Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Cueing--operant conditioning : mediators of experimenter expectancy? Moffat, Michael Carter 1967

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 M55.pdf [ 3.43MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104445.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104445-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104445-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104445-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104445-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104445-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104445-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104445-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104445.ris

Full Text

CUE ING—-OPERANT CONDIT ION ING: MEDIATORS OF EXPERIMENTER EXPECTANCY?  by  B.Sc,  MICHAEL CARTER MOFFAT The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1964  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in t h e Department of Psychology  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1967  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s  in p a r t i a l  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements  advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y  f o r an  I agree t h a t the  a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my  Department o r by h i s represen-  tatives.  I t i s understood  financial  g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  Depa rtment The Un i ve rs i ty of B Vancouver 8, Canada  t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r  ABSTRACT  The  p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p e r i m e n t i s f r e q u e n t l y regarded  as a s i t u a t i o n  which a l l o w s f o r complete c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i n p u t s t o the e x p e r i m e n t a l C l o s e r examination  r e v e a l s i t t o be v u l n e r a b l e t o unwanted and  Ss.  unprogrammed  e x p e r i m e n t e r i n f l u e n c e , mediated through e s s e n t i a l l y two modes of communic a t i o n — v i s u a l - k i n e s i c and a u d i t o r y - p a r a I i n g u l s t i c . T h i s study examines t h e e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t types of S to E feedback of i n f o r m a t i o n , mediated by v e r b a l and nonverbal upon t h e E_ outcome-bias phenomenon.  c h a n n e l s of communication,  E x p e r i m e n t e r s who  were g i v e n  expectancy f o r c e r t a i n responses from t h e i r S s , were p l a c e d  an  in an e x p e r i -  mental s i t u a t i o n t h a t p e r m i t t e d o r r e s t r i c t e d v e r b a l communication, and i n c l u d e d c o r r e c t , r e v e r s e d , o r no feedback of s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s , photo-rating Ten  task.  Es each ran 12 Ss on a p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k in a study p u r p o r t i n g t o  be a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t of empathy. examine 20  The  Ss were r e q u i r e d t o  s t a n d a r d i z e d n e u t r a l photographs of f a c e s and t o r a t e each  on the degree of success o r f a i l u r e t h a t t h e person p i c t u r e d had experiencing.  The  Es had  responses from t h e i r The  on a  been led t o e x p e c t a predominance of  one  been success  Ss.  p r i n c i p a l h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t E_ expectancy e f f e c t s a r e  of the t y p e of S to E feedback, was supported?  independent  the p h o t o - r a t i n g s by Ss showed  a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n magnitude as a f u n c t i o n of the number o f photos r a t e d , i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e t y p e of S to E feedback p e r m i t t e d . photos r a t e d , t h e g r e a t e r the magnitude of the success  rating.  The  more  This  has  i i  r e l e v a n c e f o r t h e t y p e of p r o c e s s t h a t s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as a m e d i a t o r of jr's e x p e c t a n c y .  Three a l t e r n a t i v e p r o c e s s e s a r e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e l i g h t of  t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . The second h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t g r e a t e r E_ b i a s e f f e c t s o c c u r i n c o n d i t i o n s p e r m i t t i n g both v e r b a l and nonverbal cues as compared t o c o n d i t i o n s p e r m i t t i n g nonverbal cues a l o n e , was not s u p p o r t e d .  T h i s suggests t h a t v e r b a l  cues do not make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o j H b i a s e f f e c t s d u r i n g t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase of t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiment. I m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e f i n d i n g s of t h i s study and s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e research are d i s c u s s e d .  TABLE OF CONTENTS  CHAPTER I  II  PAGE  The Problem and D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms Used  1  The problem  1  D e f i n i t i o n s of terms used  3  Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e  ,  4  Evidence f o r t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f e x p e r i m e n t e r e f f e c t . . . . . .  4  C o n t r i b u t i o n of e x p e r i m e n t e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r b i a s phenomenon ., ,.  6  E x p e r i m e n t e r expectancy as a d e t e r m i n a n t o f experimental r e s u l t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Communication o f e x p e r i m e n t e r b i a s  9  M o d a l i t y o f cue communication F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e b i a s phenomenon  14 . . . . . .  C o n c l u d i n g remarks 11 I IV V VI  7  17 19  Method  27  Results  35  Discussion .  48  Summary and C o n c l u s i o n s  57  Bibliography  61  APPENDICES A  S t a n d a r d i z a t i o n procedure f o r t h e person p e r c e p t i o n t a s k . . . .  B. I n s t r u c t i o n s t o s u b j e c t s i n t h e V e r b a l C o r r e c t Feedback  65  condition C  I n s t r u c t i o n s t o s u b j e c t s in t h e Verbal Reversed  Feedback  condition D  I n s t r u c t i o n s t o s u b j e c t s i n t h e Verbal No Feedback condition  E  I n s t r u c t i o n s t o s u b j e c t s i n t h e Nonverbal C o r r e c t Feedback condition  F  I n s t r u c t i o n s t o s u b j e c t s i n t h e Nonverbal Reversed  Feedback  condition G  I n s t r u c t i o n s t o s u b j e c t s in t h e Nonverbal No Feedback condition  .  V  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE I II  PAGE Experimental Design:  2 x 3 x 10 F a c t o r i a l  30  E x p e r i m e n t e r s ' Mean P h o t o * R a t i n g Scores f o r t h e S i x Experimental C o n d i t i o n s  III  35  Mean Photo R a t i n g s Over B l o c k s o f T r i a l s F o r Each o f t h e S i x Treatment C o n d i t i o n s  IV  Summary o f t h e Four F a c t o r Repeated Measures ANOVA f o r t h e 20 T r i a l  V  36  P h o t o - R a t i n g Task  37  Trend A n a l y s i s o f t h e Grand Means f o r t h e Four T r i a l Blocks  VI VII  ,  Comparisons o f t h e Grand Means f o r t h e Four T r i a l A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Obtained Photo<Ratings  39 Blocks . . . .  40  f o r Group NVR . ,  41  VIII  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e of Obtained  Photo R a t i n g s f o r Group NVK . .  42  IX  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Obtained  Photo R a t i n g s f o r Group NVC . .  42  X  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Obtained Photo R a t i n g s f o r Group VC. . .  43  XI  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Obtained Photo R a t i n g s f o r Group VR. . .  43  XII  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f Obtained Photo R a t i n g s f o r Group VK. . .  44  XIII  Summary of t h e A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e on t h e F i r s t Ten T r i a l s .  . .  45  XIV  Trend A n a l y s i s o f t h e Grand Means f o r t h e F i r s t Nine T r i a l s .  . .  46  vi  LIST OF FIGURES  FIGURE 1.  PAGE Eight Point Success-Failure Rating Scale f o r the C o r r e c t Feedback C o n d i t i o n as Seen by Both E. and S_  2.  29  Eight Point Success-Failure Rating Scale f o r the Reversed Feedback C o n d i t i o n .  A, as Seen by E;  B, as Seen by S_ 3.  29  Grand Mean Photo R a t i n g s O b t a i n e d f o r t h e Four T r i a l Blocks  4.  Grand Mean Photo R a t i n g s O b t a i n e d f o r t h e Twenty T r i a l s . . .  38 .  47  vi i  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  The w r i t e r would l i k e t o e x p r e s s h i s g r a t i t u d e t o t h o s e whose c o o p e r a t i o n made i t p o s s i b l e t o a c c o m p l i s h t h i s s t u d y .  individuals In p a r t i c u l a r ,  thanks a r e due t o Dr. R. E. Knox and Dr. R. Wong who p r o v i d e d v a l u a b l e c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m o f t h e d e s i g n and w r i t i n g o f t h i s s t u d y . a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d were:  Others who  C a r o l e H i l s t r o m , who p r o v i d e d e x p e r t t y p i n g and  s e c r e t a r i a l a s s i s t a n c e ; and K e i t h Waldron, w i t h h i s t e c h n i c a l a d v i c e i n m a t t e r s c o n c e r n i n g apparatus  design.  CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED  One s o u r c e o f unwanted v a r i a n c e i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l  r e s e a r c h t h a t has  sparked a g r e a t deal o f i n t e r e s t i n t h e p a s t decade has been t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r himself.  A l t h o u g h t h e problem o f e x p e r i m e n t e r c o n t a m i n a t i o n p e r p l e x e d  s c i e n t i s t s as e a r l y as 1911 when P f u n g s t documented t h e e f f e c t o f e x p e r i m e n t e r i n f l u e n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e b e h a v i o r o f C l e v e r Hans, t h e horse t h a t c o u l d " s o l v e " a l l manner o f problems,  l i t t l e has been done u n t i l  recently  way o f s t u d y i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r as an independent v a r i a b l e .  in the  A finding of  t h e s e r e c e n t s t u d i e s i s t h a t u n c o n t r o l l e d and unconscious e x p e r i m e n t e r i n p u t i n t o t h e S_-E_ r e l a t i o n s h i p may a f f e c t t h e outcome of t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiment.  The e x p e r i m e n t e r who e x p e c t s a p a r t i c u l a r outcome c a n , through  c o v e r t v e r b a l and v i s u a l cues, u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y in accordance w i t h h i s e x p e c t a n c y .  influence h i s Ss  1  responses  I t has been suggested t h a t v e r b a l  c o n d i t i o n i n g may p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n t h e m e d i a t i o n o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s bias.  There a r e , however, v e r y l i t t l e e x p e r i m e n t a l data b e a r i n g on t h i s  issue.  E v i d e n c e t o c o n f i r m o r t o r e f u t e t h i s s u g g e s t i o n has been i n c o n -  clusive.  The ProbI em Statement o f t h e problem. threefold:  The purpose o f t h e p r e s e n t study i s  (1) t o compare t h e e f f e c t s o f p e r m i t t i n g o r e l i m i n a t i n g a u d i t o r y  cues from t h e S_-IE r e l a t i o n s h i p upon E_ b i a s , of  (2) t o determine  i f the type  communication from S_s t o E_ a f f e c t s t h e Ss* r e s p o n s e s , and (3) t o  i n v e s t i g a t e whether v e r b a l o r nonverbal c o n d i t i o n i n g i s o r i s not i n  2  o p e r a t i o n i n t h e communication o f t h e Vs Importance o f t h e s t u d y . observation of behavior. greater control  bias.  The l a b o r a t o r y i s a p r e f e r r e d mode f o r t h e  The reason f o r t h i s p r e f e r e n c e i s due t o t h e  i t p r o v i d e s o v e r t h e i n p u t s t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l S s . Some  measure o f c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i n p u t s i s l o s t when E_ communicates u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y and d i f f e r e n t i a l l y w i t h h i s S s . Because such c o n t r o l  i s t h e reason f o r t h e  r e l i a n c e on t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l method, t h e r e a r e s e r i o u s i m p l i c a t i o n s . attempts have been made t o reduce E _ e f f e c t s , they of  include:  Some  t h e employment  n a i v e r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t s ; t h e use o f t h e "double b l i n d " method i n which  no one h a v i n g d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h Ss i s p e r m i t t e d t o know what t h e S s treatment c o n d i t i o n w i l l  be, i s o r has been, u n t i l t h e experiment  1  i s over;  the tape r e c o r d i n g o f Ss' i n s t r u c t i o n s ; and t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f v e r b a l and/or v i s u a l communication between E_ and S s .  In s p i t e o f t h e s e and o t h e r t e c h n i q u e s  d e v i s e d t o reduce E_'s c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f h i s own d a t a , h i s unwanted i n f l u e n c e often persists.  The l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s have been p o i n t e d o u t by  K i n t z , D e l p r a t o , Mettee, P a r s o n s , and Schappe (1965), Rosenthal  (1963c, 1965,  1966). Prior to actually e f f e c t , t h r e e elements  implementing  c o n t r o l measures aimed a t r e d u c i n g E_  must be i d e n t i f i e d :  (1) t h e p o i n t i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  procedure a t which t h e c o n t a m i n a t i o n t a k e s p l a c e ,  (2) t h e mode o f E_  c o n t a m i n a t i o n , and (3) t h e s p e c i f i c cues used i n t h e c o n t a m i n a t i o n .  Many  attempts t o e l i m i n a t e E_ e f f e c t s have i n s t i t u t e d c o n t r o l t e c h n i q u e s w i t h o u t first  i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s e elements.  obvious.  The l a c k o f economy o f such an approach i s  What i s needed i s a c a r e f u l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s e i s s u e s so t h a t  r e s e a r c h e r s may d e v i s e l e s s o m n i d i r e c t i o n a l and more e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l  techniques.  3  Such an e x a m i n a t i o n i s t h e g e n e r a l purpose of t h i s s t u d y .  D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms Used Experimenter expectancy.  T h i s term w i l l  r e f e r t o t h e expectancy  t h a t E_ has c o n c e r n i n g t h e outcome of t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s . o r i g i n a t e w i t h E_ o r i t may  I t may  be induced, in t h e case where one o r more  a s s i s t a n t Es a r e employed by a s e n i o r E_. Experimenter outcome-orientation b i a s .  Experimenter bias w i l l  be  i n t e r p r e t e d as the phenomenon t h a t i s i n o p e r a t i o n when Es o b t a i n from t h e i r S_s, human o r a n i m a l , t h e data t h a t they want and/or e x p e c t t o o b t a i n which a r e a s y m m e t r i c a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d about the " c o r r e c t " o r " t r u e " v a l u e ^ cf.  R o s e n t h a l , 1966. C o v e r t communication.  C o v e r t communication  r e f e r s t o e i t h e r verbal  or  nonverbal communication of which n e i t h e r t h e communicator  of  t h e communication a r e aware. C o r r e c t feedback.  nor t h e r e c e i v e r  T h i s term r e f e r s t o t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f Ss' t r u e  responses t o IE. Reversed feedback.  T h i s term r e f e r s t o t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n of Ss' t r u e  responses t o E_ i n such a way t h a t E_ u n w i t t i n g l y i n t e r p r e t s the response as meaning t h e o p p o s i t e t o t h a t i n t e n d e d by Ss. No feedback.  No feedback r e f e r s t o the s i t u a t i o n  i n which S s  1  responses a r e not r e v e a l e d t o E_. Cue e f f e c t . of  A cue e f f e c t r e f e r s t o data b i a s i n g by E_through h i s use  d i s t i n c t i v e but c o v e r t cues which communicate t o Ss t h e t y p e of response  that is desired.  The cues may o r may  not be rewarding t o Ss.  CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE  Much of t h e  LITERATURE  l i t e r a t u r e i n regard t o E_ c o n t a m i n a t i o n has focused  on  t h e source of E_ b i a s , i t s m e d i a t i o n , and the v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g E_ b i a s ;  but  o n l y t h e work done on the problems very c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e one a t hand will  be summarized  Evidence  here.  f o r t h e Occurrence of Experimenter  Effect  Any s e r i o u s study of E_ e f f e c t must not o v e r l o o k the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e e f f e c t s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n were i n t e n t i o n a l . s e v e r a l cases where e x p e r i m e n t a l  Rosenthal  (1966) c i t e s  r e s u l t s have been f a b r i c a t e d .  The  o c c u r r e n c e of such c a s e s , i t must be assumed, i s r a r e , however.  The  problem t o be c o n s i d e r e d  important  i n the p r e s e n t d i s c u s s i o n i s an e q u a l l y  and more f r e q u e n t one, t h e problem of u n i n t e n t i o n a l E_ e f f e c t s . Rosenthal  (1966) makes a d i s t i n c t i o n between o b s e r v e r e r r o r s o r  e f f e c t s and o b s e r v e r " b i a s " .  He regards o b s e r v e r e r r o r s as being randomly  d i s t r i b u t e d around a " t r u e " v a l u e . are regarded  as r e f l e c t i n g a t r e n d .  B i a s e d o b s e r v a t i o n s , on t h e o t h e r hand, T h i s t r e n d may  be a f u n c t i o n of some  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the o b s e r v e r , o r t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s i t u a t i o n , o r b o t h . S i n c e b i a s e d o b s e r v a t i o n s do not o c c u r randomly, they are t o some e x t e n t predictable.  C u r r e n t r e s e a r c h on E _ b i a s  i s concerned  with  identifying  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between o b s e r v e r and s i t u a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and observations.  The  biased  consequence of t h i s endeavour, i t i s hoped, w i l l  lead t o  a c c u r a t e and e f f i c i e n t methods of p r e d i c t i n g b i a s e d o b s e r v a t i o n s . Recent experiments  have shown t h a t d i f f e r e n t Es o b t a i n d i f f e r e n t  5  r e s u l t s on s i m i l a r e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k s u s i n g comparable Ss ( H a r r i s , P i c c a l i n o , Rodback and Sommer, 1964; L o r d , 1950; and Postman and J a r r e t t , 1952). U s i n g a v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g paradigm, Kanfer (1958) r e i n f o r c e d responses w i t h a f l a s h i n g s i m i l a r Es were employed.  l i g h t under t h r e e r e i n f o r c e m e n t s c h e d u l e s .  Even w i t h t h i s s i m p l e t a s k , a s i g n i f i c a n t  a c t i o n was found between E_ and method o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t . i n t h e i r tendency  Two  In r e i n f o r c i n g S s , E_ was r e q u i r e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h  between v e r b s and nonverbs.  differed  verb  inter-  That i s , Es  t o r e i n f o r c e Ss w i t h i n t h e t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s  even though both Es r e c e i v e d t h e same i n s t r u c t i o n s on how t o r e i n f o r c e Ss. A r e c e n t study by S e v e r i n and Rigby  (1963) i n v e s t i g a t e d  different  p a t t e r n s o f d i g i t g r o u p i n g s on t h e r e c a l l o f seven d i g i t numbers.  