Experimenter and clinician effects in scientific inquiry and clinical practice.

Abstract

Interactional and noninteractional effects of the scientist and of the clinician are described and contrasted. Noninteractional effects are those in which there is no direct effect of the scientist or clinician on the behavior of the research participant or patient. Interactional effects are those in which there is a direct but unintentional effect of the scientist or clinician on the behavior of the research participant or patient. Examples of experiments on interpersonal expectancy effects are drawn from laboratory studies of human and animal research participants and from experiments on the effects of teacher expectation on intellectual performance. Meta-analytic results of studies of interpersonal expectancy effects are presented as are some implications for research methodology, for the study of nonverbal communication and for the practical consequences of these phenomena in everyday life.

Differences in the quality of interpersonal care in complementary and conventional medicine

“…Epistemological doctrines established in the 17th century[ 28 ], applied and refined much later in psychological and educational research, may provide explanatory models for these findings. As mentioned before positive expectations may enhance the probability of a more favourable outcome [ 29 ]; the concepts of "self-fulfilling prophecy" and "interpersonal expectancy effects" [ 30 ] resulted from this work. These concepts may have direct application to our data in the sense that interpersonal expectancy effects may also emerge when physicians confirm and support expectations of their patients.…”

The Behavioralist Meets the Market: Measuring Social Preferences and Reputation Effects in Actual Transactions

“…14 A first result relates to the comparison between the behavior of this subject pool and students. As Fehr and List (2004) note, a typical criticism levied of the experimenter-subject relationship (see, e.g., Orne (1962) and Rosenthal's (2002) summary). While efforts to expunge such effects have been explored in the experimental literature using double-blind (e.g., Hoffman et al, 1996), randomized response (e.g., List et al, 2004), and related techniques, such approaches may attenuate a number of laboratory phenomena, but seem incapable of completely eliminating them, and might even introduce other biases.…”

The Behavioralist Meets the Market: Measuring Social Preferences and Reputation Effects in Actual Transactions

“…Note that in table 3, for comparability reasons, I have scaled Treatment Lab-R data to range from 1 to 10, and PSA 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are denoted as quality levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. 14 A first result 13 In social psychology, several studies due to Martin Orne, Robert Rosenthal, and others discuss the important effects of the experimenter-subject relationship (see, e.g., Orne [1962] and Rosenthal's [2002] summary). While efforts to expunge such effects have been explored in the experimental literature using double-blind (e.g., Hoffman, McCabe, and Smith 1996), randomized response (e.g., List et al 2004), and related techniques, such approaches may attenuate a number of laboratory phenomena but seem incapable of completely eliminating them, and might even introduce other biases.…”