Frightened by an Old Scarecrow: The Remarkable Resilience of Demand Characteristics

Sharpe, Donald; Whelton, William J.

doi:10.1037/gpr0000087

Cited by 32 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 164 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, attention is now turning to the problem of generalisability (see Yarkoni, 2019). Demand characteristics do not appear to have been taken seriously in recent years (Sharpe & Whelton, 2016), perhaps because of a lack of awareness that they can drive experience and not merely compliance. If demand characteristics have been driving experience in other measures (and given the wide range of imaginative suggestion effects, this is not unlikely), psychology will be faced with a crisis of generalisability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demand Characteristics Confound the Rubber Hand Illusion

Lush

2020

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reports of experiences of ownership over a fake hand following simple multisensory stimulation (the 'rubber hand illusion') have generated an expansive literature. Because such reports might reflect suggestion effects, demand characteristics are routinely controlled for by contrasting agreement ratings for 'illusion' and 'control' conditions. However, these methods have never been validated, and recent evidence that response to imaginative suggestion ('phenomenological control') predicts illusion report prompts reconsideration of their efficacy. A crucial assumption of the standard approach is that demand characteristics are matched across conditions. Here, a quasi-experiment design was employed to test demand characteristics in rubber hand illusion reports. Participants were provided with information about the rubber hand illusion procedure (text description and video demonstration) and recorded expectancies for standard 'illusion' and 'control' statements. Expectancies for 'control' and 'illusion' statements in synchronous and asynchronous conditions were found to differ similarly to published illusion reports. Therefore, rubber hand illusion control methods which have been in use for 22 years are not fit for purpose. Because demand characteristics have not been controlled in illusion report in existing studies, the illusion may be, partially or entirely, a suggestion effect. Methods to develop robust controls are proposed. That confounding demand characteristics have been overlooked for decades may be attributable to a lack of awareness that demand characteristics can drive experience in psychological science.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demand Characteristics Confound the Rubber Hand Illusion

Lush

2020

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participant expectations about the hypotheses of a study (i.e., demand characteristics) can bias study results because they may cause participants to change their behavior. Thus, as is recognized in other areas of behavioral research, blinding participants to the study hypotheses and examining whether this blinding was successful addresses this threat to validity ( Boutron et al., 2007 , Sharpe and Whelton, 2016 ). There is evidence that self-reports of eating behavior can be biased by beliefs ( Nix & Wengreen, 2017 ) and laboratory food intake has been shown to be biased by beliefs about the purpose of a study ( Robinson et al., 2014b , Robinson et al., 2015 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, very small sample sizes are thought to increase the likelihood of false positive results and inflate effect size estimates ( Szucs & Ioannidis, 2017 ). Likewise, taking measures to reduce the likelihood that ‘demand characteristics’ are compromising study findings is of importance; if participants are aware of the purpose or hypotheses of a study, this may influence their behavior and alter the results obtained in that study ( Orne, 1962 , Sharpe and Whelton, 2016 ). There are also methodological considerations specific to laboratory studies of human eating behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological and reporting quality in laboratory studies of human eating behavior

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The methodological quality and reporting practices of laboratory studies of human eating behavior determine the validity and replicability of nutrition science. The aim of this research was to examine basic methodology and reporting practices in recent representative laboratory studies of human eating behavior. We examined laboratory studies of human eating behavior (N = 140 studies) published during 2016. Basic methodology (e.g., sample size, use of participant blinding) and reporting practices (e.g., information on participant characteristics) were assessed for each study. Some information relating to participant characteristics (e.g., age, gender) and study methodology (e.g., length of washout periods in within-subjects studies) were reported in the majority of studies. However, other aspects of study reporting, including participant eligibility criteria and how sample size was determined were frequently not reported. Studies often did not appear to standardize pre-test meal appetite or attempt to blind participants to study aims. The average sample size of studies was small (between-subjects design studies in particular) and the primary statistical analyses in a number of studies (24%) were reliant on very small sample sizes that would be likely to produce unreliable results. There are basic methodology and reporting practices in the laboratory study of human eating behavior that are sub-optimal and this is likely to be affecting the validity and replicability of research. Recommendations to address these issues are discussed.

show abstract

“…feelings about the stimuli", and "I do not know why I gave ratings the way I did". We included this final question to control for demand characteristics that might bias the observed effects (see Sharpe & Whelton, 2016 Correlational and mediation analyses. We deviated from our pre-registered dataanalysis plan by also performing correlational and mediation analyses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing predictions of a common-coding and inferential account of Approach-avoidance training effects

Dessel¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade an increasing number of studies across a range of domains have shown that the repeated performance of approach and avoidance (AA) actions in response to a stimulus leads to changes in the evaluation of that stimulus. The dominant (motivational-systems) account in this area claims that these effects are caused by a rewiring of mental associations between stimulus representations and AA systems that evolved to regulate distances to positive and negative stimuli. In contrast, two recently forwarded alternative accounts postulate that AA effects are caused by inferences about the valence of actions and stimuli (inferential account) or a transfer of valenced action codes to stimulus representations (common-coding account). Across four experiments we set out to test these three competing accounts against one another.Experiments 1-3 illustrate that changes in stimulus evaluations can occur when people perform valenced actions that bear no relation to a distance regulation, such as moving a manikin upwards or downwards. The observed evaluative effects were dependent on the evaluative implication of the instructed movement goal rather than whether the action implied a movement towards or away from the stimuli. These results could not be explained with a rewiring of associations to motivational systems. Experiment 4 showed that changes in stimulus evaluations occurred after

show abstract

Frightened by an Old Scarecrow: The Remarkable Resilience of Demand Characteristics

Cited by 32 publications

References 164 publications

Demand Characteristics Confound the Rubber Hand Illusion

Demand Characteristics Confound the Rubber Hand Illusion

Methodological and reporting quality in laboratory studies of human eating behavior

Testing predictions of a common-coding and inferential account of Approach-avoidance training effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About