In  a n a l y z i n g t h e v a r i a n c e o f c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d numbers an E_ e f f e c t was found s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 l e v e l .  On f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s i t was found t h a t t h i s  e f f e c t was due l a r g e l y t o one o f t h e f o u r Es i n v o l v e d .  A r e p e t i t i o n of t h e  a n a l y s i s w i t h o u t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r E_'s data y i e l d e d no s i g n i f i c a n t E_ di f f e r e n c e . Nash, P h e l a n , Demas, and B i t t n e r (1966) s t u d i e d t h e e f f e c t s of manif e s t and induced a n x i e t y and E_ v a r i a b i I i t y on r e a c t i o n t i m e .  Thirty-six  female Ss were p l a c e d i n low, medium o r h i g h a n x i e t y groups based on t h e i r s c o r e s on t h e T a y l o r M a n i f e s t A n x i e t y S c a l e .  The Ss were then randomly  a s s i g n e d t o e i t h e r s t r e s s o r no s t r e s s t r e a t m e n t s and t o one o f two Es. Simple r e a c t i o n t i m e s were r e c o r d e d f o r a l l S_s. S i g n i f i c a n t performance d i f f e r e n c e s were found when Es a l t e r n a t e l y a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l treatment.  6  These e x p e r i m e n t s a r e examples of s t u d i e s which have shown nond i f f e r e n t i a t e d E_ i n f l u e n c e , t h a t i s , an i n f l u e n c e t h a t cannot be a s c r i b e d e i t h e r t o unintended d i f f e r e n c e s i n E_'s b e h a v i o r o r t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n h i s appearance.  The number o f s t u d i e s r e p o r t i n g such i n f l u e n c e i s few as a r e  a t t e m p t s a t d i s c e r n i n g t h e p o s s i b l e reasons f o r t h e d i f f e r i n g d a t a . a t t e n t i o n t o E_ e f f e c t s has, however, prompted r e s e a r c h e r s b i o l o g i c a l and b e h a v i o r a l ness o f t h e problem.  s c i e n c e s , t o be more c o g n i z a n t  Recent  in the p h y s i c a l , of the pervasive-  As a consequence of t h i s new awareness,  concerted  e f f o r t s a r e being made t o i d e n t i f y t h e f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o E_ e f f e c t s .  C o n t r i b u t i o n of Experimenter C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o the Experimenter Bias Phenomenon Reviews of _E a t t r i b u t e s t h a t have been found t o be p a r t i a l  deter-  minants o f t h e responses g i v e n t o E_ by h i s Ss i n a v a r i e t y o f d a t a c o l I e c t i n g s i t u a t i o n s have been prepared by K i n t z , a t aj_. (1965) and Rosenthal  (1963a, 1965, 1966).  Among t h e a t t r i b u t e s t h a t have been  s t u d i e d a r e £'s r a c e , r e l i g i o n , s t a t u s , l i k e a b i l i t y , warmth, s e x , personality, anxiety ance w i t h S s .  l e v e l , s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , experience,  Rosenthal  and a c q u a i n t -  (1963c) s u g g e s t s t h a t a more s u p e r o r d i n a t e  s e t of  c o n s t r u c t s must y e t be e m p i r i c a l l y developed t o account f o r t h e f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g t o these v a r i a b l e s .  Pending such a development, he c o n c l u d e s  t h a t Es w i l l o b t a i n d i f f e r e n t i a l his  data as a f u n c t i o n o f how E_ i s regarded by  Ss i n t h e a t t r i b u t e s o f ( 1 ) M k e a b i I i t y ,  skill,  (4) t r u s t , and (5) s e x .  (2) p r e s t i g e , (3) p r o f e s s i o n a l  7  Experimenter  Expectancy  as a Determinant of ExperimentaI  ResuIts  Perhaps t h e most d i s t u r b i n g phenomenon a t t r i b u t a b l e t o E_'s In t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  situation  i s h i s a b i l i t y t o i n f l u e n c e h f s Ss t o y i e l d  data c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s h y p o t h e s i s . demonstrated t h a t t h e expectancy a s i g n i f i c a n t determinant  presence  Upon i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t has been  w i t h which an E_ e n t e r s the l a b o r a t o r y i s  of h i s r e s u l t s (Rosenthal and Fode, 1960,  1963a,  1963b; R o s e n t h a l , Fode and V i k a n - K l i n e , 1 9 6 0 ; R o s e n t h a l , P e r s i n g e r , V i k a n - K l i n e and Fode, 1963a).  The  b a s i c paradigm f o r such s t u d i e s has  been t o d i v i d e a sample of Es .into two groups and t o c r e a t e in each, an e x p e c t a t i o n f o r the data they w i l l  obtain.  group of Es i s o p p o s i t e t o t h e expectancy  The expectancy induced  in t h e o t h e r .  of Es then run comparable Ss on a s i m i l a r e x p e r i m e n t a l In an experiment  p u r p o r t e d t o concern  given to  l e a r n i n g in r a t s ,  i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t s group of r a t s was  second group of s i x Es was  than t h e " m a z e - d u l l " r a t s .  results.  I t was  u  One  group  "maze-bright"  and a  suggested  t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s in h a n d l i n g  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Es w i t h "maze-bright"  t h e s e p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s may  experimental  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t Es e x p e c t i n g good  performance from t h e i r Ss had r a t h e r p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward was  "maze-dull".  r a t s performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t o r  t h e b a s i s f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s of o b t a i n e d  Post e x p e r i m e n t a l  groups  Rosenthal  i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t s group of r a t s was  In a s i m p l e T maze, t h e "rncse-br i g f t t  of the a n i m a l s was  Both  task.  and Fode (1963a) randomly a s s i g n e d r a t s t o two groups of Es, of s i x Es was  one  rats.  them.-  This  It i s b e l i e v e d t h a t  have i n f l u e n c e d the q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y of  h a n d l i n g b e h a v i o r of t h e "maze-bright"  rats.  This interpretation  supported t o some e x t e n t by the q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses  of Es and  was by  8  i n f o r m a l o b s e r v a t i o n s made d u r i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t .  The Es r u n n i n g " b r i g h t "  r a t s saw themselves as h a n d l i n g t h e i r r a t s more g e n t l y .  Support f o r t h e  h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i n c r e a s e d h a n d l i n g can improve performance  i s g i v e n by  Rosenthal and Lawson (1964), B e r n s t e i n (1952) and B e r n s t e i n (1957). In t h e Rosenthal and Lawson (1964) study two groups of E s , one w i t h supposedly b r i g h t r a t s , t h e o t h e r w i t h supposedly d u l l seven e x p e r i m e n t s .  r a t s , c a r r i e d out  These i n c l u d e d t a s k s such as magazine t r a i n i n g , o p e r a n t  a c q u i s i t i o n , s t i m u l u s d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and c h a i n i n g of r e s p o n s e s . who  The  Es  b e i i e v e d t h e i r r a t s t o be bred f o r b r i g h t n e s s o b t a i n e d r e s u l t s t h a t  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e d on seven out of t h e e i g h t comparisons d i r e c t i o n from r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by Es who was suggested t h a t t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s may e f f e c t s of t h e E_s' h a n d l i n g b e h a v i o r .  i n t h e expected  b e l i e v e d they had d u l l be due t o d i f f e r e n t i a l  rats.  It  reinforcing  D e s c r i p t i o n s o f Es' h a n d l i n g  b e h a v i o r b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e experiments r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e Es e x p e c t i n g b e t t e r performance handled t h e i r a n i m a l s about 33% more a f t e r each e x p e r i ment, whereas Es e x p e c t i n g p o o r e r performance handled t h e i r a n i m a l s about 44$  l e s s a f t e r each e x p e r i m e n t . The e f f e c t o f E_ expectancy has a l s o been examined in s t u d i e s  u t i l i z i n g human Ss.  Robert Rosenthal has conducted a number of person  p e r c e p t i o n e x p e r i m e n t s i n which Es were t o o b t a i n r a t i n g s of on a s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e d i m e n s i o n .  photographs  The photos were of f a c e s c u t from a  weekly news magazine and s e l e c t e d so t h a t under s t a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s most Ss r a t e d them n e u t r a l on a 20 p o i n t s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e s c a l e .  In two  differ-  e n t e x p e r i m e n t s ( R o s e n t h a l and Fode, 1961; and Fode, 1965) Es i n one  group  were t o l d t h a t they would p r o b a b l y o b t a i n mean r a t i n g s of +5 from Ss w h i l e  Es i n another group were t o l d t h a t they would p r o b a b l y o b t a i n mean r a t i n g s of -5 from t h e i r S s .  In these s t u d i e s , t h e lowest mean r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d by  any E_ e x p e c t i n g h i g h r a t i n g s was h i g h e r than t h e h i g h e s t mean r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d by any E_ e x p e c t i n g low r a t i n g s from h i s S_s. T h i s f i n d i n g n o t o n l y i l l u s t r a t e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f E_ b i a s but t h o p o s s i b l e magnitude o f t h e problem i n e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n .  Communication o f Experimenter  Bias  Two phases o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l attempt t o i s o l a t e when E_'s expectancy interaction.  s i t u a t i o n have been s t u d i e d i n an i s communicated t o Ss i n t h e S-E  These phases a r e (1) t h e p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase d u r i n g  which time E_ g r e e t s and i n s t r u c t s S s , and (2) t h e data c o l l e c t i n g phase when E_ a d m i n i s t e r s t h e experiment Rosenthal  and c o l l e c t s t h e d a t a .  (1966) p r o v i d e s e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t  Es may communicate t h e i r e x p e c t a n c i e s t o Ss i n both phases o f t h e e x p e r i ment.  Two f i l m s were made o f E_-S_ i n t e r a c t i o n s d u r i n g a p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k .  Three E_-S i n t e r a c t i o n s were c o n t a i n e d in t h e o t h e r .  i n one f i l m and f i v e were c o n t a i n e d  In both f i l m s , e x p e c t a n c i e s between +10 (extreme  and -10 (extreme f a i l u r e ) were randomly a s s i g n e d t o Es. The £ s ' was  success) task  t o t r y t o i n f l u e n c e t h e i r Ss t o r a t e t h e s t a n d a r d photos used i n t h e  person p e r c e p t i o n s t u d i e s i n t h e d e s i r e d way ( i n accordance w i t h Es expectancy)  but w i t h o u t b e i n g t o o o b v i o u s .  The f i r s t f i l m was viewed by  52 o b s e r v e r s , t h e second f i l m was viewed by 11 o b s e r v e r s . were p r i m a r i l y u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y members and graduate t a s k was t o t r y t o i d e n t i f y Es' expectancy  The o b s e r v e r s  students.  Their  and t o s t a t e t h e reason f o r  10  t h e i r judgement.  The median c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e o b s e r v e r s '  identi-  f i c a t i o n o f Es' e x p e c t a n c i e s and t h e a c t u a l e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r t h e f i r s t and second f i l m were +.88 (£ < .00001) and + .72 evidence  i s unequivocal  (p_ < .001) r e s p e c t i v e l y .  as t o t h e a c c u r a c y o f o b s e r v e r s  The  in identifying  Es' e x p e c t a n c i e s when t h e s e a r e b e i n g d e l i b e r a t e l y communicated. The hypotheses g i v e n by o b s e r v e r s f e l l  a l o n g two d i m e n s i o n s :  t e m p o r a l i t y and sense m o d a l i t y .  "About h a l f t h e hypotheses emphasized  Es' r e a c t i o n s t o Ss' responses.  F o r t h e s e o b s e r v e r s , expectancy  communi-  c a t i o n o c c u r r e d o n l y a f t e r Ss began responding and f o l l o w e d a d i f f e r e n t i a l r e i n f o r c i n g paradigm.  F o r t h e o t h e r o b s e r v e r s , expectancy  o c c u r r e d b e f o r e t h e S_ even made h i s f i r s t response" p. 284).  ( R o s e n t h a l , 1966,  These hypotheses d e f i n e t h e t e m p o r a l i t y dimension.  m o d a l i t y dimension  was d e f i n e d p r i m a r i l y  The sense  i n terms o f hypotheses about  v i s u a l and a u d i t o r y channels o f communication. importance  communication  Observers  emphasized t h e  o f speed and manner o f i n s t r u c t i o n r e a d i n g , number o f e r r o r s  made i n r e a d i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , and pauses used t o a c c e n t u a t e t h e d e s i r e d r e g i o n on t h e r a t i n g s c a l e as a u d i t o r y cues used by Es t o communicate t h e i r expectancies.  The v i s u a l cues t h a t were h y p o t h e s i z e d as b e i n g communicators  o f e x p e c t a n c i e s were more numerous, and i n c l u d e d b e h a v i o r s such as s m i l i n g , head s h a k i n g , head nodding,  r a i s i n g eyebrows, " l o o k i n g h a p p i e r " , p e n c i l  t a p p i n g , and h o l d i n g up t h e photo l o n g e r . to  Although t h e s e cues were found  be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e magnitude o f expectancy  e f f e c t s , there  remains t h e q u e s t i o n s o f how Es w i t h o p p o s i t e e x p e c t a n c i e s I n f l u e n c e t h e responses later in this  chapter.  o f t h e i r S s , a matter t h a t w i l l  still  differentially  be d e a l t w i t h  11  It must be remembered t h a t t h e Rosenthal  (1966) study was a c o n t r i v e d  e f f o r t , t h e purpose of which was t o s i m u l a t e t h e r e a l person p e r c e p t i o n study and t o determine expectancy  i f o b s e r v e r s c o u l d i d e n t i f y t h e mode and time of E_  communication.  The Es were p u r p o s e l y t r y i n g t o b i a s t h e i r  One would e x p e c t t h a t cues used by Es i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n  Ss.  would r e f l e c t on a  molar l e v e l t h o s e cues used by Es i n a r e a l person p e r c e p t i o n s t u d y . this  If  i s the c a s e , subsequent i n v e s t i g a t i o n s must attempt t o r e f i n e t e c h n i q u e s  of o b s e r v a t i o n and f o c u s on s u b t l e e x p r e s s i o n s o f t h e molar cues t h a t have a l r e a d y been i d e n t i f i e d as communicators of E_ expectancy. t i m e , f u r t h e r f i l m a n a l y s e s are b e i n g undertaken  At t h e p r e s e n t  by Rosenthal  i n t h e hope  t h a t more s p e c i f i c modes of communication can be r e v e a l e d . A d d i t i o n a l data e x i s t b e a r i n g on t h e more molar a s p e c t s of E_ b i a s communication.  These w i l l  be d e s c r i b e d i n terms of t h e temporal  phases  t h a t have been d e l i n e a t e d above. The p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n q phase. E_'s expectancy a c t i o n was (1964).  Evidence of the communication of  d u r i n g t h e b r i e f p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase of t h e S_-E_ i n t e r -  found  i n a study by R o s e n t h a l , Fode, V i k a n - K l i n e and P e r s i n g e r  In a n a l y z i n g t h e data from t h r e e experiments  t h a t the b i a s phenomenon was  on j E b i a s they  i n e v i d e n c e on t h e Ss' v e r y f i r s t  found  response.  T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t some b i a s i s communicated t o Ss p r i o r t o t h e a c t u a l  ad-  m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e t a s k . A study by Weick (1963) lends s u p p o r t t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s of E_ b i a s communication d u r i n g t h e p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase of t h e experiment.  He  employed two Es, each of whom a d m i n i s t e r o d t h e photo r a t i n g t a s k t o f i v e i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology s t u d e n t s .  The E_ e x p e c t i n g h i g h r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d  12  h i g h e r mean r a t i n g s than d i d E_ e x p e c t i n g low r a t i n g s . of  Careful  examination  t h e data r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t E_ e f f e c t on t h e f i r s t photo (p_ < . 0 2 ) .  The f a c t t h a t E_expectancy  e f f e c t s wore m a n i f e s t e d on t h e r a t i n g s o f t h e  v e r y f i r s t photo suggests t h a t t h e b r i e f p e r i o d d u r i n g which E g r e e t s , s e a t s , and i n s t r u c t s h i s Ss p r o v i d e s time enough f o r E _ t o communicate h i s expectancies t o Ss. Friedman,  K u r l a n d and Rosenthal  (1965), i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f  E_ b e h a v i o r on e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s , found t h a t t h o s e Es who o b t a i n e d data more i n accordance w i t h t h e i r expectancy d i f f e r e d nonvocal  i n both t h e i r v o c a l and  b e h a v i o r d u r i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n r e a d i n g p e r i o d from t h o s e who d i d  not o b t a i n data i n accordance w i t h t h e i r e x p e c t a n c y .  The Es who b i a s e d  t h e responses o f t h e i r Ss were found t o read t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n s more r a p i d l y and more a c c u r a t e l y and t o exchange fewer mutual  glances with t h e i r  Ss d u r i n g t h e i n s t r u c t i o n r e a d i n g phase o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t .  In summary,  i t would seem t h a t t h e E w i t h a more p r o f e s s i o n a l manner i s more to  likely  e x e r t h i s i n f l u e n c e on Ss than i s t h e JE who l a c k s such a p r o f e s s i o n a l  manner. A subsequent  study i n a person p e r c e p t i o n c o n t e x t , recorded S-E_  i n t e r a c t i o n s on sound motion p i c t u r e s ( R o s e n t h a l , Friedman 1966).  and K u r l a n d ,  F i v e male and f i v e female Es wore l e d t o e x p e c t about h a l f o f t h e i r  Ss t o g i v e r a t i n g s on a p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k a v e r a g i n g +5 ( s u c c e s s ) and t o e x p e c t r a t i n g s of -5 ( f a i l u r e ) from t h e r e m a i n i n g S s . of  R e g a r d l e s s of which  t h e two c o n t r a d i c t o r y e x p e c t a n c i e s they h e l d , male Es o b t a i n e d  signifi-  c a n t l y more h y p o t h e s i s c o n f i r m i n g data i f they read i n s t r u c t i o n s more r a p i d l y and l e s s a c c u r a t e l y , g l a n c e d  l o s s a t t h e i r S s , exchanged  fewer  13  mutual g l a n c e s w i t h them, and  showed l e s s general  s t r u c t i o n r e a d i n g b e h a v i o r of female Es was e f f e c t upon t h e i r Ss' The  body movement.  The  in-  l e s s p r e d i c t i v e of t h e i r b i a s i n g  responses.  data c o l l e c t i n g phase.  S t u d i e s e x a m i n i n g the e f f e c t s of £ b i a s  d u r i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e data c o l l e c t i n g phase of t h e experiment have focused  p r i m a r i l y on the v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g phenomenon.  (1955) has demonstrated the e f f e c t of v e r b a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t plural  nouns w i t h "mmm-hmm". Verbal  in the f r e q u e n c y of e m i s s i o n  reinforcement  of the p l u r a l nouns.  by r e i n f o r c i n g  r e s u l t e d in an  increase  By the same p r i n c i p l e ,  i t would not seem unreasonable t o suggest t h a t an E_ who h i g h r a t i n g s on photographs may  Greenspoon  expects to obtain  s u b t l y r e i n f o r c e t h a t t y p e of response t h u s  i n c r e a s i n g t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the response w i l l  be r e p e a t e d .  