The cooperative subject: Myth or reality?

Sigall, Harold; Aronson, Elliot; Hoose, Thomas Van

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(70)90072-7

Cited by 115 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Withinsubjects design also enables a comparison of effects within each individual participant, thus minimizing the impact of extraneous variables. Unfortunately, the use of a within-subjects design can alert participants to the true purpose of the research study, leading to bias as participants attempt to offer helpful responses (Sigall, Aronson, & Van Hoose, 1970). To assure that these results were not a by-product of the study design, Study 2 was conducted with a between-subjects design.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of responsibility

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research was conducted to assess how guilt appeals operate in soliciting charitable donations. It was hypothesized that a sense of responsibility would enhance the effectiveness of charitable guilt appeals, thus leading to larger charitable donations. It was also hypothesized that the presence of others would make salient a prosocial norm, thus increasing a sense of responsibility to help. Two laboratory experiments were conducted to test these hypotheses. The effect of guilt on charitable-donation intention and actual donations was mediated by a sense of responsibility. Additionally, the presence of others enhanced the sense of responsibility to behave prosocially. These findings have implications for the design of charitable-donation campaigns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of responsibility

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sometimes respondents provide socially acceptable responses, rather than answering questions honestly (Sigall et al, 1970). This is known as a demand effect (Orne, 1962).…”

Section: Construct Validitymentioning

confidence: 97%

Values motivation and concern for appearances: the effect of personality traits on responses to corporate social responsibility

Basil¹,

Weber²

2006

J of Philanthropy and Mktg

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research seeks to examine differences in support for corporate social responsibility based on certain personality traits. Secondary data from a nationally representative sample of 6065 respondents were examined. The results demonstrate that individuals motivated by a concern for appearances, an egoistic enhancement motivation, as well as individuals motivated by their values, make purchases in support of corporate philanthropy. However those concerned for appearances do not view CSR as a normative requirement, unlike those motivated by their values. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…As subjects rely heavily on the co-operative maxims in determining the nature of their task they might be described as "co-operative". This meaning o f "co-operative" is, however, very different from the meaning used to describe "good" subjects who are especially vulnerable to demand effects (Sigall, Aronson, & Van Hoose, 1970). Note, that we do not want to deny a motivation to comply with the suspected hypothesis.…”

Section: Bias As a Results Of Going Beyond The Information Givenmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Often, but not always (Sigall, Aronson & Van Hoose, 1970), the two aspects will have the similar implications for subjects' responses, i.e. to comply with the experimenter's hypothesis.…”

Section: Bias and The Logic Of Conversation 31mentioning

confidence: 99%

The informative functions of research procedures: Bias and the logic of conversation

Bless

Strack

Schwarz³

1993

Euro J Social Psych

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversational rules of everyday communication are applied to the interaction between experimenters and subjects. According to these rules, contributions to a communication should be informative, relevant, true, and unambiguous. It is assumed that subjects determine the pragmatic meaning of instructions and questions on the basis of these rules and the provided context. In contrast to most natural settings, standardized experimental procedures rarely allow for an interactive determination of pragmatic meaning and often preclude feedback as a corrective device. As a consequence, subjects are required to rely heavily on general rules, and even subtle cues may become informationally loaded. The information extracted from context cues may often not be intended by the experimenter. Thus subjects may infer more than they are supposed to, resulting in discrepancies between the experimenter's intended and subjects' inferred meaning of the instructions. If researchers are not sensitive to the information provided by verbal and non‐verbal context cues, their interpretation of research results may be based on biased data. Evidence from different research domains is reported to support the presented assumptions and their implications for bias avoiding strategies are discussed.

show abstract

The cooperative subject: Myth or reality?

Cited by 115 publications

References 5 publications

Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of responsibility

Guilt appeals: The mediating effect of responsibility

Values motivation and concern for appearances: the effect of personality traits on responses to corporate social responsibility

The informative functions of research procedures: Bias and the logic of conversation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About