Consistency, Generality, Magnitude, and Significance of Experimenter Expectancy Effects in Human Research

Stewart, Charles G.

doi:10.1007/bf03394040

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because the search for expectancy effects forms an integral part of a new strategy within the social and behavioral sciences, Rosenthal & Rubin's summary of the current status of results is timely. They have searched for and made solid progress on solutions to many of the issues that earlier concerned this commentator (Stewart 1971). The issues that I wish to deal with here will not include detailed questions of data analysis and research design in particular experiments.…”

Section: Commentary/rosenthal and Rubin: Interpersonal Expectancy Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The measure of magnitude of effects is a major step in the direction of comparing effect sizes in future work/Despite serious problems attached to the interpretation of such measures generally (e.g. Dooling & Danks 1975, for some nontechnical considerations), I still feel, as argued earlier (Stewart 1971), that the venture may yield some fruitful ideas in the long run, along with expanded use of expectancy control groups. Cohen's (1977 op.…”

Section: Commentary/rosenthal and Rubin: Interpersonal Expectancy Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies

1978

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research area of interpersonal expectancy effects originally derived from a general consideration of the effects of experimenters on the results of their research. One of these is the expectancy effect, the tendency for experimenters to obtain results they expect, not simply because they have correctly anticipated nature's response but rather because they have helped to shape that response through their expectations. When behavioral researchers expect certain results from their human (or animal) subjects they appear unwittingly to treat them in such a way as to increase the probability that they will respond as expected.In the first few years of research on this problem of the interpersonal (or interorganism) self-fulfilling prophecy, the “prophet” was always an experimenter and the affected phenomenon was always the behavior of an experimental subject. In more recent years, however, the research has been extended from experimenters to teachers, employers, and therapists whose expectations for their pupils, employees, and patients might also come to serve as interpersonal self-fulfilling prophecies.Our general purpose is to summarize the results of 345 experiments investigating interpersonal expectancy effects. These studies fall into eight broad categories of research: reaction time, inkblot tests, animal learning, laboratory interviews, psychophysical judgments, learning and ability, person perception, and everyday life situations. For the entire sample of studies, as well as for each specific research area, we (1) determine the overall probability that interpersonal expectancy effects do in fact occur, (2) estimate their average magnitude so as to evaluate their substantive and methodological importance, and (3) illustrate some methods that may be useful to others wishing to summarize quantitatively entire bodies of research (a practice that is, happily, on the increase).

show abstract

Section: Commentary/rosenthal and Rubin: Interpersonal Expectancy Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Commentary/rosenthal and Rubin: Interpersonal Expectancy Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%