Conversely,  i f E_ e x p e c t s low r a t i n g s , he may  s u b t l y r e i n f o r c e those r a t i n g s that  low.  Fode, V i k a n - K l i n e and  In the study  by R o s e n t h a l ,  Persinger  are  (1964)  c i t e d above, data from t h r e e experiments on E_ b i a s were a n a l y z e d ,  to  determine the e x t e n t t h a t E _ e x p e c t a n c i e s were mediated by v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n ing.  The  r e s u l t s showed t h a t v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g was  mediation  of the E b i a s phenomenon.  b i a s phenomenon was  already  In f a c t , as e a r l i e r r e p o r t e d ,  the  i n e v i d e n c e on t h e Ss' f i r s t response.  s t u d y , t h e magnitude of E_ b i a s was r a t i n g s obtained  not n e c e s s a r y i n the  In t h i s  d e f i n e d as t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n mean  from two groups of Es w i t h o p p o s i t e e x p e c t a n c i e s .  be argued t h a t s i n c e a s i g n i f i c a n t b i a s e f f e c t was  It  found on the r a t i n g s of  the f i r s t photograph, the r a t i n g s were a l r e a d y a t t h e i r extreme p o i n t s the s c a l e . found.  T h i s would e x p l a i n why  If v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g was  may  on  no subsequent i n c r e a s e in b i a s e f f e c t was mediating  the E b i a s , one  would e x p e c t an  14  increase  in t h e e f f e c t from t h e f i r s t r a t i n g t o some a s y m p t o t i c l e v e l  a f u n c t i o n of t h e number of t r i a l s may  already  employed.  Since t h i s asymptotic  level  have been reached because of e v e n t s i n t h e p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g  phase of the e x p e r i m e n t , i t i s expected t h a t v e r b a l have been i n o p e r a t i o n R o s e n t h a l , "Verbal  (Rosenthal e t a I.,  conditioning  1964,  p o s s i b i l i t y that verbal  p. 7 4 ) .  i s n e i t h e r a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n nor  t o the o p e r a t i o n  a  of the JE outcome-bias phenomenon"  This conclusion  conditioning  not  According to  does not e x c l u d e t h e  c o n d i t i o n i n g can mediate E_ outcome-bias.  t e s t of the e f f e c t s of v e r b a l the person p e r c e p t i o n  c o n d i t i o n i n g would  d u r i n g the d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase.  n e c e s s a r y augmenting f a c t o r in the o p e r a t i o n  A true '  in t h e m e d i a t i o n of E_ b i a s in  t y p e of study s h o u l d e l i m i n a t e b i a s i n g e f f e c t s p r i o r  of t h e  independent v a r i a b l e .  That I s , t h e r e s h o u l d be  e v i d e n c e of E_ b i a s on r a t i n g s of the f i r s t photograph. a c h i e v e d by  as  l i m i t i n g the c o n t a c t  between JE and  T h i s may  no  be  Ss d u r i n g the  predata  and  (1961) adds  c o l l e c t i n g phase of the e x p e r i m e n t . A study by Fode, R o s e n t h a l , V i k a n - K l i n e  Persinger  weight t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g may f a c t o r in the b i a s i n g of e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s .  be an  important  They demonstrated t h a t  o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g c o u l d d r i v e t h e r a t i n g s of the photos up o r down according  t o the w i l l  of E.  "While v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g  Thus Rosenthal  (1963c) c o n c l u d e s t h a t ,  i s n e i t h e r a n e c e s s a r y nor a n e c e s s a r i l y  f r e q u e n t a n t e c e d e n t of b i a s i n g , I t n e v e r t h e l e s s  Modality  of Cue  The  c o u l d be"  (p.  275).  Communication  question  now  a r i s e s as t o how  E_ u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y and d i f f e r e n t -  15  t a l l y communicates w i t h h i s Ss. What a r e t h e cues and how a r e t h e y t r a n s mitted? of  In an attempt t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n , Fode (1960) p l a c e d a group  Es behind s c r e e n s t o e l i m i n a t e v i s u a l c u e s , w h i l e a n o t h e r group o f Es  was r e q u i r e d t o remain s i l e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e experiment t o e l i m i n a t e v e r b a l cues.  R e s t r i c t i o n o f v i s u a l cues accounted f o r about 80$ o f t h e observed  bias. In  1963b Rosenthal and Fode conducted two e x p e r i m e n t s designed t o  i n v e s t i g a t e t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f cues from E_ t o S s . They used t h e person p e r c e p t i o n experiment employing t h e i r p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k .  In both e x p e r i m e n t s  some Es were g i v e n an expectancy t h a t t h e i r Ss would y i e l d a mean photo r a t i n g o f +5 ( s u c c e s s ) and t h e o t h e r Es were g i v e n t h e -5 ( f a i l u r e ) expectancy on a s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e r a t i n g s c a l e .  In t h e f i r s t experiment Es  were n o t p e r m i t t e d t o say a n y t h i n g t o t h e i r Ss o t h e r than what was on t h e i n s t r u c t i o n sheet.  S i n c e t h e r e was no v e r b a l communication  during the  photo p r e s e n t a t i o n s t h e r e s u l t i n g b i a s c o u l d o n l y have been communicated through manner, g e s t u r e , o r f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n .  In t h e second e x p e r i m e n t ,  a d i f f e r e n t method o f photo p r e s e n t a t i o n was employed.  The photos were  mounted on c a r d b o a r d and numbered so t h a t Ss c o u l d r a t e them w i t h o u t E_ handling the photos.  Two groups o f Es s e r v e d as r e p l i c a t e s f o r t h e h i g h  (+5) and low (-5) b i a s groups o f Es o f t h e s e groups were employed  Both o f  as c o n t r o l groups i n t h e second e x p e r i m e n t .  A t h i r d group o f E s , n o n - v i s u a l Es,  the f i r s t experiment.  (+5) b i a s , g r e e t e d t h e i r S s , as d i d a l l  b u t then immediately s a t down behind a s c r e e n a c r o s s a t a b l e from S s .  The E_ read i n s t r u c t i o n s t o Ss and r e c o r d e d Ss' r a t i n g s but was never v i s i b l e t o Ss.  The Es had been b i a s e d t o e x p e c t h i g h t j " r a t i n g s .  The  16  f o u r t h group of Es, non-verbal sheet of i n s t r u c t i o n s and session.  (+5)  b i a s , a f t e r g r e e t i n g Ss, handed them a  remained c o m p l e t e l y  These Es were In f u l l  s i l e n t u n t i l t h e end of  view of Ss.  I t was  the  found t h a t the e l i m i n a -  t i o n of v i s u a l cues from E t o S d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce the e f f e c t of bias.  E l i m i n a t i o n of v e r b a l cues had  reducing  E_ b i a s .  I t i s important  an even more profound e f f e c t i n  t o note here t h a t the e l i m i n a t i o n of  v e r b a l cues i n c l u d e d the e l i m i n a t i o n of E_'s  i n s t r u c t i o n r e a d i n g , whereas i n  the c o n d i t i o n e l i m i n a t i n g v i s u a l cues, i n s t r u c t i o n reading behavior eliminated. h a v i o r may and  Rosenthal,  be s u f f i c i e n t i n i t s e l f f o r m e d i a t i n g 1965;  1966;  Rosenthal,  Weick, 1963).  E_ b i a s (Friedman,  Fode, V i k a n - K l i n e and P e r s i n g e r , Thus, t h e g r e a t e r r e d u c t i o n  e f f e c t i n t h e c o n d i t i o n which e l i m i n a t e d v e r b a l cues a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the absence of t h e e f f e c t s of The  was  I t has a l r e a d y been demonstrated t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n r e a d i n g  Rosenthal,  two  preceding  Es'  s t u d i e s (Fode, 1960;  1963b) demonstrate t h a t both v e r b a l and  may  not be-  Kurland 1964;  i n E_ b i a s  be  partially  i n s t r u c t i o n reading. and  Rosenthal  and  v i s u a l cues p l a y an  Fode,  important  p a r t i n the phenomenon of E_ b i a s . Rosenthal  (1965) r e p o r t s s t u d i e s designed t o I d e n t i f y the  cues t h a t mediate E_ b i a s .  In t h e s e s t u d i e s , person p e r c e p t i o n  u t i l i z i n g the photo r a t i n g t a s k were recorded expected  on f i l m .  The  experiments who  t h e i r Ss t o be " s u c c e s s - p e r c e i v e r s " communicated t h e i r  expectancy so t h a t t h e s e Ss became " s u c c e s s - p e r c e i v e r s " . e x p e c t i n g t h e i r Ss t o be " f a i l u r e - p e r c e i v e r s " o b t a i n e d f a i l u r e responses. fied  Es  specific  Similarly,  a predominance of  No s p e c i f i c expectancy medial:ng cues c o u l d be  i n the t h r e e y e a r s t h a t the f i l m s were a n a l y z e d .  Es  I t may  identi-  be r e c a l l e d  17  t h a t Es who  manifested p a r t i c u l a r behavior c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( i . e . ,  i n s t r u c t i o n s more r a p i d l y and  less a c c u r a t e l y , glanced  read  less at t h e i r  exchanged fewer mutual g l a n c e s w i t h thom, e t c . ) o b t a i n e d  Ss,  significantly  more h y p o t h e s i s c o n f i r m i n g responses  from t h e i r Ss.  The problem  still  remains, however, of d e t e r m i n i n g how  E_ uses t h e s e and o t h e r s p e c i f i c cues  f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l l y communicating h i s e x p e c t a n c i e s t o Ss.  F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g the B i a s Phenomenon I t i s not unreasonable  t o suggest t h a t t h e mood of E_ Is governed i n  p a r t by t h e s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e of h i s ongoing  research.  If the researcher  begins t o o b t a i n data c o n t r a r y t o h i s e x p e c t a t i o n s , might not h i s subsequent r e s u l t s d i f f e r from the r e s e a r c h e r who's e x p e c t a n c i e s a r e  initially  c o n f i r m e d on t h e same t a s k ?  Fode  R o s e n t h a l , P e r s i n g e r , V i k a n - K l i n e and  (1963b) p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e t h a t suggest t h a t £'s h i s Ss and t h i s i n t u r n may  mood may  a f f e c t the experimental  be p e r c e i v e d by  results.  In t h a t s t u d y , t h r e e groups of f o u r Es each had t h r e e groups of Ss r a t e t h e apparent s u c c e s s of people t o +10.  The  i n photos on a s c a l e r u n n i n g from  Es were i n s t r u c t e d t h a t Ss' mean r a t i n g s would be about  -10 +5.  In each of t h e two e x p e r i m e n t a l groups wore two c o n f e d e r a t e s of t h e Principal  Investigator.  One  p a i r of c o n f e d e r a t e s was  "good d a t a " ( c o n f i r m E_'s expectancy)  instructed to give  and t h e o t h e r p a i r was t o g i v e "bad  d a t a " (respond c o n t r a r y t o E_'s e x p e c t a n c y ) .  I t was  h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t Es  who o b t a i n e d "good d a t a " would o b t a i n " b e t t e r " subsequent d a t a w h i l e Es e x p e c t i n g "bad d a t a " would o b t a i n "wcrse" d a t a i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e c o n t r o l . While n e i t h e r e x p e r i m e n t a l group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a c o n t r o l  18  group, t h e two e x p e r i m e n t a l groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r as predicted. The f a c t t h a t E_'s expectancy was c o n f i r m e d o r di scon f i r m e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g study may be i r r e l e v a n t , however, t o t h e s t a t e o f E_'s mood and i t s e f f e c t on s u b s e q u e n t l y o b t a i n e d d a t a ( R o s e n t h a l , Kohn, G r e e n f i e l d and C a r t o a , 1965).  Rosenthal  (1966) o f f e r s an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n ; t h a t i s ,  E/s expectancy may change d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e experiment which may i n t u r n r e s u l t i n changes i n t h e data he o b t a i n s from h i s S s . Thus, Es who have had t h e i r e x p e c t a n c i e s c o n f i r m e d i n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s o f t h e experiment may e x p e c t s i m i l a r d a t a from f u t u r e S s . On t h e o t h e r hand, Es who r e c e i v e d data from t h e i r f i r s t run Ss t h a t d i s c o n f i r m e d t h e i r e x p e c t a n c i e s may begin t o have doubts about t h e i r  initial  e x p e c t a n c i e s and modify them so as t o be  more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d a t a they have a l r e a d y o b t a i n e d .  Differences of  E_'s e x p e c t a n c i e s t h e n , r a t h e r than d i f f e r e n c e s o f mood may account f o r t h e f i n d i n g s in t h e preceding study. T h i s d i s c u s s i o n d i r e c t s o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e idea t h a t Ss may i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t t h e i r own responses o r t h e responses o f s u b s e q u e n t l y run Ss.  An e x t e n s i o n o f t h i s  idea may be used t o e x p l a i n how IE l e a r n s t o  communicate h i s e x p e c t a n c y .  If t h e t y p e o f cues used by E_ t o communicate  h i s expectancy t o Ss i s c o n t i n g e n t upon t h e n a t u r e of Ss' responses ( i . e . , expectancy c o n f i r m i n g o r d i s c o n f i r m i n g responses) then Ss may unw i t t i n g l y shape EE's b e h a v i o r . Rosenthal  (1965) p o i n t s o u t t h a t s i n c e i t i s r e w a r d i n g t o have  one's e x p e c t a n c i e s c o n f i r m e d , t h e n ; "Whenever t h e s u b j e c t responds i n accordance w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s e x p e c t a n c y , t h e l i k e l i h o o d  i s increased  19  t h a t the experimenter w i l l may  r e p e a t any c o v e r t communicative  have preceded the s u b j e c t ' s c o n f i r m i n g response.  Subjects, then,  q u i t e u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y shape t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s unintended b e h a v i o r " (p. 3 1 ) .  b e h a v i o r which may  communicative  No s y s t e m a t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n of R o s e n t h a l ' s n o t i o n  has been c a r r i e d o u t , however.  C o n c l u d i n g Remarks In t h e f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n , e v i d e n c e was  p r e s e n t e d which  suggested  t h a t JE's expectancy c o u l d be communicated d u r i n g t h e b r i e f p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase of t h e e x p e r i m e n t .  The cues i n v o l v e d  were b e l i e v e d t o be both v e r b a l and v i s u a l  In n a t u r e .  i n the  communication  Although observers  have not been a b l e t o i d e n t i f y t h e s p e c i f i c cues used by E_ t o communicate his  e x p e c t a n c i e s , i t would seem t h a t E_ i s c o v e r t l y s a y i n g t o h i s Ss,  "Give me response X", and h i s Ss somehow tend t o comply. E_may i n e f f e c t be c u e i n g h i s Ss as t o how  In o t h e r words,  they s h o u l d respond.  The unique f e a t u r e about t h e concept of a c u e i n g p r o c e s s m e d i a t i n g E_ expectancy stems from t h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t Ss g i v e b i a s e d r a t i n g s on the f i r s t t r i a l of t h e person p e r c e p t i o n s t u d i e s . ing  I t f o l l o w s , t h e n , t h a t cue-  i s not dependent f o r i t s o p e r a t i o n upon t h e feedback of responses  Ss t o E.  Cueing i s a u n i l a t e r a l  mediator o f i n f o r m a t i o n , m e d i a t i n g i n -  f o r m a t i o n a l cues about E_'s expectancy t o Ss.  The u n i l a t e r a l  communication  f e a t u r e of c u e i n g i s not shared by the m e d i a t i n g p r o c e s s of v e r b a l conditioning. communication  from  operant  Operant c o n d i t i o n i n g , of c o u r s e , depends upon r e c i p r o c a l between E_ and Ss.  Both c u e i n g and v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g  may  mediate E_ expectancy d u r i n g t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase of t h e experiment  20  when r e c i p r o c a l communication  between E_ and S_ i s u s u a l l y p e r m i t t e d .  The  problem now  a r i s e s as t o which o f the two p r o c e s s e s i s most i m p o r t a n t i n  mediating  expectancy.  That i s , c u e i n g and not v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g  be t h e mediator of E_expectancy experiment.  The  may  d u r i n g the data c o l l e c t i n g phase of t h e  i n c o n c l u s i v e r e p o r t s as t o t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of v e r b a l  c o n d i t i o n i n g as a m e d i a t o r of expectancy w a r r a n t s a c a r e f u l of t h e c u e i n g p r o c e s s In expectancy  communication  c o l l e c t i n g and t h e c a t a c o l l e c t i n g phases of t h e  examination  d u r i n g both t h e p r e d a t a experiment.  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o compare and c o n t r a s t t h e mechanisms of v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g and c u e i n g in t h e r o l e o f expectancy m e d i a t i o n . us c o n s i d e r R o s e n t h a l ' s (1965) s u g g e s t i o n t h a t Ss may t h e i r E_'s unintended communicative  behavior.  having t h e i r expectancies confirmed. communicative  b e h a v i o r which  f i r m i n g response.  First, let  u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y shape  The Es may  be rewarded  by  As a consequence they r e p e a t t h e  immediately preceded t h e Ss' h y p o t h s i s con-  That i s , Rosenthal agrees t h a t v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g  c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e b i a s e f f e c t , b u t , he r e g a r d s I t as a mechanism by  may  which  Ss shape t h e i r E_'s b e h a v i o r . In p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s t h a t have i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e b i a s e f f e c t as a v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g phenomenon, t h e communication be t h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t f o r Ss' r e s p o n s e s . Rosenthal  The a l t e r n a t i v e suggested  (1965) would *!so i n v o l v e communication  communication,  from E_ was assumed t o  from E_ t o Ss, but t h e  as he r e g a r d s i t , c o n t a i n s d i s t i n c t i v e cues ( h i n t s o r  s u g g e s t i o n s as t o what t o do o r when t o a c t ) t h a t a f f e c t t h e way respond.  by  The cues may  o r may  not be r e i n f o r c i n g f o r Ss.  Ss  What i s more  i m p o r t a n t , i s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a l c o n t e n t c o n t a i n e d i n the c u e s .  21  One  may  expect t h a t the t o t a l  i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by E_'s c u e i n g  b e h a v i o r would be a f u n c t i o n of t h e l e n g t h of t i m e he spends w i t h h i s Ss; t h e g r e a t e r i n t e r a c t i o n time o r t h e longer t a s k r e s u l t s i n a more r e f i n e d and e f f i c i e n t communicative n e t .  As a consequence, one would e x p e c t an  Increase i n b i a s magnitude o v e r t r i a l s , reinforcement.  i n s t u d i e s of v e r b a l  The mechanism i n v o l v e d , however, would be v e r y  Rosenthal's Both  as i s found  h y p o t h e s i s seems t o be r e l a t e d t o t h e c u e i n g h y p o t h e s i s .  i n v o l v e E_'s c o v e r t communication of h i s expectancy  response.  different.  The mechanism t h a t Rosenthal  a t t r i b u t a b l e t o i t cannot o c c u r u n t i l Moreover, EEs' communicative b e h a v i o r  p r i o r t o t h e S_s'  describes d i f f e r s  in that b i a s i n g  a f t e r t h e Ss g i v e t h e i r f i r s t i s l a r g e l y determined  by Ss'  response. responses.  