Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T10:04:01.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expecting expectancy effects: biased data analyses and failure to exclude alternative interpretations in experimenter expectancy research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Theodore X. Barber
Theodore X. Barber
Affiliation:
Proseminar Institute, Research Division, Cushing Hospital, Framingham, Mass. 01701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 388 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Barber, T. X.Invalid arguments, post-mortem analyses, and the experimenter bias effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 33:11–14, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, T. X. Pitfalls in research: Nine investigator and experimenter effects. In: Travers, R. M. W. (ed.) Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 382–404, 1973.Google Scholar
Barber, T. X.Calverley, D. S., Forgione, A., McPeake, J. D., Chaves, J. F., & Bowen, B.Five attempts to replicate the experimenter bias effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 33:1–6, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, T. X. and Silver, M. J.Pitfalls in data analysis and interpretation: A reply to Rosenthal. Psychological Bulletin (Monograph Supplement). 70:(No. 6, Pt. 2) 48–62, 1968b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hursch, C. J. Review of Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L., “Pygmalion in the Classroom.” Journal of Individual Psychology. 26:100, 1970.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R.On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: The experimenter's hypothesis as unintended determinant of experiment results. American Scientist. 51:268–283, 1963.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. The effect of the experimenter on the results of psychological research. In: Maher, B. A. (ed.) Progress in Experimental Personality Research. Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York, pp. 79–114, 1964.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R.On not so replicated experiments and not so null results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 33:7–10, 1969c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, M. J.Experimenter modeling: A critique. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality. 3:172–178, 1968.Google Scholar
Snow, R. E.Unfinished Pygmalion. Contemporary Psychology. 14:197–200, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomdike, R. L.But you have to know how to tell time. American Educational Research Journal. 6:692, 1969.Google Scholar