.

Sattler, Jerome M.

doi:10.1037/h0028511

Cited by 169 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 122 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dollard, 1937;DuBois, 1968;Powdermaker, 1967). It has also led to the accumulation of empirical findings indicating that the race of investigators in combination with the race of respondents influences some kinds of research results (Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star and Williams, 1950;Hyman, Cobb, Feldman, Hart and Stember, 1954;Sattler, 1970). The methodological procedure that emerged from these studies was to match the race of the investigator with that of the respondent in order to obtain more valid data.…”

Section: Methodology F O R Race Relations Researchmentioning

confidence: 96%

A field experiment for studying race relations embedded in organizations

Alderfer

Tucker²

1996

J. Organiz. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWhen social scientists conduct research in organizations, they engage in relationships with respondents in order to obtain information. For studies of race relations in organizations, questions arise about how researchers take account of their organizational and racial group memberships. This field experiment tests hypotheses derived from embedded intergroup relations theory about the effects of questionnaire administration procedures and race of respondents on response rate, reactions to the research, perceptions of race relations, and satisfaction. Results provided support for several hypotheses that predict respondents will experience the research and respond differently when they answer questionnaires in race alike group meetings than when they report anonymously by mail.

show abstract

Section: Methodology F O R Race Relations Researchmentioning

confidence: 96%

A field experiment for studying race relations embedded in organizations

Alderfer

Tucker²

1996

J. Organiz. Behav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the breadth of contextual sensitivity surveyed in our analysis might represent an underestimation of a host of local influences that may determine whether an effect is replicated. These additional influences range from obvious but sometimes overlooked factors, such as the race or gender of an experimenter (90), temperature (91), and time of day (92), to the more amorphous (e.g., how the demeanor of an experimenter conducting a first-time test of a hypothesis she believes is credible may differ from that of an experimenter assessing whether a study will replicate). Although it is difficult for any single researcher to anticipate and specify every potential moderator, that is the central enterprise of future research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility

Bavel

Mende-Siedlecki

Brady

et al. 2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

356

313

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, scientists have paid increasing attention to reproducibility. For example, the Reproducibility Project, a large-scale replication attempt of 100 studies published in top psychology journals found that only 39% could be unambiguously reproduced. There is a growing consensus among scientists that the lack of reproducibility in psychology and other fields stems from various methodological factors, including low statistical power, researcher's degrees of freedom, and an emphasis on publishing surprising positive results. However, there is a contentious debate about the extent to which failures to reproduce certain results might also reflect contextual differences (often termed "hidden moderators") between the original research and the replication attempt. Although psychologists have found extensive evidence that contextual factors alter behavior, some have argued that context is unlikely to influence the results of direct replications precisely because these studies use the same methods as those used in the original research. To help resolve this debate, we recoded the 100 original studies from the Reproducibility Project on the extent to which the research topic of each study was contextually sensitive. Results suggested that the contextual sensitivity of the research topic was associated with replication success, even after statistically adjusting for several methodological characteristics (e.g., statistical power, effect size). The association between contextual sensitivity and replication success did not differ across psychological subdisciplines. These results suggest that researchers, replicators, and consumers should be mindful of contextual factors that might influence a psychological process. We offer several guidelines for dealing with contextual sensitivity in reproducibility.replication | reproducibility | context | psychology | meta-science I n recent years, scientists have paid increasing attention to reproducibility. Unsuccessful attempts to replicate findings in genetics (1), pharmacology (2), oncology (3), biology (4), and economics (5) have given credence to previous speculation that most published research findings are false (6). Indeed, since the launch of the clinicaltrials.gov registry in 2000, which forced researchers to preregister their methods and outcome measures, the percentage of large heart-disease clinical trials reporting significant positive results plummeted from 57% to a mere 8% (7). The costs of such irreproducible preclinical research, estimated at $28 billion in the United States (8), are staggering. In a similar vein, psychologists have expressed growing concern regarding the reproducibility and validity of psychological research (e.g., refs. 9-14). This emphasis on reproducibility has produced a number of failures to replicate prominent studies, leading professional societies and government funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation to form subcommittees promoting more robust research practices (15).The Reproducibility Project in psychology has b...

show abstract

“…Moreover, the potential effects of the sex and ethnicity of the administrator have been well documented (Sattler, 1970). The term administrator refers to the person who administers either a psychological test or a research instrument.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%