The e f f e c t of c u e i n g (cue e f f e c t ) , on t h e o t h e r hand, can o c c u r p r i o r t o t h e S_s' r e s p o n d i n g and may be independent of t h e type of responses The c u e i n g p r o c e s s  Ss g i v e .  i s p e r s i s t e n t , whereas, t h e e f f e c t proposed by Rosenthal  depends upon lE's a c q u i r i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e cues as the r e s u l t of a conditioning It  process. is d i f f i c u l t  in t r y i n g t o account  t o d i s t i n g u i s h between r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t s and f o r changes i n S s  f  behavior.  cueing  The e f f e c t s of c u e i n g  and  operant c o n d i t i o n i n g a r e complementary i n s t u d i e s of v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g . Experimenters,  r e i n f o r c i n g p e r s o n a l pronouns w i t h the words "Good" o r  "Ummm Hmmm", may a l s o be communicating d i s t i n c t i v e cues which i n f l u e n c e Ss' b e h a v i o r so t h a t they respond hypothesis.  One  in accordance w i t h t h e  purpose of t h e p r e s e n t study was  t h e r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n of cue e f f e c t s and in j>s' performance.  experimental  t o attempt t o  determine  r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t s t o changes  In a d d i t i o n , t h e study was concerned  with the  22  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and o p e r a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e x p e r i m e n t e r e f f e c t s . A p r e l i m i n a r y attempt was made t o d i s t i n g u i s h between cue e f f e c t s and r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t s i n a person p e r c e p t i o n s t u d y ( M o f f a t , 1966).  In t h i s  s t u d y , E_-S_ i n t e r a c t i o n d u r i n g t h e p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase was r e s t r i c t e d in o r d e r t o p r e v e n t b i a s e f f e c t s p r i o r t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e t a s k . The aim o f t h i s procedure was t o a v o i d any communication o f b i a s p r i o r t o presentation of the f i r s t  photo.  In o r d e r t o d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e e f f e c t s o f c o v e r t r e i n f o r c e m e n t and c u e i n g , a procedure was adopted by which t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e s e complementary mechanisms c o u l d be i s o l a t e d .  T h i s was a c h i e v e d by u s i n g d i f f e r e n t  t y p e s o f feedback from S_ t o E_: c o r r e c t feedback, r e v e r s e d f e e d b a c k , and no feedback.  Ten Es each ran two Ss i n each o f t h e feedback c o n d i t i o n s .  The  Es were t o l d t h a t they would be r u n n i n g Ss s e l e c t e d because t h e y were prone t o r a t e t h e photos " s u c c e s s " .  The Es' t a s k was t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e 20 s t a n d a r d i z e d  photos used by Rosenthal (1966) and t o o b t a i n r a t i n g s o f t h e photos o f e i t h e r " s u c c e s s " o r " f a i l u r e " from Ss.  Both E_and Ss were i n s t r u c t e d t o say n o t h i n g  p r i o r t o or during the administration of the task. e l i m i n a t e d as a p o s s i b l e mode f o r expectancy  Thus, v e r b a l cues were  communication.  I t was reasoned t h a t , i f E_ b i a s were mediated by c u e i n g a l o n e , no d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e feedback c o n d i t i o n s would be e v i d e n t i n terms o f t h e mean number o f photos r a t e d " s u c c e s s " .  In a l l  t h r e e i n s t a n c e s , E_  would be c o v e r t l y s a y i n g t o h i s S s , "Give me a s u c c e s s response".  Even i n  the No Feedback c o n d i t i o n , where E_was unaware o f S s ' r e s p o n s e s , c u e i n g b e h a v i o r by E_ would communicate t o Ss t h e response expected o f them.  If  t h e b i a s were mediated v i a r e i n f o r c e m e n t a l o n e , d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u c c e s s  23  r a t i n g s would be expected  between t h e groups.  c o n d i t i o n , f o r example, E_ would be expected  In t h e C o r r e c t Feedback  to positively reinforce ratings  of " s u c c e s s " and n e g a t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e r a t i n g s of " f a i l u r e " . hand, Es i n t h e Reversed  Feedback c o n d i t i o n would be expected  r e i n f o r c e Ss' " f a i l u r e " responses responses. responses  Consequently,  to positively  and n e g a t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e t h e i r  "success"  an i n c r e a s e i n t h e magnitude o f " s u c c e s s "  would be expected  would be expected  On t h e o t h e r  i n t h e C o r r e c t Feedback c o n d i t i o n , no change  i n t h e No Feedback c o n d i t i o n , w h i l e a decrease i n  magnitude o f " s u c c e s s " responses  would be expected  i n t h e Reversed  Feed-  back c o n d i t i o n . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study r e v e a l e d no d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e mean number of " s u c c e s s " responses in  between feedback  conditions.  T h i s r e s u l t was  l i n e w i t h t h e c u e i n g h y p o t h e s i s , but was i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e r e i n f o r c e -  ment h y p o t h e s i s . Reversed  In both of t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  groups ( C o r r e c t Feedback and  Feedback c o n d i t i o n s ) , an i n c r e a s e was found  " s u c c e s s " responses  i n t h e mean number o f  from t h e f i r s t t e n t o t h e l a s t t e n photos r a t e d .  i n c r e a s e f o r t h e C o r r e c t Feedback c o n d i t i o n approached  The  significance  (p_ < .06, one t a i l , t_ = 1.73, df_ = 19). The i n c r e a s e f o r t h e Reverse Feedback c o n d i t i o n was n o t as g r e a t (p_ < .20, one t a i l , t_ = 0.92, df_ = 19). The f i n d i n g o f no d i f f e r e n c e s between feedback  c o n d i t i o n s along with the  concommitant i n c r e a s e i n t h e mean number o f " s u c c e s s " responses f u n c t i o n of t r i a l s , c u e i n g mechanism. for  t h e Reversed  suggests t h a t E_ expectancy  as a  may have been mediated by a  The s m a l l e r i n c r e a s e i n t h e number of " s u c c e s s " Feedback c o n d i t i o n suggests t h a t some r e i n f o r c e m e n t  may have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e b i a s communication.  T h i s would tend t o  responses effects  24  f a c i l i t a t e an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number of expected  responses  in the Correct  Feedback c o n d i t i o n , s i n c e c u e i n g and r e i n f o r c e m e n t would produce complementary effects.  In t h e Reversed  Feedback c o n d i t i o n , however, c u e i n g and r e i n f o r c e -  ment would tend t o o p e r a t e t h e c r i t e r i o n measure.  i n disharmony and r e s u l t i n a s m a l l e r i n c r e a s e i n  If t h e r e s u l t s a r e i n t e r p r e t e d  i n t h i s way, i t i s  e v i d e n t t h a t t h e e f f e c t s of c u e i n g a r e much more profound than t h o s e o f reinforcement f o r the photo-rating task. It w i l l restricted  be r e c a l l e d t h a t p r e d a t a i n t e r a c t i o n between E_ and Ss was  i n t h i s study  i n an attempt t o e l i m i n a t e c u e i n g e f f e c t s d u r i n g  t h a t phase o f t h e experiment.  A f u r t h e r r e s t r i c t i o n d u r i n g t h e data  c o l l e c t i n g phase e l i m i n a t e d v e r b a l communication between E_ and S_.  The  i m p l i c a t i o n s a r e both d i s t u r b i n g and r e w a r d i n g ; d i s t u r b i n g because of t h e magnitude of E_ b i a s even when s e v e r e  l i m i t a t i o n s were p l a c e d on E_-S_  communication, rewarding because i t r e i n f o r c e s t h e e f f o r t s b e i n g made t o i d e n t i f y t h e s p e c i f i c cues i n v o l v e d i n expectancy  communication.  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s t u d i e s o f v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g a r e noteworthy. p o i n t e d o u t e a r l i e r , t h e hypotheses  The As i t was  o f c u e i n g and r e i n f o r c e m e n t a r e  complementary i n s t u d i e s o f v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g y e t Increases i n t h e number of  " c o r r e c t " responses a r e u s u a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o e f f e c t s o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t .  It i s important t h a t t h e s e s t u d i e s be examined i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l . possibility  i s very real  The  i n t h e l i g h t o f t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y study t h a t £  may produce a g r e a t e r e f f e c t by c u e i n g t h e Ss as t o how they s h o u l d  respond  r a t h e r than by r e i n f o r c i n g them v e r b a l l y f o r t h e c o r r e c t response. The p r e s e n t study i s a f o l l o w - u p of t h e s t u d y j u s t d e s c r i b e d . t h e person p e r c e p t i o n paradigm i t w i l l  Within  e x p l o r e t h e i n f l u e n c e o f v e r b a l and  25  nonverbal communication will to  i n t h e m e d i a t i o n o f E_expectancy.  attempt t o determine i f Ss' responses w i l l  Moreover, i t  be a f f e c t e d by d i f f e r e n t S_  E_ feedback c o n d i t i o n s . The hypotheses t o be t e s t e d and t h e i r r a t i o n a l e s a r e : 1.  That Es g i v e n t h e same e x p e c t a n c y , s u c c e s s , b u t r e c e i v i n g  c o r r e c t f e e d b a c k , r e v e r s e d feedback o r no feedback w i l l r e s u l t s on a p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k . of  obtain  similar  T h i s h y p o t h e s i s f o l l o w s from t h e d i s c u s s i o n  t h e o p e r a t i o n of c u e i n g and r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n t h e communication of E_ b i a s .  The Es who r e c e i v e no feedback from t h e i r Ss would be unaware o f whether o r not t h e Ss were r e s p o n d i n g i n accordance w i t h t h e i r h y p o t h e s i s . for  a r e i n f o r c e m e n t mechanism t o o p e r a t e , Es must be aware o f t h e S s '  responses.  On t h e o t h e r hand, i f Es a r e c u e i n g t h e i r Ss as t o how t h e y  s h o u l d respond, a b i a s e f f e c t may be i n e v i d e n c e . Ss'  In o r d e r  The Es who r e c e i v e t h e  t r u e r a t i n g s ( c o r r e c t feedback) wouId be e x p e c t e d t o b i a s Ss i n t h e  d i r e c t i o n o f t h e i r hypotheses.  The same would be t r u e whether t h e b i a s i n g  mechanism was a c u e i n g o r a r e i n f o r c i n g mechanism.  For Es r e c e i v i n g  i n f o r m a t i o n e x a c t l y o p p o s i t e t o Ss' t r u e r a t i n g s ( r e v e r s e d f e e d b a c k ) , two possibilities exist, would be c o v e r t l y  (a) If c u e i n g i s t h e major b i a s i n g mechanism, Ss  i n f l u e n c e d by t h e i r Es t o g i v e s u c c e s s r e s p o n s e s , con-  s e q u e n t l y a predominance  o f s u c c e s s responses would be o b t a i n e d ,  (b) I f  r e i n f o r c e m e n t i s t h e major b i a s i n g mechanism, E_ would be expected t o i n a d v e r t e n t l y b i a s t h e Ss t o g i v e t r u e r a t i n g s which di scon f i r m E_'s h y p o t h e s i ? and, as a consequence, 2.  r e l a t i v e l y fewer s u c c e s s responses would be o b t a i n e d .  That i n c o n d i t i o n s i n which v e r b a l and nonverbal cues a r e  a v a i l a b l e more §_bias e f f e c t w i l l  o c c u r than i n c o n d i t i o n s i n which o n l y  nonverbal cues a r e p e r m i t t e d .  T h i s f o l l o w s from s t u d i e s which have shown  t h a t both v e r b a l and nonverbal cues c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e b i a s e f f e c t . Confirmation underlying cueing hypothesis  mechanism i n £ b i a s .  would p r o v i d e  s u p p o r t f o r an  F a i l u r e t o confirm the f i r s t  would be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h an o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g mechanism.  Confirmation for  of t h e f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s  o r d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e second h y p o t h e s i s  has i m p l i c a t i o n s  t h e r e l a t i v e importance of v e r b a l and nonverbal cues f o r expectancy  communication.  CHAPTER I I I METHOD  E x p e r i m e n t e r s and S u b j e c t s .  Ten males e n r o l l e d  i n an advanced  graduate p s y c h o l o g y c o u r s e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Es.  under-  s e r v e d as  A l l Es v o l u n t e e r e d and were p a i d $3.00 f o r t h e i r p a r t i n t h e e x p e r i -  ment.  None o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s had p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e person p e r c e p t i o n  t a s k used  in the present study.  S u b j e c t s were 120 f e m a l e s , between 19 and 30 y e a r s o l d , e n r o l l e d i n undergraduate  e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s a t U.B.C.  A l l Ss were v o l u n t e e r s .  They,  t o o , had no p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s . Materials.  The 20 s t a n d a r d i z e d n e u t r a l photographs  were used by Rosenthal  of faces t h a t  (1963c) i n h i s s t u d i e s o f e x p e r i m e n t e r b i a s i n a  person p e r c e p t i o n c o n t e x t were employed i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . by which t h e s e photographs Appendix  were s t a n d a r d i z e d by Rosenthal  The method  i s described in  A.  Feedback o f responses t o t h e photos  i n t h e nonverbal c o n d i t i o n s was  v i s u a l l y communicated t o E_ by a d i s p l a y panel w i t h an e i g h t - p o i n t  rating  scale.  illuminated  The p o i n t s on t h e s c a l e were f i x e d w i t h l i g h t s which when  i n d i c a t e d t h e S s ' r a t i n g o f t h e photo t o E_. On t h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e p a n e l , not v i s i b l e t o IE, a s i m i l a r e i g h t - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e was used by Ss i n making their ratings.  The p o i n t s on t h e S s ' s c a l e were f i x e d w i t h push b u t t o n s s o  t h a t by p r e s s i n g a button on t h e s c a l e , Ss made t h e i r r a t i n g s . panel o f s i m i l a r dimensions  A second  but w i t h o u t l i g h t s o r b u t t o n s was used by JE t o  obscure h i s d a t a s h e e t s from t h e S s ' view. The Ss' push button r a t i n g s c a l e was designed so t h a t i t s p o l e s were  28  reversible.  That i s ,  i n t h e C o r r e c t Feedback c o n d i t i o n a r a t i n g o f _1_ by  Ss on t h e push b u t t o n s c a l e meant t h a t Ss r a t e d t h e photo "extreme  failure"  but i n t h e Reversed Feedback c o n d i t i o n , J_ meant "extreme s u c c e s s " ( s e e F i g . 1 ) . The r a t i n g s c a l e on t h e f r o n t of t h e S s ' p a n e l , v i s i b l e o n l y t o E_, was n o t r e v e r s i b l e so t h a t a r a t i n g o f _1_ always meant extreme  failure  t o E_ ( s e e F i g . 2 ) . Thus, each r a t i n g t h a t Ss made i n t h e Reversed Feedback c o n d i t i o n was u n w i t t i n g l y m i s i n t e r p r e t e d by E t o mean e x a c t l y t h e o p p o s i t e of what t h e Ss i n t e n d e d . Design. The f i r s t  The experiment was d e s i g n e d as a 2 x 3 x 10 f a c t o r i a l .  independent v a r i a b l e was a t two l e v e l s :  Communication  V e r b a l v s . Nonverbal  (between E_ and Ss p r i o r t o and d u r i n g t h e p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k ) .  The second independent v a r i a b l e  was a t t h r e e l e v e l s :  Type o f Feedback  from Ss t o E_ ( i . e . , c o r r e c t feedback o f r e s p o n s e s , r e v e r s e d feedback o f r e s p o n s e s , and no feedback o f r e s p o n s e s ) . was a t t e n l e v e l s :  The t h i r d  t h e 10 Es i n t h e s t u d y .  (blocking) variable  The 2 x 3 x 10 f a c t o r i a l  r e q u i r e s t h e 60 e x p e r i m e n t a l groups shown i n T a b l e 1.  Each group was  c o n s t i t u t e d by two S s . Ten Es each ran 12 Ss i n t h e p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k .  H a l f o f t h e Ss  (Groups 1 t o 30) were a s s i g n e d t o t h e Verbal Communication c o n d i t i o n .  In  t h i s c o n d i t i o n , t h e r e was no r e s t r i c t i o n on communication between E_ and Ss.  The r e m a i n i n g Ss (Groups 31 t o 60) were a s s i g n e d t o t h e Nonverbal  Communication c o n d i t i o n i n which E_ and Ss were i n s t r u c t e d n o t t o t a l k t o each o t h e r p r i o r t o o r d u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e p h o t o s .  W i t h i n each  of t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s Ss were randomly a s s i g n e d t o one o f t h r e e feedback conditions.  Thus, each E_ ran two Ss from each o f s i x t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s  29  Figure  1.  Eight Point Success-Failure Rating Scale f o r the Correct F e e d b a c k C o n d i t i o n a s Seen by B o t h E_ and S_.  F A I L U R E  1  S U C C E S S  2  3  4  5  6  7  S U C C E S S  8  F  A  I  L  U  R  E  B. 1  F i g u r e 2.  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  E i g h t P o i n t S u c c e s s - F a i l u r e Rating Scale f o r t h e Reversed Feedback C o n d i t i o n . A, a s S e e n by E_; B, a s Seen by S_.  30  TABLE 1 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:  2 x 3 x 10 FACTORIAL  Verbal Communication  Nonverbal Communi c a t i o n  Correct Feedback  Revers e Feedback  No Feedback  Correct Feedback  Reverse Feedback  No Feedback  (VC)  (VR)  (VK)  (NVC)  (NVR)  (NVK)  Experimenter Experimenter Experimenter Experimenter Experimenter Experimenter Experimenter Experimenter Experimenter Experimenter  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  as f o l l o w s .  Group VC, v e r b a l c o r r e c t feedback:  Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group  11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group  t h e i r t r u e r e s p o n s e s , verbatum, t o E_, Group VR, v e r b a l r e v e r s e d feedback:  21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group  31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group  41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group  51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  t h e Ss i n t h i s group gave  (See i n s t r u c t i o n s Appendix B.)  t h i s group of Ss gave a v e r b a l  i n t e r p r e t e d by E_ as b e i n g o p p o s i t e t o t h e intended r a t i n g .  rating  I t s h o u l d be  noted t h a t Ss were i n s t r u c t e d t o g i v e o n l y t h e number of t h e i r r a t i n g .  Any  o t h e r r a t i n g by Ss such as s a y i n g " m i l d s u c c e s s " o r "extreme f a i l u r e " , would not communicate t h e r e v e r s e feedback t o E_, but would i n f a c t communicate t h e Ss' t r u e r a t i n g s t o E. feedback:  (See i n s t r u c t i o n s Appendix C.)  Group VK, v e r b a l  no  t h e Ss i n t h i s group i n d i c a t e d t h e i r responses by p r e s s i n g t h e  b u t t o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r r a t i n g a f t e r which they v e r b a l l y communicated t o E_ t h a t they had made t h e i r r a t i n g , recorded.)  (The r a t i n g s were a u t o m a t i c a l l y  The r a t i n g s of t h i s group of Ss were not r e v e a l e d t o E.  (See  31  i n s t r u c t i o n s Appendix D.) responses  Group NVC, nonverbal c o r r e c t feedback:  by Ss i n t h i s group were shown on t h e S s ' p a n e l .  t h e i r responses  the true  The Ss i n d i c a t e d  by p r e s s i n g t h e b u t t o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r r a t i n g on  the e i g h t - p o i n t s c a l e . of t h e Ss' p a n e l .  The E_ recorded t h e responses as shown on t h e f r o n t  (See i n s t r u c t i o n s Appendix E.)  r e v e r s e d feedback:  Group NVR, nonverbal  t h e Ss i n t h i s group r a t e d t h e photos by p r e s s i n g a  b u t t o n c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e i r r a t i n g as was r e q u i r e d o f Group NVC.  This  t i m e , however, t h e l i g h t on t h e Ss' panel c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e r a t i n g opposite t o the Ss  intended r a t i n g was shown, thus communicating r e v e r s e d  f  feedback t o E, who recorded t h e r a t i n g s . Group NVK  f  nonverbal  no feedback:  (See i n s t r u c t i o n s Appendix F.)  (see i n s t r u c t i o n s Appendix G ) . The  responses of Ss i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n were a g a i n i n d i c a t e d by S_s' p r e s s i n g a b u t t o n on t h e r a t i n g s c a l e .  In t h i s c o n d i t i o n , a l l o f t h e l i g h t s on t h e  d i s p l a y panel were a c t i v a t e d  I r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e p a r t i c u l a r b u t t o n pressed  by S s .  (The responses o f t h e Ss were a u t o m a t i c a l l y recorded.)  The E_merely  recorded on h i s data sheet t h a t Ss had made a response. The o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n of c o n d i t i o n s f o r each E_ was randomly determi ned. Procedure. the P r i n c i p a l  In an attempt t o p r e v e n t any E b i a s e f f e c t s due t o e i t h e r  I n v e s t i g a t o r ( P I ) o r t o t h e Es b e f o r e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f  the p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k , i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h S_s d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d was r e s t r i c t e d . Appointments were arranged w i t h Ss as t o t h e t i m e and p l a c e o f t h e e x p e r i ment p r i o r t o t h e i r assignment t o any e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n . communications t o Ss were i n t h e form o f w r i t t e n The experiment  was conducted  A l l other  instructions.  in ton sessions.  A l l experimental  32  conditions  were r e p r e s e n t e d  i n each s e s s i o n .  ment, he was seated a t a t a b l e on t h e t a b l e , was a panel  When E_ a r r i v e d f o r t h e e x p e r i -  i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room.  In f r o n t o f him,  ( 9 " x 24") used t o conceal h i s d a t a s h e e t s .  Also  on t h e t a b l e , d i r e c t l y o p p o s i t e E_, was t h e d i s p l a y panel used by Ss t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r photo r a t i n g s  i n t h e nonverbal  experimental c o n d i t i o n s .  The  E_was g i v e n a s e t o f w r i t t e n  i n s t r u c t i o n s describing the experimental task  and t h e t y p e o f responses he s h o u l d e x p e c t from h i s S s . The reason advanced for  E_'s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e study s t r e s s e d  t h e need f o r r e p l i c a t i o n by  r e s e a r c h e r s i n o r d e r t o expand t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f t h e f i n d i n g s . I n s t r u c t i o n s t o Experimenters. You have been asked t o p a r t i c i p a t e In a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t o f empathy. The reason f o r your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s p r o j e c t i s t o s t a n d a r d i z e r e s u l t s o f experiments o f t h i s t y p e . There i s t h e problem i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h o f d i f f e r e n t examiners g e t t i n g somewhat d i f f e r e n t d a t a on the same t e s t s as a f u n c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . T h e r e f o r e , t o s t a n d a r d i z e t h e t e s t s i t Is b e t t e r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l procedure t o use groups o f e x p e r i m e n t e r s . You w i l l now be asked t o run a s e r i e s o f Ss and t o , o b t a i n from each, r a t i n g s o f photographs. The exp e r i m e n t a l procedure has been typed o u t f o r you and i s seif-explanatory. According t o the preceding research of t h i s nature, some i n d i v i d u a l s have been found t o possess g r e a t e r a b i l i t y than o t h e r s i n d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between s u c c e s s and f a i l u r e from photographs of p e o p l e . U n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s tend t o judge t h e photos i n t h i s experiment as " s u c c e s s p i c t u r e s " . The type of Ss t h a t you w i l l be u s i n g have averaged a 6.5 r a t i n g . T h e r e f o r e , t h e Ss you a r e r u n n i n g s h o u l d average about a 6.5 r a t i n g . D i f f e r e n t methods o f r e c o r d i n g t h e Ss' responses a r e used i n t h i s study t o s e r v e as a c o n t r o l f o r a second p a r t o f t h e experiment t o be c a r r i e d o u t i n a later study. E x p e r i m e n t a l procedure f o r E x p e r i m e n t e r s . In f r o n t o f you, you w i l l f i n d a sheet of paper f o r r e c o r d i n g each S_'s r a t i n g f o r each photo and a s e t o f 20 numbered p i c t u r e s . S h u f f l e t h e photos and r e c o r d t h e o r d e r i n  33  which you w i l l be p r e s e n t i n g them b e f o r e each S_comes in. When t h e S_ e n t e r s t h e room she w i l l s i t down o p p o s i t e you and w a i t f o r you t o p r e s e n t t h e f i r s t photo. Take t h e f i r s t photo and h o l d i t i n f r o n t of the S_ f o r 5 seconds. Some Ss w i l l i n d i c a t e t h e i r r a t i n g s v e r b a l l y w h i l e o t h e r s w i l l p r e s s a button which w i l l a c t i v a t e t h e l i g h t under t h e number c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o her r a t i n g . You w i l l then check o f f the; S_'s response on t h e r e c o r d i n g s h e e t . Continue t h i s procedure f o r the 20 photos. Do not l o t t h e _S see any photo f o r longer than 5 seconds. If she does not respond w i t h i n t h a t t i m e , w a i t f o r her response b e f o r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e next photo. You w i l l run 12 Ss. Continue t h e same procedure f o r each of your 12 Ss. (That i s : ( 1 ) s h u f f l e t h e photos, ( 2 ) r e c o r d t h e i r o r d e r on the DATA SHEET, (3) w a i t f o r t h e next S_to como i n . ) Four of your Ss' responses w i l l be i n d i c a t e d by a l l of t h e l i g h t s g o i n g on a t t h e same t i m e . For t h e s e S s , merely show t h a t t h e photo has been responded t o by making a check mark o p p o s i t e t h e t r i a l number. S i x of your Ss w i l I have boon i n s t r u c t e d t o say n o t h i n g p r i o r t o o r d u r i n g tho photo p r e s o n t a t i o n s . I w i l l t e l l you what Ss have been so i n s t r u c t e d . It i s important t h a t you say n o t h i n g t o t h e s e Ss, If f o r any reason you s h o u l d say a n t h i n g , p l e a s e w r i t e down the e x a c t words used and t h e s i t u a t i o n which f o r c e d you t o say them. A f t e r r o a d i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n s , E_ was q u e s t i o n e d about the purpose o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t , t h e procedure t o be used, and t h e t y p e of responses should expect t o o b t a i n . ho was  If E_ was  his  not c l e a r on any one of t h e s e p o i n t s ,  t o l d t o road t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s a g a i n t o i n s u r e t h a t he had  comprehension of tho s i t u a t i o n . r o l o , he was  he  When i t was  complete  apparent t h a t E_ understood  l o f t a l o n e i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room t o prepare f o r h i s  f i r s t S_. When Ss a r r i v e d f o r t h e e x p e r i m e n t , they e n t e r e d an anteroom o f f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room.  (Only ono S_ was  on the door of t h e a d j a c e n t o x p e r i m e n t a l  admitted at a  time.)  A large sign  room i n s t r u c t e d S_ t o s i t down and  34  read the typed shoot of instructions that she would find on the chair (see Appendix  D, E, F, and G). After reading the instructions, Ss  were instructed t o wait u n t i l signaled t o go into tho experimental room. (The signal was a light remotely controlled by the Principal Investigator.) On entering tho experimental button rating scale.  room, S_ sat opposite JE, behind the push  When she was seated, E_ presented the f i r s t  A l l E_-S_ interactions wore monitored Principal  Investigator. The experimental  photo.  In an observation room by the room was equipped with concealed  microphones and a concealed TV camera so that neither jE nor Ss were aware of being observed*  The observation permitted  from tho standard experimental procedure.  PJ_ to noto any deviations  More Important,  i t enabled  PI  to know when to modify the Ss' rating scale and wben to signal f o r Ss to enter the experimental room.  CHAPTER IV RESULTS  Table  II shows t h e S s mean photo r a t i n g s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e t y p e 1  of feedback p e r m i t t e d i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n . of t h e o v e r a l l  1  A brief  inspection  data r e v e a l s o n l y s m a l l v a r i a t i o n s among t h e mean r a t i n g s .  The means c l u s t e r around t h e 4.50 m i d p o i n t o f t h e r a t i n g s c a l e and range between 3.70 and 5.38.  TABLE I I EXPERIMENTERS ' MEAN PHOTO RATING SCORES FOR THE SIX EXPERIMENTAL C0NDITI 0NS Verbal Communication  Nonverbal  Communi c a t i o n  Correct. Feedback  Reverse Feedback  No Feedback  Correct Feedback  Reverse Feedback  No Feedbac  (VC)  (VR)  (VK)  (NVC)  (NVR)  (NVK)  1  4.83  4.60  3.70  3.93  4.48  4.63  2  3.75  4.15  4.60  4.63  4.38  3.98  3  4.53  4.35  3.28  4.38  4.90  4.60  4  4.58  3.94  4.28  4.65  4.75  4.45  5  4.98  4.63  4.45  4.23  4.53  4.80  6  5.38  4.65  5.03  4.53  4.88  4.93  7  4.03  3.98  4.78  4.43  4.85  4.38  8  4.45  4.35  4.10  4.93  4.95  4.03  9  4.08  4.70  4.68  4.23  5.15  4.88  10  4.43  4.85  4.80  3.98  5.10  4.78  Mean R a t i n g  4.50  4.42  4.37  4.39  4.80  4.54  Experimenter  ^ h e r a t i n g s used i n t h i s and o t h e r a n a l y s e s were the S_s' a c t u a l r a t i n g s and not t h o s e r e c o r d e d by E s .  36  For t h e purpose o f a n a l y s i s each S_'s data were d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r of f i v e t r a i l s  each.  A summary o f t h e T r i a l  treatment c o n d i t i o n s i s presented  blocks  B l o c k means i n r e l a t i o n t o  i n Table I I I .  TABLE 1 1 1 MEAN PHOTO RATINGS OVER BLOCKS OF TRIALS FOR EACH OF THE SIX TREATMENT CONDITIONS Treatment C o n d i t i o n  Verbal  Nonverba1  The  (1)  T r i a l B lock (2) (3)  C o r r e c t Feedback  4.41  4.82  4.19  4.58  Reversed Feedback  4.25  4.43  4.55  4.44  No Feedback  4.21  4.19  4.59  4.48  Correct  4.27  4.60  4.40  4.28  Reversed Feedback  4.44  4.98  4.77  4.99  No Feedback  4.11  4.61  4.41  5.04  TOTALS  4.28  4.61  4.49  4*64  Feedback  data were analysed  u s i n g a f o u r f a c t o r repeated  T a b l e IV summarizes t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l y s i s .  (f_ = 5.25, df_ = 3,321,  The means averaged o v e r Es and t r e a t m e n t s f o r t h e f o u r t r i a l  b l o c k s were, i n o r d e r , 4.28, 4.61, 4.49, and 4.64. means as a f u n c t i o n of t r i a l relatively  measures ANOVA.  Only one f a c t o r was found  t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t , t h a t f o r T r i a l B l o c k s p_ < .01).  (4)  large increase  the second b l o c k o f t r i a l s ,  blocks.  F i g u r e 3 shows t h e s e  Inspection of t h i s f i g u r e reveals a  i n t h e magnitude of mean r a t i n g s from t h e f i r s t t o a s l i g h t drop from t h e second t o t h e t h i r d  block  37 and an i n c r e a s e from t h e t h i r d t o t h e f o u r t h b l o c k .  TABLE IV SUMMARY OF THE FOUR FACTOR REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA FOR THE 20 TRIAL PHOTO-RATING TASK df  SS  MS  F  Verbal  (V)  1  2.591  2.591  1.95  Feedback  (FD)  2  2.648  1.324  1.00  E x p e r i m e n t e r (E)  9  15.825  1.758  1.32  VXFD  2  4.844  2.422q  1.82  VXE  9  7.541  0.838  0.63  EXFD  18  19.400  1.078  0.81  VXEXFD  18  22.508  1.251  0.94  E r r o r (Between Ss)  60  79.759  1.329  3  9.271  3.090  5.25**  TRXV  3  1.689  0.563  0.96  TRXFD  6  6.006  1.001  1.70  27  15.562  0.576  0.98  E r r o r ( W i t h i n Ss)  321  189.080  0.589  Total  479  376.730  Trial  B l o c k s (TR)  TRXE  * * s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e \% l e v e l .  A t r e n d a n a l y s i s f o r t h e T r i a l IBlocks f a c t o r i s summarized in T a b l e V. The F_ t e s t s f o r both  l i n e a r and c u b i c t r e n d s exceeded t h e v a l u e r e q u i r e d f o r  the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . mean p h o t o - r a t i n g s  Thus, t h e r e l a t i o n between T r i a l B l o c k s and  i n c l u d e s both l i n e a r and c u b i c components, p r o v i d i n g  38  1  2 TRIAL  F i g u r e 3.  3  4  B L O C K  Grand mean photo r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d blocks.  f o r the four  trial  statistical  c o n f i r m a t i o n f o r the trends v i s u a l l y manifested  i n F i g u r e 3.  TABLE V TREND ANALYSIS OF THE  GRAND MEANS FOR  Source Total  df •  THE MS  3  3.090  Linear  1  5.299  Quadratic  1  0.910  Cubic  1  3.052  Error  321  FOUR TRIAL BLOCKS F_ 5.25 9.00** 1.55 5.18**  0.589  s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 153 l e v e l .  To determine  i f t h e means averaged over Es and t r e a t m e n t s  increased  s i g n i f i c a n t l y as a f u n c t i o n of t h e number of t r i a l s employed, comparisons among the b l o c k means were made u s i n g the method of o r t h o g o n a l (Hays, 1965, pp. 466-471). r a t i n g s was  polynomials  A c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t on t h e magnitude of Ss'  p r e d i c t e d from t h e t h r e e p r o c e s s e s d e s c r i b e d as p o s s i b l e  mediators of E_ expectancy  ( i . e . , o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g of Ss'  responses,  operant c o n d i t i o n i n g of Es' communicative b e h a v i o r , and c u e i n g ) . i m p o r t a n t , t h e r e f o r e , t o determine i t o c c u r r e d , t o determine  how  i f a c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t d i d o c c u r , and i f  q u i c k l y i t was  chosen t o answer t h e s e q u e s t i o n s were:  manifested.  i n Table V I .  The  comparisons  the average o f B l o c k s 1 and 2 v s .  t h e average of B l o c k s 3 and 4, and B l o c k 1 v s . B l o c k 2. comparisons i s presented  I t was  A summary of the  The comparisons showed the average  r a t i n g of B l o c k s 3 and 4 t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than the average of  40  B l o c k s 1 and 2 (p_ < .001). the mean of B l o c k 2 was over t r i a l  b l o c k s was  Moreover, when B l o c k s 1 and 2 were compared,  g r e a t e r (p_ < .001).  Thus, t h e i n c r e a s e i n r a t i n g s  s i g n i f i c a n t and was m a n i f e s t e d  by the end o f t h e  second b l o c k of t r i a l s .  TABLE VI COMPARISONS OF THE  GRAND MEANS FOR  Comparisons  THE  FOUR TRIAL BLOCKS  d_f_  Blocks 1 & 2 vs. Blocks 3 & 4  t  116  10.32****  116  5.27****  Block 1 vs. Block 2  ****s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.1 % l e v e l .  The  r e s u l t s of t h e s e t e s t s  magnitude as the number of t r i a l s experimental  i n d i c a t e t h a t Ss gave r a t i n g s o f i n c r e a s i n g i n c r e a s e d , i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e t y p e of  c o n d i t i o n t o which t h e y were a s s i g n e d .  A p p a r e n t l y , neither  t h e mode o f communication nor the t y p e of E_-S feedback a f f e c t s the magnitude of the p h o t o - r a t i n g s r e l i a b l y but the number of t r i a l s does make a substantial difference.  The  data a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e  h y p o t h e s i s which p r e d i c t e d no d i f f e r e n c e between the t h r e e  initial feedback  conditions. The  second h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t v e r b a l and nonverbal  g r e a t e r E_expectancy e f f e c t than would nonverbal by t h e r e s u l t s of t h e f o u r f a c t o r ANOVA.  cues would produce a  cues a l o n e i s not  supported  To g a i n a g r e a t e r a p p r e c i a t i o n of  41  t h e e f f e c t o f t h e r e s t r i c t i o n o f v e r b a l c u e s , s e p a r a t e ANOVAs f o r t h e r a t i n g s w i t h i n each o f t h e feedback c o n d i t i o n s were c a r r i e d o u t . The s e p a r a t e ANOVAs f o r t h e r a t i n g s w i t h i n each o f t h e feedback c o n d i t i o n s showed a g r e a t e r i n c r e a s e i n r a t i n g s under t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s tn which v e r b a l cues were r e s t r i c t e d .  In Group NVR, f o r example, a two f a c t o r repeated  measures ANOVA showed a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t due t o t h e T r i a l B l o c k f a c t o r <£ = 3.81, d_f_ = 3,27, & < .05). a r e summarized i n T a b l e V I I .  The r e s u l t s o f t h e ANOVA f o r Group NVR  The t r i a l  b l o c k means were 4.44, 4.98, 4.77,  TABLE VI I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF OBTAINED PHOTO RATINGS FOR GROUP NVR Source  df  MS  f_  Experimenter  (E)  9  0.549  0.61  Trials  (TR)  3  1.326  3.81*  TRXE  27  0.348  0.39  Within  40  0.894  *p < .05  and 4.99 f o r B l o c k s 1 t o 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y , I n d i c a t i n g an i n c r e a s e i n mean p h o t o - r a t i n g s a s t h e number o f t r i a l s  increase.  A s i m i l a r f i n d i n g was  e v i d e n t from t h e r e s u l t s o f a two f a c t o r repeated measures ANOVA f o r Group NVK, summarized i n T a b l e V I I I .  T h i s a n a l y s i s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t  e f f e c t due t o an i n c r e a s e i n t h e mean p h o t o - r a t i n g s o v e r b l o c k s o f t r i a l s (£ = 7.25, df_ = 3,27, jp_ < .01). 4.11,  4.61, 4.41, and 5.04.  The means f o r T r i a l B l o c k s 1 t o 4 were  The p a t t e r n e s t a b l i s h e d i n Groups NVR and NVK  42  TABLE V I I I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF OBTAINED PHOTO RATINGS FOR GROUP NVK Source  d_f_  MS  f_  Experimenter  (E)  9  0.901  t.35  Trials  (TR)  3  3.045  7.25**  TRxE  27  0.420  0.63  Within  40  0.670  p < .01  was n o t u p h e l d , however, i n Group NVC.  The two f a c t o r ANOVA f o r t h i s group  f a i l e d t o show any s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s (see T a b l e  IX).  S i m i l a r ANOVAs f o r  TABLE IX ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF OBTAINED PHOTO RATINGS FOR GROUP NVC Source  df  MS  f_  Experimenter  (E)  9  0.775  0.89  Trials  (TR)  3  0.471  1.69  TRXE  27  0.278  0,32  Within  40  0.868  each o f t h e t h r e e Verbal Feedback c o n d i t i o n s showed no T r i a l B l o c k e f f e c t s (see T a b l e s X, X I , and X I I ) .  C o n t r a r y t o t h e second h y p o t h e s i s t h e n , t h e r e  was a more pronounced i n c r e a s e i n mean p h o t o - r a t i n g s o v e r b l o c k s o f t r i a l s In t h e Nonverbal t r e a t m e n t  c o n d i t i o n s than  i n t h e Verbal c o n d i t o n s . I t  s h o u l d be noted, however, t h a t t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e f o u r f a c t o r ANOVA t o show  a significant interaction  between t h e T r i a l B l o c k and Verbal  Factors  demonstrates t h a t no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s  between  t h e V e r b a l and Nonverbal c o n d i t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e Ss* mean photoratings.  TABLE X ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF OBTAINED PHOTO RATINGS FOR GROUP VC Source  df  MS  F  Experimenter  (E)  9  1.849  1.66  Trials  (TR)  3  1.420  1.72  TRXE  27  0.824  0.74  Within  40  1.113  TABLE XI ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF OBTAINED PHOTO RATINGS FOR GROUP VR Source  df  MS  F  Experimenter  (E)  9  0.815  1.69  Trials  (TR)  3  0.309  0.62  TRXE  27  0.501  1.04  Within  40  0.482  44 TABLE XI I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF OBTAINED PHOTO RATINGS FOR GROUP VK Source  df_  MS_  F_  Experimenter  (E)  9  2.365  2.70*  Trials  (TR)  3  0.790  1.11  TRXE  27  0.711  0.81  Within  40  0.876  *p < .025  Supplementary A n a l y s i s .  In a d d i t i o n t o t h e above a n a l y s i s u s i n g t h e  20 t r i a l s o f t h e p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k i t seemed o f v a l u e t o s u b j e c t t o c l o s e r s c r u t i n y t h e f i r s t t e n t r i a l s only.-  The reason f o r t h i s d e c i s i o n stems  from t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f s t u d i e s employing t h e p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k have used o n l y t e n t r i a l s .  In o r d e r t o compare t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e p r e s e n t  study w i t h e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s , a f o u r f a c t o r repeated formed on t h e data from t h e f i r s t t e n t r i a l s . as two b l o c k s o f f i v e t r i a l s  measures ANOVA was p e r -  The t e n t r i a l s  were  considered  each.  T a b l e X I I I summarizes t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e ANOVA.  Only t h e f_ v a l u e f o r  the T r i a l B l o c k f a c t o r exceeded t h e f_ r e q u i r e d f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e (F = 10.89, df_= 1, 107, p_ < .005). the 20 t r i a l  This f i n d i n g supports t h e r e s u l t s of  ANOVA.  A t r e n d a n a l y s i s o v e r t h e grand means f o r t h e f i r s t 9 t r i a l s a significant  l i n e a r t r e n d (f_ = 13.46, d_f_ = 1, 856, p_ < .005).  a n a l y s i s i s summarized i n T a b l e XIV. tween mean r a t i n g s and t r i a l s  shows  The  F i g u r e 4 shows t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p be-  (a s t r a i g h t l i n e i s p l o t t e d by t h e method o f  l e a s t squares f o r t h e f i r s t t e n t r i a l s ) .  TABLE X I I I SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ON THE FIRST TEN TRIALS Source  df_  SS  MS  f_  Verbal  (V)  1  0.819  0.819  1.09  Feedback  (FD)  2  3.204  1.602  2.13  Experimenter  (E)  9  5.410  0.601  0.80  VXFD  2  3.080  1.540  2.05  VXE  9  2.384  0.265  0.35  EXFD  18  17.849  0.992  1.32  VXEXFD  18  14.307  0.795  1.06  E r r o r (Between)  60  45.140  0.752  1  6.275  6.275  10.89*  TRXV  1  1.065  1.065  1.85  TRXFD  2  0.208  0.104  0.18  TRXE  9  3.982  0.442  0.77  107  61.669  0.576  239  165.390  Trials  Error  (TR)  (Within)  Total * * * s i g n ! f i c a n t a t t h e 0.5%  level  4 6  TABLE XIV TREND ANALYSIS OF THE GRAND MEANS FOR THE FIRST NINE TRIALS Source  f i t  MS  £  Total  9  47.323  Linear  1  36.837  Quadratic  1  0.574  0.21  Cubic  1  2.832  1.04  Remainder  6  7.080  2.59  Error  856  17.30 13.46***  2.736  * * * s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 0.5% l e v e l  In sum, t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e f i r s t t e n t r i a l s of a s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s i n g r a t i n g s and t h e t r i a l  l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e mean photo-  f a c t o r f o r t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f Es r e p r e s e n t e d  sample employed i n t h i s s t u d y .  Thus, t h e c o n c l u s i o n s reached  f i r s t h a l f o f t h e data p a r a l l e l those reached exception.  leads t o t h e p r e d i c t i o n  by t h e  using the  u s i n g a l l 20 t r i a l s w i t h one  The r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t i n g s and t r i a l s  i s considered t o  be l i n e a r f o r t h e case of 10 t r i a l s , whereas, f o r t h e case o f 20 t r i a l s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p c o n t a i n s both  l i n e a r and c u b i c components.  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  T R I A L S  F i g u r e 4.  Grand mean photo r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d f o r t h e twenty t r i a l s .  18  19  2 0  CHAPTER V DISCUSSION  I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t r a t h e r s e v e r e r e s t r i c t i o n s on communication between Es and Ss were invoked  i n the present  study.  They i n c l u d e d w r i t t e n  i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r S s , and t h e e I I m i n a t i o n o f any P r i n c i p a l £ c o n t a c t w i t h Ss p r i o r t o data c o l l e c t i o n .  I n v e s t i g a t o r and  The r e s t r i c t i o n s were an  attempt t o Insure t h a t E_ expoctsurcies were n o t communicated p r i o r t o t h e administration of the photo-rating task.  These p r e d a t a  account f o r t h e s m a l l range o f mean r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d  r e s t r i c t i o n s may  i n the present  study.  They may a l s o account f o r t h e f a i l u r e o f any mean t o reach t h e 6.5 average t h a t Es had been t o l d t o e x p e c t .  I t should  be n o t e d , however, t h a t t h e range  of judgements and t h e magnitude o f E_ b i a s e f f e c t In t h e p r e s e n t  study i s  in k e e p i n g w i t h o t h e r s t u d i e s o f E b i a s u t i l i z i n g t h i s t a s k (Fode, 1965; Rosenthal  and Fode, 1963b; R o s e n t h a l ,  The  Rosenthal  P e r s i n g e r , V i k a n - K l i n e and Fode, 1963b).  et_. aj_. (1963b) study  data r e t u r n s on E expectancy e f f e c t s . d i s c u s s i o n because o f i t s m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e i n f l u e n c e of e a r l y  It i s p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant t o t h i s s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e present  Both s t u d i e s employed 20 photos i n t h e standard  study.  p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k and a l l  Es were led t o e x p e c t r a t i n g s 50% h i g h e r than t h e n e u t r a l p o i n t on t h e r a t i n g s c a l e ( i . e . , +5 i n t h e case o f R o s e n t h a l ' s study and 6.5 i n t h e present  one).  1  ^ h e Rosenthal et. aj_. (1963b) study employed a 20 p o i n t s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e r a t i n g s c a l e r u n n i n g from -10 (extreme f a i l u r e ) t o +10 (extreme s u c c e s s ) w i t h m i d p o i n t a t 0. The e i g h t p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e used i n t h e p r e s e n t study r a n from 1 (extreme f a i l u r e ) t o 8 (extreme s u c c e s s ) w i t h i t s m i d p o i n t a t 4.5, Comparisons between t h e two s c a l e s were made by m u l t i p l y i n g d e v i a t i o n s from t h e 4.5 m i d p o i n t o f t h e e i g h t p o i n t s c a l e by a f a c t o r o f 2.5. Thus, a r a t i n g o f 6.5 on t h e e i g h t p o i n t s c a l e i s e q u i v a l e n t t o 5 on t h e 20 p o i n t s c a l e ,  49  In t h e Rosenthal e t . a|_. study t h e g r e a t e s t mean r a t i n g o b t a i n e d by any E_ from h i s n a i v e t e s t Ss was 1.19 compared t o t h e lowest r a t i n g o f -0.09, T h i s r e p r e s e n t s a range o f 1.28 which  i s l e s s than t h e range o f 1,68  obtained i n the present study. An  i n t e r e s t i n g a n c i l l a r y f i n d i n g o f t h e Rosenthal e_t. aj_. (1963b)  study was t h a t none o f t h e p a i r s of a c c o m p l i c e s a c t u a l l y gave r a t i n g s o f +5 o r -5 as they had been i n s t r u c t e d t o do i n c o n f i r m i n g o r d i s c o n f i r m i n g t h e hypotheses  o f t h e i r Es. T h e i r mean r a t i n g s ranged from -4,38 t o 3.68.  It i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h e n , t h a t t h e mean r a t i n g s g i v e n by n a i v e Ss i n t h e p r e s e n t study f a i l e d t o reach t h e 6.5 average t h a t Es were t o l d t o e x p e c t . If a c c o m p l i c e s w i l l  n o t g i v e extreme r a t i n g s when e x p l i c i t l y t o l d t o do so  by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r , then i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t even a l e s s extreme performance  i s o b t a i n e d from n a i v e Ss i n response t o t h e c o v e r t cues o f  t h e i r Es. Three mechanisms were c o n s i d e r e d p o s s i b l e m e d i a t o r s o f E_expectancy: o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g o f Ss' r e s p o n s e s , o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g o f E_'s communicative respond.  b e h a v i o r , and c u e i n g o f Ss as t o how they a r e e x p e c t e d t o  Each o f t h e s e mechanisms w i l l  be d i s c u s s e d i n l i g h t o f t h e  f i n d i n g s of the present study. If o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g o f Ss' responses were t h e m e d i a t o r o f Es' expectancy then for  i t was p r e d i c t e d t h a t Ss would be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y  expected and unexpected  responses.  response would be p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d  reinforced  Thus, Ss g i v i n g a " s u c c e s s " i n t h e C o r r e c t Feedback c o n d i t i o n ,  g i v e n no r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n t h e No Feedback c o n d i t i o n , and n e g a t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e d i n t h e Reversed  Feedback c o n d i t i o n .  As a r e s u l t , d i f f e r e n c e s among  50  t h e -feedback c o n d i t i o n s s h o u l d be e v i d e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e magnitude of " s u c c e s s " r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d by Es.  S i n c e no d i f f e r e n c e s were found  in the  p r e s e n t s t u d y , i t would appear t h a t Ss were not b e i n g r e i n f o r c e d f o r t h e i r responses.  This interpretation  study (Moffat,  1966)  i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the a u t h o r ' s p r e l i m i n a r y  which showed t h a t t h e type of S_ t o E feedback  e f f e c t on t h e Sis' p h o t o - r a t i n g s .  no  Moreover, the study by R o s e n t h a l , Fode,  V i k a n - K l i n e , and P e r s i n g e r (1964) demonstrated was  had  t h a t operant c o n d i t i o n i n g  n e i t h e r a n e c e s s a r y c o n d i t i o n nor a n e c e s s a r y augmenting f a c t o r i n t h e  o p e r a t i o n of t h e E outcome-bias phenomenon; a f i n d i n g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e present study. The s u g g e s t i o n made i n Chapter c o n d i t i o n i n g may  have been obscured  I I , t h a t b i a s e f f e c t s due t o o p e r a n t by b i a s i n g i n t h e p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g  phase of t h e Rosenthal e t . aj_. (1964) s t u d y , i s not s u p p o r t e d . E_-S_ i n t e r a c t i o n experiment  Even when  i s e l i m i n a t e d p r i o r t o t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase of t h e  there is s t i l l  no e v i d e n c e f o r o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g In t h e  p r e s e n t s t u d y d u r i n g a c t u a l data c o l l e c t i o n . The second mechanism c o n s i d e r e d as a m e d i a t o r of E_ expectancy based on R o s e n t h a l ' s s u g g e s t i o n t h a t Ss may  was  shape t h e i r Es' communicative  b e h a v i o r by a p r o c e s s of o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g ( R o s e n t h a l , 1965). t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , t h e s h a p i n g of Es' b e h a v i o r depends upon t h e of Es and t h e t y p e of feedback they o b t a i n from t h e i r Ss.  From  expectancy  Specifically,  a s u c c e s s response by Ss which c o n f i r m s Es e x p e c t a n c i e s s h o u l d p o s i t i v e l y r e i n f o r c e any c o v e r t communicative b e h a v i o r t h a t immediately preceded response,  An  Ss'  i n c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e , on t h e o t h e r hand, s h o u l d n e g a t i v e l y r e -  i n f o r c e Es* communicative b e h a v i o r t h a t j u s t preceded  t h a t response.  51  Evidence  f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e second mechanism was expected by  comparing t h e mean p h o t o - r a t i n g s of t h e t h r e e feedback  conditions.  (In other  words, t h e f i r s t and second mechanism would have produced t h e same data.) Experimenters  g i v e n c o r r e c t feedback  would have been expected  communication p a t t e r n t h a t i n f l u e n c e d t h e i r Ss t o respond v e r s e l y , Es g i v e n r e v e r s e d feedback I n f l u e n c e t h e i r Ss t o respond  t o develop a  "success".  would have been expected  Con-  tounwittingly  " f a i l u r e " , w h i l e Es i n t h e No Feedback c o n d i t o n  of c o u r s e , c o u l d n o t have d i f f e r e n t i a l l y communicated t o t h e i r S s . The l a r g e s t mean r a t i n g was p r e d i c t e d f o r t h e C o r r e c t Feedback c o n d i t i o n . The finding  i n t h e p r e s e n t study o f no d i f f e r e n c e s between feedback c o n d i t i o n s  w i t h r e s p e c t t o mean p h o t o - r a t i n g s suggests t h a t E s ' c o v e r t communicative b e h a v i o r was n o t shaped by t h e r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t s o f t h e i r S s ' h y p o t h e s i s confirming o r dIsconf1rming  responses.  Cueing was t h e t h i r d p r o c e s s c o n s i d e r e d as a p o s s i b l e m e d i a t o r o f E_ expectancy.  T h i s process was d e s c r i b e d as being independent o f any r e i n f o r c e -  ment p r o c e s s between Ss and E s . T h e r e f o r e , t h e t y p e o f response  Ss gave  would have had no p a r t i c u l a r b e a r i n g on t h e t y p e of cues t h a t E_communlcated to  h i s S_s. That I s , whether o r n o t Es' e x p e c t a n c i e s were c o n f i r m e d would be  Irrelevant t o Es' behavior.  A c c o r d i n g t o t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , p r i o r t o each  r a t i n g Es a r e , I n e f f e c t , c o v e r t l y s a y i n g t o t h e i r S s , "Give me a 'success' response".  Consequently,  even i n t h e No Feedback c o n d i t i o n Ss a r e " t o l d "  how t o respond. If c u e i n g were a powerful m e d i a t o r o f E_ b i a s , i t s e f f e c t s s h o u l d be manifested  i n t h e r a t i n g s o f t h e f i r s t photo.  The o n l y means o f a s s e s s i n g a  c u e i n g e f f e c t a t t h i s s t a g e would be t o compare t h e r a t i n g s o b t a i n e d by Es  52  with d i f f e r e n t expectancies.  As a l l Es had t h e same e x p e c t a n c y , t h e y would  be expected t o i n f l u e n c e t h e i r Ss i n t h e same manner.  C o n s e q u e n t l y , E_  i n f l u e n c e c o u l d not be examined a t t h i s s t a g e of t h e t a s k i n t h i s  experiment.  Another way t o a s s e s s t h e c u e i n g e f f e c t i s t o examine t h e photor a t i n g s over t r i a l s .  If c u e i n g were a m e d i a t o r of IE b i a s we might e x p e c t a  p r o g r e s s i v e i n c r e a s e i n t h e magnitude of " s u c c e s s " responses f o r a l l t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s , i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e type of S^ feedback p e r m i t t e d . There a r e two reasons t o e x p e c t a c u m u l a t i v e c u e i n g e f f e c t . a n x i e t y e x p e r i e n c e d by both Es and Ss may and  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Es' cues.  a n x i e t y may  i n t e r f e r e with the  F i r s t , the communication  As t h e experiment p r o g r e s s e s , however,  be d i s s i p a t e d as Es and Ss become a c q u a i n t e d w i t h the t a s k and  w i t h each o t h e r . The second f a c t o r t h a t may n a t u r e of t h e t a s k .  i n f l u e n c e t h e c u e i n g e f f e c t stems from t h e  I t seems l i k e l y t h a t Ss. a t f i r s t would t r y t o base  t h e i r p h o t o - r a t i n g s on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e person S i n c e t h e photos a r e s e l e c t e d f o r t h e i r  photograph...  lack of d i s t i n c t i v e c u e s , Ss  f i n d t h i s approach e x t r e m e l y f r u s t r a t i n g . begin t o r e l y  i n the  2  may  I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t h a t Ss would  l e s s on t h e meager i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e from t h e photos  and  would c o n c e n t r a t e more on s i t u a t i o n a l and E_cues, o r what Orne (1962) c a l l s the "demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " of t h e s i t u a t i o n . to  this  Mas l i n g (1966) lends s u p p o r t  l i n e of r e a s o n i n g i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of b e h a v i o r under c o n d i t i o n s of  ambiguity.  He c i t e s e v i d e n c e t o suggest t h a t an ambiguous e x p e r i m e n t a l  s i t u a t i o n s i s more c o n d u c i v e t o b i a s i n g by Es.  Moreover, under such c o n d i t i o n s  * T h i s s u g g e s t i o n was supported by i n f o r m a l comments of Ss a f t e r they had completed t h e t a s k .  53  of a m b i g u i t y he f e e l s t h a t Ss w i l l u t i l i z e a l l t h e a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n i n his  s e a r c h f o r meaning and guidance.  magnified result  i n s i t u a t i o n s of a m b i g u i t y .  Thus, t h e Importance o f minimal  cues i s  The a d d i t i v i t y o f t h e s e cues s h o u l d  i n an i n c r e a s e i n t h e magnitude o f " s u c c e s s " responses  as a f u n c t i o n  of t h e number o f t r i a l s employed. The  r e s u l t s o f t h e p r e s e n t study a r e congruent w i t h t h e c u e i n g  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f E_ expectancy between feedback  communication.  The f i n d i n g o f no d i f f e r e n c e  c o n d i t o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o mean p h o t o - r a t * n g s  c o n c l u s i o n t h a t , i f t h e r e were an E_ expectancy t h e t y p e o f feedback  process  leads t o t h e  e f f e c t , i t i s independent o f  t h a t Es o b t a i n from t h e i r S s . T h i s f i n d i n g a l o n e p r e *  e l u d e s t h e o p e r a t i o n of a r e i n f o r c e m e n t mechanism. p r o v i d e proof t h a t c u e i n g was i n o p e r a t i o n .  I t does n o t , however,  Evidence  f o r the cueing  mechanism r e s i d e s i n t h e f i n d i n g o f an i n c r e a s e i n t h e o v e r a l l magnitude o f mean p h o t o - r a t i n g s as t h e number o f t r i a l s i n c r e a s e . When t h e data f o r each feedback feedback  c o n d i t i o n i s examined, o n l y two o f t h e  c o n d i t i o n s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t  increase in r a t i n g s .  However, each  of t h e o t h e r f o u r feedback c o n d i t i o n s d i d show an i n c r e a s e In mean r a t i n g s from t h e f i r s t t o t h e f o u r t h t r i a l  block.  photo-  On t h e b a s i s o f t h i s  e v i d e n c e and c o n s i d e r i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c u e i n g p r o c e s s , I t i s conc l u d e d t h a t t h e mechanism r e s p o n s i b l e f o r communicating E s ' e x p e c t a n c i e s d u r i n g t h e p h o t o - r a t i n g p e r i o d o f t h e person p e r c e p t i o n t a s k p r o b a b l y i s cuelng. If t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f e r e d t o account then t h e p r e s e n t experiment studies.  for the results i s correct,  i n no way c o n t r a d i c t s t h e f i n d i n g s o f e a r l i e r  The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must, however, be tempered i n t h e l i g h t o f an  54  a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n adopted from t h e person p e r c e p t i o n study o f Rosenthal, will  Fode, V i k a n - K l i n e and P e r s i n g e r (1964), d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r .  It  be r e c a l l e d t h a t i n t h e i r study h a l f t h e Es were t o l d t o e x p e c t +5  r a t i n g s of success and t h e o t h e r h a l f were t o l d t o e x p e c t -5 r a t i n g s of f a i l u r e from t h e i r Ss on a p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k .  The Ss t a s k was t o r a t e a  s e r i e s o f photographs on a twenty p o i n t s c a l e r a n g i n g from +10 t o -10 f o r access  or f a i l u r e .  When t h e mean r a t i n g s f o r Es w i t h o p p o s i t e  expectancies  were p l o t t e d o v e r t h e t e n t r i a l s , both groups o f Es o b t a i n e d p r o g r e s s i v e l y h i g h e r mean r a t i n g s .  These authors  suggested t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e i n r a t i n g s  may have been due t o what they c a l l e d a "photograph e f f e c t , a sequence e f f e c t o r a photograph by sequence i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t " (Rosenthal 1964,  p. 7 4 ) ,  e t. a I . ,  T h i s s u g g e s t i o n may be o f f e r e d as an a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r -  p r e t a t i o n o f t h e i n c r e a s e i n magnitude o f mean p h o t o - r a t i n g s o v e r t r i a l s , as was found i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y .  I t s h o u l d be n o t e d , however, t h a t o t h e r  s t u d i e s u s i n g t h e p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k d i d not produce t h e photo o r sequence effect.  To c l a r i f y t h e i s s u e I t would be i n f o r m a t i v e t o run a n o t h e r t r e a t -  ment group employing Es w i t h no expectancy o r w i t h an expectancy t o t h e one used h e r e .  opposite  An i n c r e a s e i n r a t i n g s as a f u n c t i o n o f t r i a l s i n  t h e s e groups would suggest t h a t something o t h e r than t h e E_'s expectancy determines how Ss respond. this  Only a n o t h e r experiment can hope t o r e s o l v e  issue. The  r e s t r i c t i o n s on v e r b a l communication d u r i n g t h e t a s k had no  e f f e c t on S s ' r a t i n g s .  T h i s f i n d i n g i s i n t e r p r e t e d as e v i d e n c e t h a t v e r b a l  cues make no s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e communication o f E_expectancy. The  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s strengthened  somewhat by t h e a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g t h a t  55  two out of t h r e e Nonverbal t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s c o n t a i n e d  s i g n i f i c a n t mean  i n c r e a s e s o v e r t r i a l s whereas none of the c o n d i t i o n s p e r m i t t i n g v e r b a l cues showed s i g n i f i c a n t Rosenthal  increases.  and  Fode (1963b) showed t h a t e l i m i n a t i n g v e r b a l cues reduced  the b i a s e f f e c t , a f i n d i n g at variance with Moffat study.  I t was  (1966),  p o i n t e d out e a r l i e r t h a t the d i s c r e p a n c y  t h e s e s t u d i e s may  and the  In the f i n d i n g s of  be due t o a c o n f o u n d i n g of i n s t r u c t i o n r e a d i n g  w i t h t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of v e r b a l cues i n the Rosenthal  and  present  behavior  Fode s t u d y .  That  i s , not o n l y d i d they e l i m i n a t e v e r b a l cues i n t h e Nonverbal c o n d i t i o n , they a l s o e l i m i n a t e d Es' t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of of EJs e x p e c t a n c y .  i n s t r u c t i o n reading behavior important  T h i s c r i t i c i s m was  conditions.  c i r c u m v e n t e d i n the p r e s e n t  is  from both the Nonverbal  made d u r i n g data c o l l e c t i o n .  not however d e t r a c t from the h y p o t h e s i s  Fode, V i k a n - K l i n e and  only.  P e r s i n g e r , 1964;  The  conditions  The  con- •  argument does  t h a t v e r b a l cues can be  communicators of E_ b i a s (Friedman, Kurland  analyses  by  t h a t v e r b a l cues are not n e c e s s a r y f o r communicating E_ expectancy  d u r i n g the t a s k a d m i n i s t r a t i o n phase of the e x p e r i m e n t .  The  study  As a r e s u l t , a t r u e t e s t of the e f f e c t of v e r b a l  as compared t o nonverbal cues was elusion  have r e s u l t e d in  v i s u a l - k i n e s i c cues germane t o the communication  e l i m i n a t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n reading behavior and t h e Verbal  which may  and  Rosentha1, 1965;  important Rosenthal,  Weick, 1963).  same c o n c l u s i o n s are drawn in the p r e s e n t  study whether the  are based on a l l the data o r on the data of the f i r s t ten  Perhaps t h i s e x p l a i n s why  b i a s employ the ten t r i a l  trials  t h e m a j o r i t y of e x p e r i m e n t s i n E_ outcome-  photo-rating task.  A d d i t i o n a l t r i a l s seem t o  be  56  unwarranted because of t h e redundant The unexpected r e v e r s a l  i n f o r m a t i o n they p r o v i d e .  in t h e t r e n d of t h e r a t i n g s from B l o c k 2 t o  B l o c k 3 in t h e o r i g i n a l a n a l y s i s i s d i f f i c u l t t e n t a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n may  to explain.  The  be based on an e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e phenomenology  of t h e Ss in t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n .  The Ss may  have been aware of t h e  f a c t t h a t t h e y were g i v i n g r a t i n g s of i n c r e a s i n g magnitude or so t r i a l s . Ss may  in the f i r s t ten  In o r d e r t o compensate f o r t h e a p p a r e n t l y u n j u s t i f i e d  hove i n t e n t i o n a l l y  as t h e y were "cued" t o do by t h e i r Es.  i n v e s t i g a t o r s have termed t h i s t h e "boomerang e f f e c t " "screw you e f f e c t "  increase,  reduced t h e i r r a t i n g s a t t h i s p o i n t o n l y t o  i n c r e a s e them i n l a t t e r t r i a l s  the  simplest  ( M a s l i n g , 1966).  Other  ( S i l v e r m a n , 1965) o r  The "screw you" motive may  rise  from Ss' c u r i o s i t y as t o what would happen i f t h e y v a r i e d t h e i r responses or  i t may  be an attempt t o show E_ t h a t he cannot c o n t r o l t h e i r b e h a v i o r .  There i s no way t o determine how periment.  i n t h e p r e s e n t ex-  C e r t a i n l y Ss a r e not p a s s i v e r e s p o n d e r s , d e v o i d o f  purpose, o r o r i e n t i n g a b i l i t y . treated.  Ss p e r c e i v e d t h e i r r o l e  intelligence,  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h a t i s how they a r e u s u a l l y  Perhaps we o v e r l o o k the most important s o u r c e of data in t h e  p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiment by not h a v i n g Ss r e p o r t t h e i r hypotheses of what the  experiment was designed t o t e s t and how they responded t h e demand  characteristics  of t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n .  p r e d i c t i n g t h a t , "our Ss w i l l  M a s l i n g may  be c o r r e c t In  t e a c h us something about p s y c h o l o g y "  ( M a s l i n g , 1966, p. 9 6 ) .  An o p i n i o n shared by Rosenthal i n a p e r s o n a l communication.  CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s have shown t h a t Es may  o b t a i n d a t a from t h e i r Ss t h a t  are in accordance w i t h Es' e x p e r i m e n t a l l y induced o r i d i o s y n c r a t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s . I t seems t h a t Es u n w i t t i n g l y communicate t h e i r e x p e c t a n c i e s t o Ss by u s i n g s u b t l e g e s t u r e s t o g e t h e r w i t h c o v e r t v e r b a l and v i s u a l cues. of  f i l m e d E_-S_ i n t e r a c t i o n s b e l i e v e t h a t Es' e x p e c t a n c i e s may  Some o b s e r v e r s be communicated  in t h e b r i e f p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase of t h e experiment when Es g r e e t t h e i r Ss and read t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l expectancy communication  instructions.  Is mediated  Other o b s e r v e r s b e l i e v e t h a t  by an o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g p r o c e s s and  does not t a k e p l a c e u n t i l a f t e r Ss begin r e s p o n d i n g .  In o t h e r words, Es a r e  b e l i e v e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a l l y r e i n f o r c e t h e responses of t h e i r Ss.  Experimental  data b e a r i n g on t h e h y p o t h e s i s of an o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g p r o c e s s , as a m e d i a t o r of _E e x p e c t a n c y , have been  inconclusive.  The p r e s e n t study examined the e f f e c t of S to E feedback, mediated v e r b a l and nonverbal c h a n n e l s of communication phenomenon. may  upon t h e E_ outcome b i a s  S i n c e p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s have shown t h a t expectancy  t a k e p l a c e p r i o r t o t h e S s ' f i r s t response,  communication  i t would seem t h a t an  o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g p r o c e s s would not be n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e communication E_ e x p e c t a n c y . t o respond,  Moreover, as the communication  by  may  of  t a k e p l a c e b e f o r e - S s begin  i t would seem t h a t t h e p r o c e s s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r m e d i a t i n g  expectancy communication  i s not dependent upon the Ss' responses o r  feedback.  An a l t e r n a t i v e p r o c e s s was h y p o t h e s i z e d as m e d i a t i n g E e x p e c t a n c y , t h e p r o c e s s of c u e i n g . feedback.  T h i s p r o c e s s was h y p o t h e s i z e d as b e i n g independent of S to E  58  Ten Es each ran 12 Ss on a p h o t o - r a t i n g t a s k i n a s t u d y p u r p o r t i n g t o be a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t o f empathy.  The Ss were r e q u i r e d t o  examine 20 s t a n d a r d i z e d n e u t r a l photographs o f f a c e s and t o r a t e each one on t h e degree o f s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e t h a t t h e person p i c t u r e d had been e x p e r i e n c i n g . The Es had been led t o e x p e c t a predominance  o f s u c c e s s responses from t h e i r S s .  The e f f e c t o f d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f S t o E feedback was examined  by p e r -  m i t t i n g c o r r e c t , r e v e r s e d , o r no feedback of Ss' photo r a t i n g r e s p o n s e s . r e l a t i o n s h i p between S s ' feedback and E_ b i a s e f f e c t s was examined  The  by comparing  the grand mean photo r a t i n g s from each feedback c o n d i t i o n , and by comparing t h e mean photo r a t i n g s o v e r b l o c k s o f t r i a l s f o r each feedback c o n d i t i o n . The outcome o f t h e s e comparisons had r e l e v a n c e f o r t h e t y p e o f m e d i a t i n g p r o c e s s b e l i e v e d t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e communication o f E_expectancy. Three p r o c e s s e s were d i s c u s s e d i n t h e l i g h t of t h e p r e s e n t f i n d i n g s ( o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g o f Ss' r e s p o n s e s , o p e r a n t c o n d i t i o n i n g o f Es' communicative b e h a v i o r , and c u e i n g ) . The e f f e c t o f mode o f E_-S_ communication on E_ b i a s was examined by p e r m i t t i n g o r r e s t r i c t i n g v e r b a l communication of t h e t h r e e feedback c o n d i t i o n s .  between IE and Ss f o r each  The r e l a t i o n s h i p between mode o f  communication and JE b i a s was determined by comparing t h e mean photo r a t i n g s of Ss i n t h e v e r b a l and nonverbal c o n d i t i o n s . Severe r e s t r i c t i o n s were p l a c e d upon E_-S_ commun i c a t ion i n t h e e a r l y p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t i n an attempt t o e l i m i n a t e b i a s e f f e c t s a t t h i s stage.. As b i a s e f f e c t s were o b t a i n e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t they must have o c c u r r e d s o l e l y as a r e s u l t o f events in t h e l a t e r data c o l l e c t i n g phase o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t .  This conclusion,  59  t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s o f o t h e r s t u d i e s which have found s i g n i f i c a n t E_ b i a s e f f e c t s due t o events  i n t h e p r e d a t a c o l l e c t i n g phase o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t ,  s h o u l d r e i n f o r c e t h e e f f o r t s of r e s e a r c h e r s who a r e making f i l m e d a n a l y s e s o f both s t a g e s o f E_-S_ i n t e r a c t i o n s i n an attempt t o i d e n t i f y t h e s p e c i f i c cues used In expectancy  communication.  C o n t i n u i n g r e s e a r c h on E_ expectancy  must i d e n t i f y t h e s e s p e c i f i c cues and determine expectancy  effects  how t h e cues a r e used i n  communication.  Some i n d i c a t i o n as t o how cues a r e used i n E_ expectancy i s p r o v i d e d by t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . mediators o f E_ e x p e c t a n c y ,  communication  Of t h e t h r e e p r o c e s s e s c o n s i d e r e d as  t h e p r o c e s s of c u e i n g seems t o a f f o r d t h e b e s t  e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e m e d i a t i o n o f E_expectancy e f f e c t s .  The concept o f c u e i n g  i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s of o t h e r s t u d i e s on E_ b i a s e f f e c t s , but f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o expand and s t r e n g t h e n t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f t h e cueing  concept. Although  p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s have shown t h a t r e s t r i c t i n g v i s u a l and  v e r b a l communication d u r i n g t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiment  does reduce b i a s  e f f e c t s , t h e p r e s e n t study showed t h a t t h e r e was no r e d u c t i o n i n E_ b i a s e f f e c t when v e r b a l cues were r e s t r i c t e d . t h e r e f o r e , be addressed the E_ expectancy  Future  investigations should,  t o t h e problem of d e t e r m i n i n g how much v a r i a n c e o f  e f f e c t i s c o n t r i b u t e d by what mode o f communication i n  what phase o f t h e experiment. d e v e l o p i n g E_ b i a s c o n t r o l  Only then can s i g n i f i c a n t g a i n s be made i n  techniques.  What a r e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e p r e s e n t study f o r t h e development o f E_ b i a s c o n t r o l t e c h n i q u e s ?  The t e c h n i q u e o f m i n i m i z i n g E_-S_ c o n t a c t was used  in t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , b u t even when S t o E feedback  was e l i m i n a t e d o r  60  r e v e r s e d , no d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t of E_ i n f l u e n c e was produced.  I t must be  concluded from t h e s e r e s u l t s t h a t minimized E_-S_ c o n t a c t does not e l i m i n a t e E_ b i a s e f f e c t .  C o n s i d e r i n g the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i n c o n v e n i e n c e of  implementing  minimized jE-S c o n t a c t , the advantage of such a c o n t r o l measure i s q u e s t i o n a b l e . Other c o n t r o l t e c h n i q u e s a r e d i s c u s s e d by Rosenthal t r a i n i n g of Es, use of mechanical  (1966) and i n c l u d e  o b s e r v a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s ( v i d e o tape and  film),  " b l i n d " and minimized E-S_ c o n t a c t , automated d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , and absence of _E from t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room.  Some of t h e s e c o n t r o l measures have proven  e f f e c t i v e w h i l e o t h e r s are s t i l l must attempt t o develop and  in the experimental stage.  improve t h e s e c o n t r o l  measures.  Future research  61  BIBLIOGRAPHY  B e r n s t e i n , L. Naivete"."  A note on C h r i s t i e ' s " E x p e r i m e n t a l Naivete" and E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g i c a l Bui l e t i n , 1952, 49, 38-40.  B e r n s t e i n , L. The e f f e c t s o f v a r i a t i o n s i n h a n d l i n g upon l e a r n i n g and r e t e n t i o n . J o u r n a l o f Comparative and P h y s i o l o g i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1957, 50, 162-167. Fode, K. L. The e f f e c t o f n o n - v i s u a l and non-verbal i n t e r a c t i o n on e x p e r i menter b i a s . Unpublished master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f North Dakota, 1960. Fode, K. L. The e f f e c t o f e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s and s u b j e c t ' s l e v e l o f a n x i e t y and need f o r a p p r o v a l on e x p e r i m e n t e r outcome-bias. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f North Dakota, 1965. Fode, K. L., R o s e n t h a l , R., V i k a n - K l l n e , Linda L., & P e r s i n g e r , G. W. S u c c e p t i b i I i t y t o i n f l u e n c e i n a v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g s i t u a t i o n . Unp u b l i s h e d d a t a , U n i v e r s i t y o f North Dakota, 1961. Frtedman, N., K u r l a n d , D., & R o s e n t h a l , R. E x p e r i m e n t e r b e h a v i o r as an unintended d e t e r m i n a n t o f e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s . JournaI o f P r o t e c t i v e Techniques and P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment, 1965, 29 ( 4 ) , 479^"49D. Greenspoon, J . The r e i n f o r c i n g e f f e c t o f two spoken sounds on t h e f r e q u e n c y of two r e s p o n s e s . American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1955, 68, 409-416. H a r r i s , H. E., P i c c o l i n o , E. B., Roback, H. B., & Sommer, D. K. The e f f e c t s of a l c o h o l on c o u n t e r c o n d i t i o n i n g o f an avoidance response. Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f A l c o h o l i c S t u d i e s , 1964, 25, 490-497. " "~" r,  Hays, W. L. S t a t i s t i c s f o r p s y c h o l o g i s t s . Winston, 1963.  New York:  H o l t , R i n e h a r t and  K a n f e r , F. H. Verbal c o n d i t i o n i n g : Reinforcement s c h e d u l e s and e x p e r i m e n t a l i n f l u e n c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1958, 4_, 443-452. K i n t z , B. L., D e l p r a t o , D. J . , Mettee, D. R., P e r s o n s , C . E., & Schappe, R. H. The e x p e r i m e n t e r e f f e c t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1963, 223-232. L o r d , E. E x p e r i m e n t a l l y induced v a r i a t i o n s i n Rorschach performance. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 1950, 64_ (10, Whole No. 316). M a s l i n g , J . R o ' e - r e l a t e d b e h a v i o r o f t h e s u b j e c t and p s y c h o l o g i s t 3nd i t s e f f e c t s upon p s y c h o l o g i c a l d a t a . Nebraska Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n , 1966, VA, 67-103.  62  M o f f a t , M. Non-verbal c o v e r t c o n d i t i o n i n g : A m e d i a t o r o f e x p e r i m e n t e r expectancy e f f e c t s ? Unpublished d a t a , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1966. Nash, E. L., P h e l a n , J . G., Demas, G., B i t t n e r , A. E f f e c t s o f m a n i f e s t and induced a n x i e t y and e x p e r i m e n t e r v a r i a b i l i t y on s i m p l e r e a c t i o n t i m e . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1966, 22, 483-487. P f u n g s t , 0. C l e v e r Hans ( t h e horse o f Mr. von O s t e n ) : A c o n t r i b u t i o n t o e x p e r i m e n t a l , a n i m a l , and human psycho Iogy^ ( T r a n s l a t e d by C. L. Rahn.) New York: H o l t , 1911. Postman, L., & J a r r e t t , R. F. An e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l y s i s of l e a r n i n g w i t h o u t awareness. American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 1952, 65, 244-255. R o s e n t h a l , R, E x p e r i m e n t e r a t t r i b u t e s as d e t e r m i n a n t s o f s u b j e c t ' s responses. J o u r n a l o f P r o j e c t i v e Techniques and P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment, 1963, 27, 324-331. ( a ) R o s e n t h a l , R. E x p e r i m e n t e r modeling e f f e c t s as d e t e r m i n a n t s o f s u b j e c t ' s responses. J o u r n a l o f P r o j e c t i v e Techniques and P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment, 1963, 27, 467-471. TBI R o s e n t h a l , R. On t h e s o c i a l psychology o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiment: The e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s h y p o t h e s i s as unintended d e t e r m i n a n t o f e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s . American S c i e n t i s t , 1963, 5J_, 268-283. ( c ) R o s e n t h a l , R. E x p e r i m e n t e r o u t c o m e - o r i e n t a t i o n and t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x p e r i m e n t . Psycho Iog i c a I BuI Iet i n, 1964, 61_ ( 6 ) , 405-412. R o s e n t h a l , R. C o v e r t communications and t a c i t u n d e r s t a n d i n g s i n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiment. Paper read a t American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , C h i c a g o , September, 1965. R o s e n t h a l , R. Experimenter e f f e c t s i n b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1966.  New York:  R o s e n t h a l , R,, & Fode, K. L. The e f f e c t o f e x p e r i m e n t e r b i a s on t h e p e r formance o f t h e a l b i n o r a t . Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1960. R o s e n t h a l , R., & Fode, K. L. The problem o f e x p e r i m e n t e r outcome-bias. In Ray, D. P. (ed.) S e r i e s r e s e a r c h i n s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y . Symposia s t u d i e s s e r i e s no. 8, Wash., D. C. N a t l . I n s t . Soc. Behav. S c i . , 1961. R o s e n t h a l , R., & Fode, K. L. The e f f e c t o f e x p e r i m e n t e r b i a s on t h e p e r formance o f t h e a l b i n o r a t . B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 1963, 8_, 183-189. (a) R o s e n t h a l , R., & Fode, K. L. Psychology o f t h e s c i e n t i s t : V. Three e x p e r i ments i n e x p e r i m e n t e r b i a s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e p o r t s , 1963, _12_, 491-511. (b)  63  R o s e n t h a l , R., Fode, K. L , & V i k a n - K l i n e , L i n d a L. The e f f e c t on e x p e r i m e n t e r b i a s of v a r y i n g l e v e l s of m o t i v a t i o n of Es and Ss. Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1960. R o s e n t h a l , R., Fode, K. L., V i k a n - K l i n e , Linda L., & P e r s i n g e r , G. W. Verbal C o n d i t i o n i n g : M e d i a t o r of e x p e r i m e t e r expectancy e f f e c t s ? Psycho I o g i c a I R e p o r t s , 1964, _U, 71-74. R o s e n t h a l , R., Friedman, N., & K u r l a n d , D. I n s t r u c t i o n - r e a d i n g b e h a v i o r of t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r as an unintended determinant of e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1966, J_, 221-226. R o s e n t h a l , R., Kohn, P., G r e e n f i e l d , P. M*, & C a r o t a , N. Data d e s i r a b i l i t y , e x p e r i m e n t e r e x p e c t a n c y , and r e s u l t s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 3_ ( 1 ) , 20-27. R o s e n t h a l , R., & Lawson, R. A l o n g i t u d i n a l study of t h e e f f e c t s of e x p e r i menter b i a s on t h e operant l e a r n i n g of l a b o r a t o r y r a t s . J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r i c R e s e a r c h , 1964, 2_, 61-72. R o s e n t h a l , R., P e r s i n g e r , G. W., V i k a n - K l i n e , Linda L., & Fode, K. L. The e f f e c t of e x p e r i m e n t e r outcome-bias and s u b j e c t s e t on awareness i n v e r b a l c o n d i t i o n i n g e x p e r i m e n t s . J o u r n a l of Verbal L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1963, 2, 275-283. (a) R o s e n t h a l , R., P e r s i n g e r , G. W., V i k a n - K l i n e , L i n d a L., & Fode, K. L. The e f f e c t of e a r l y d a t a r e t u r n s on d a t a s u b s e q u e n t l y o b t a i n e d by outcomeb i a s e d e x p e r i m e n t e r s . S o c i o m e t r y , 1963, 26_, 487-498. (b) Sever i n , F. T., & R i g b y , M. K. I n f l u e n c e s of d i g i t groups on memory f o r t e l e p h o n e numbers. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1963, 47, 117-119. S i l v e r m a n , I. M o t i v e s u n d e r l y i n g the b e h a v i o r of t h e s u b j e c t i n t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiment. Paper read a t American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , C h i c a g o , 1965. Weick, K. Classroom d e m o n s t r a t i o n of e x p e r i m e n t e r expectancy e f f e c t s . U n p u b l i s h e d d a t a , 1963. C i t e d by R o s e n t h a l , R. Experimenter e f f e c t s in b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h . New York: A p p I e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1966.  A P P E N D I C E S  65 APPENDIX A STANDARDIZATION PROCEDURE FOR THE PERSON PERCEPTION TASK  F i f t y - s e v e n photographs o f f a c e s r a n g i n g i n s i z e from 2 x 3 cm t o 5 x 6 cm were c u t from a weekly news magazine and mounted on 3 x 5 i n . w h i t e cards.  These were p r e s e n t e d t o 70 male and 34 female s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d in  an i n t r o d u c t o r y p s y c h o l o g y c l a s s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of North Dakota.  Sub-  j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o r a t e each photo on a r a t i n g s c a l e o f s u c c e s s o r failure.  The s c a l e shown i n F i g u r e 1  ran from -10, extreme f a i l u r e , t o  +10, extreme s u c c e s s , w i t h i n t e r m e d i a t e l a b e l e d p o i n t s .  Each s u b j e c t was  seen i n d i v i d u a l l y by t h e a u t h o r who read t o each t h e f o l l o w i n g  instructions:  Figure 1 The Empathy T e s t R a t i n g S c a l e Extreme Failure  Moderate Failure  Mild Failure  -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1  Mild Success  Moderate Success  Extreme Success  +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10  Instructions t o Subjects. I am g o i n g t o read you some i n s t r u c t i o n s . I am n o t p e r m i t t e d t o say a n t h i n g which i s not i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s nor can I answer any q u e s t i o n s about t h i s e x p e r i m e n t . OK? We a r e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t o f empathy. T h i s t e s t i s d e s i g n e d t o show how w e l l a person i s a b l e t o put h i m s e l f i n t o someone else's place. I w i l l show you a s e r i e s o f photographs. F o r each one I want you t o judge whether t h e person p i c t u r e d has been e x p e r i e n c i n g s u c c e s s or f a i l u r e . To h e l p you make more e x a c t judgements you a r e t o use. t h i s r a t i n g s c a l e . As you can see t h e s c a l e runs from -10 t o +10. A r a t i n g o f -10 means t h a t you j u d g e t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme f a i l u r e . A r a t i n g o f +10 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme s u c c e s s . A r a t i n g o f -1 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d f a i l u r e , w h i l e a r a t i n g o f +1 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d s u c c e s s . Ycu a r e t o r a t e each photo as a c c u r a t e l y as you can„ J u s t t e l l me t h e r a t i n g you a s s i g n t o each photo. A l l ready? Here i s t h e f i r s t photo. (No f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n may be g i v e n , a l t h o u g h a l l o r  66  p a r t o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s may be repeated.) From the o r i g i n a l  57 p h o t o s , 10 were s e l e c t e d f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o  male s u b j e c t s and 10 were s e l e c t e d f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n t o female s u b j e c t s . A l l 20 photos were r a t e d on t h e average as n e i t h e r s u c c e s s f u l nor u n s u c c e s s f u l and f o r each t h e mean r a t i n g evoked f e l l  between +1 and - 1 .  The d i s t r i b u t i o n s  of r a t i n g s evoked by each of t h e photos were a l s o s y m m e t r i c a l ( R o s e n t h a l , 1966, p. 143 f . ) .  67 APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS IN THE VERBAL CORRECT FEEDBACK CONDITION  We a r e i n a p r o c e s s o f d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t o f empathy. T h i s t e s t i s designed tjo show how w e l l a person i s a b l e t o put h i m s e l f i n someone e l s e ' s p l a c e . The E x p e r i m e n t e r w i l l show you a s e r i e s o f photographs. For each one I want you t o judge whether t h e person p i c t u r e d has been e x p e r i e n c i n g s u c c e s s o r f a i I u r e . You a r e t o r a t e each person as a c c u r a t e l y as you c a n . In t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room you w i l l s i t o p p o s i t e t h e E x p e r i m e n t e r a t a table. In f r o n t o f you w i l l be a p a n e l . On t h e panel i s a s c a l e t h a t looks I i k e t h i s . FAILURE 1  SUCCESS 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  To h e l p you make more e x a c t judgements you a r e t o use t h i s r a t i n g s c a l e . As you can see t h e s c a l e runs from 1 t o 8, A r a t i n g o f 1 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme FAILURE, A r a t i n g o f 8 means t h a t you Judge t h e person p i c t u r e d t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme SUCCESS. A r a t i n g o f 4 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d FAILURE w h i l e a r a t i n g of 5 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d SUCCESS. To i n d i c a t e your response j u s t t e l l t h e E x p e r i m e n t e r t h e number t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s t o your r a t i n g f o r each photo t h a t i s p r e s e n t e d . G i v e him o n l y the number o f your r a t i n g .  APPENDIX C INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS IN THE VERBAL REVERSED FEEDBACK CONDITION  We a r e i n t h e p r o c e s s of d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t of empathy. T h i s t e s t i s designed t o show how w e l l a person i s a b l e t o put h i m s e l f i n someone e l s e ' s p l a c e . The E x p e r i m e n t e r w i l l show you a s e r i e s o f photographs. F o r each one I want you t o judge whether t h e person p i c t u r e d has been e x p e r i e n c i n g s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e . You a r e t o r a t e each person as a c c u r a t e l y as you c a n . In t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room you w i l l s i t o p p o s i t e t h e E x p e r i m e n t e r a t a table. In f r o n t o f you w i l l be a p a n e l . On t h e panel i s a s c a l e t h a t Iooks I i ke t h i s.  SUCCESS 1  2  FAILURE 3  4  5  6  7  8  To h e l p you make more e x a c t judgements you a r e t o use t h i s r a t i n g s c a l e . As you can see t h i s s c a l e runs from 1 t o 8. A r a t i n g o f 1 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme SUCCESS. A r a t i n g o f 8 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme FAILURE. A r a t i n g of 4 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d SUCCESS w h i l e a r a t i n g of 5 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d FAILURE. To i n d i c a t e your response j u s t t e l l t h e E x p e r i m e n t e r t h a t number t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s t o your r a t i n g f o r each photo t h a t i s p r e s e n t e d . Give him o n l y t h e number o f your r a t i n g .  69 APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS IN THE VERBAL NO FEEDBACK CONDITION  We a r e i n a p r o c e s s o f d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t o f empathy. T h i s t e s t i s d e s i g n e d t o show how w e l l a person i s a b l e t o put h i m s e l f i n someone e l s e ' s p l a c e . The E x p e r i m e n t e r w i l l show you a s e r i e s of photographs. F o r each one I want you t o judge whether t h e person p i c t u r e d has been e x p e r i e n c i n g s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e . You a r e t o r a t e each photo as a c c u r a t e l y as you c a n . In t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room you w i l l s i t o p p o s i t e t h e E x p e r i m e n t e r a t a table. In f r o n t o f you w i l l be a p a n e l . On t h e panel i s a r a t i n g s c a l e t h a t looks I i k e t h i s .  FAILURE 1  2  SUCCESS 3  4  5  6  7  8  To h e l p you make more a c c u r a t e judgements you a r e t o use t h i s scale. As you can see t h e s c a l e runs from 1 t o 8. A r a t i n g o f 1 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme FAILURE* A r a t i n g o f 8 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme SUCCESS. A r a t i n g of 4 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d FAILURE w h i l e a r a t i n g of 5 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d SUCCESS. To I n d i c a t e your responses p r e s s t h e b u t t o n on your panel under t h e number t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s t o your r a t i n g . A l i g h t on your panel w i l l go on t o i n d i c a t e t h a t your response has been r e c o r d e d . Do n o t t e I I the_ E x p e r i m e n t e r your r a t i n g .  APPENDIX E INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS IN THE NONVERBAL CORRECT FEEDBACK CONDITION  We a r e i n a p r o c e s s of d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t of empathy. T h i s t e s t i s designed t o show how w e l l a person i s a b l e t o put h i m s e l f i n someone e l s e ' s p l a c e . The Experimenter w i l l show you a s e r i e s of photographs. F o r each one I want you t o judge whether t h e person p i c t u r e d has been e x p e r i e n c i n g s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e . You a r e t o r a t e each photo as a c c u r a t e l y as you c a n . In t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room you w i l l s i t o p p o s i t e t h e Experimenter a t a table. In f r o n t o f you w i l l be a p a n e l . On t h e panel i s a r a t i n g s c a l e t h a t looks I i ke t h i s .  FAILURE 1  SUCCESS 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  To h e l p you make more a c c u r a t e judgements you a r e t o use t h i s s c a l e . As you can see t h e s c a l e runs from 1 t o 8. A r a t i n g of 1 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme FAILURE. A r a t i n g of 8 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme SUCCESS. A r a t i n g of 4 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d FAILURE w h i l e a r a t i n g of 5 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d SUCCESS. To i n d i c a t e your c h o i c e p r e s s t h e b u t t o n on your panel under t h e number t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s t o your r a t i n g . A l i g h t on your panel w i l l go on t o i n d i c a t e t h a t your response has been r e c o r d e d . When you e n t e r t h e t e s t s i t u a t i o n , p l e a s e do not t a l k t o t h e Experimenter e i t h e r b e f o r e o r d u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e photographs. S i t down i n t h e c h a i r o p p o s i t e t h e Experimenter and he w i l l p r e s e n t t h e f i r s t photograph. Save any q u e s t i o n s you may have u n t i l a f t e r t h e e x p e r i ment.  71 APPENDIX F INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS IN THE NONVERBAL REVERSED FEEDBACK CONDITION  We a r e i n a p r o c e s s of d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t o f empathy. T h i s t e s t i s designed t o show how w e l l a person i s a b l e t o put h i m s e l f i n someone e l s e ' s p l a c e . The Experimenter w i l l show you a s e r i e s of photographs. F o r each one I want you t o judge whether t h e person p i c t u r e d has been e x p e r i e n c i n g s u c c e s s o r f a i I u r e . You a r e t o r a t e each photo as a c c u r a t e l y as you c a n . In t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room you w i l l s i t o p p o s i t e t h e Experimenter a t a table. In f r o n t o f you w i l l be a p a n e l . On t h e panel i s a r a t i n g s c a l e t h a t looks I i k e t h i s . SUCCESS 1  FAILURE 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  To help you make more a c c u r a t e judgements you a r e t o use t h i s s c a l e . As you can see t h e s c a l e runs from 1 t o 8. A r a t i n g o f 1 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme SUCCESS. A r a t i n g of 8 means t h a t you have judged t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme FAILURE. A r a t i n g o f 4 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d mi Id SUCCESS whi i e a r a t i n g of 5 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d mi Id FAILURE. To i n d i c a t e your c h o i c e p r e s s t h e button on your panel under t h e number t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s t o your r a t i n g . A l i g h t on your panel w i l l go on t o i n d i c a t e t h a t your response has been r e c o r d e d . When you e n t e r t h e t e s t s i t u a t i o n , p l e a s e do not t a l k t o t h e E x p e r i menter e i t h e r b e f o r e o r d u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e photographs. S i t down i n t h e c h a i r o p p o s i t e t h e Experimenter and he w i l l p r e s e n t t h e f i r s t photograph. Save any q u e s t i o n s you may have u n t i I a f t e r t h e experiment.  APPENDIX G INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS IN THE NONVERBAL NO FEEDBACK CONDITION  We a r e i n a p r o c e s s of d e v e l o p i n g a t e s t of empathy. T h i s t e s t i s d e s i g n e d t o show how w e l l a person i s a b l e t o put h i m s e l f i n someone e l s e ' p l a c e . The E x p e r i m e n t e r w i l l show you a s e r i e s o f photographs. For each one I want you t o judge whether t h e person p i c t u r e d has been e x p e r i e n c i n g s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e . You a r e t o r a t e each photo as a c c u r a t e l y as you c a n . In t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l room you w i l l s i t o p p o s i t e t h e E x p e r i m e n t e r a t table. In f r o n t o f you w i l l be a p a n e l . On t h e panel i s a r a t i n g s c a l e t h a t looks I i k e t h i s .  FAILURE 1  SUCCESS 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  To h e l p you make more a c c u r a t e judgements you a r e t o use t h i s s c a l e As you can see t h e s c a l e runs from 1 t o 8. A r a t i n g of 1 means t h a t you judge t h e person p i c t u r e d t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme FAILURE. A r a t i n g of 8 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i e n c e d extreme SUCCESS. A r a t i n g of 4 means t h a t you judge t h e p e r s o n t o have e x p e r i e n c e d m i l d FAILURE whi l e a r a t i n g of 5 means t h a t you judge t h e person t o have e x p e r i enced m i l d SUCCESS. To i n d i c a t e your response p r e s s t h e b u t t o n on your panel under t h e number t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s t o your r a t i n g . A l i g h t on your panel w i l l go on t o i n d i c a t e t h a t your response has been r e c o r d e d . When you e n t e r t h e t e s t s i t u a t i o n , p l e a s e do n o t t a l k t o t h e E x p e r i menter e i t h e r b e f o r e o r d u r i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e photographs. S i t down o p p o s i t e t h e E x p e r i m e n t e r and he w i l l p r e s e n t t h e f i r s t photograph. Save any q u e s t i o n s you may have u n t i I a f t e r t h e e x p e r i m e n t .  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104445/manifest

Comment

Related Items