Talk:Observer-expectancy effect

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Does anyone have the reference for the study on 'maze bright' and 'maze dull' rats. I know I should know, but I don't (Donald Rumsfeld)

With regards to observer expectancy, when and if this article is eventually refurbished: 'Electronic Voice Perception', i.e. hearing messages in (chaotically distributed) static, would probably be an excellent example. I speculate that there are strong links between this phenomena and mechanisms of human pattern recognition, but have no idea if anyone has established or disproven that. 69.49.44.11 15:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rats vs mice

In another experiment, children were given laboratory mice and told that some were bred for intelligence, some for dullness. In reality, the rats were chosen at random, but the children reported that the "smart" rats learned mazes faster than the "dumb" rats.

Which was it ? rats or mice ?

Interesting example:

Here's an example I was thinking of adding to the links

Songs of Praise (With subtitles) An example of observer-expectancy effect involving subtitles which alter the observer's interpretation of audio.

It's strongly related to OEE in backmasking. But I'm not sure if it's appropriate. Herd of Swine 17:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I've since added this) Herd of Swine 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Experimenter's bias and Observer-expectancy effect seem to be describing the same phenomenon and would appear to be in need of a merge. I would prefer effect over bias, but either would be okay. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak agreement. The Observer-expectancy effect is the more general form, and applies to non-experimental subjects, such as in the Songs of Praise link [1]. Although most of the examples do seem to be regarding experiments. I think the distinction should be kept, even if the articles are merged. Herd of Swine (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As I learned it, what HoS is referring to is called reactivity and can apply to non-research situations (such as teaching and corporate performance evaluation), while this, a form of reactivity, is specific to research settings. However, experimenter's bias can include bias introduced by the experimenter in the process of interpretation, analysis and coding, thus not involving influence on the participants at all. Steve Carlson^Talk 06:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the merge tags for lack of consensus. If anyone would like to re-open the debate, feel free. - Eldereft (cont.) 08:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusions

The page begins with a short definition: "... a form of reactivity in which a researcher's cognitive bias [and I'd add "expectations"] causes them to unconsciously influence the participants of an experiment."

The second sentence confuses the topic, at least for me. It mentions how "confirmation bias can lead to the experimenter interpreting results incorrectly because of the tendency to look for information that conforms to their hypothesis, and overlook information that argues against it." This doesn't fit the definition. It seems like a completely different way that an experimenter's expectations can taint an experiment, one that requires different prevention techniques.

Suggestion: Remove this from this page.

The article then mentions "music backmasking" as an example. Again I'm confused. I can see how this is an example of some kind of expectancy effect but there are no participants to influence, so it doesn't fit the given definition.

Suggestion: Either replace it with a fitting example (like the "Clever Hans" story mentioned further down the page) or broaden the opening definition.

66.241.88.133 (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation bias?

I don't understand how this effect is anything more than a highly specific case of confirmation bias. I admit that it's prevalent and needs to be controlled for, but why does it need to be called something separate? Calling it a different bias also detracts from the other facets of confirmation bias that aren't mentioned in this article Daemon328 (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"backmasking" example

First of all, backmasking is a technique through which messages are embedded in recordings; it is not the attempt to interpret possible messages. Secondly, I don't see how you failing to recognize an audible cue(s), being directed toward it, and then noticing it is a sign of 'confirmation bias.' For that bias to be present, either you sought to find it and deceived yourself until you did or were insistent on not being able to and maintained that you still did not by consciously or subconsciously producing fictitious reasons to discredit the possibility in the first place or rejecting the formed memory after the fact as being unreliable; as flawed.

If it's actually there and you were missing it without a third party to focus your search, being able to recognize subsequently to it's illustration for you would either, therefore, have sharpened your auditory perception through assisted guidance or you agreed while deceiving them for ulterior reasons. It can't categorically be described as a bias because there isn't enough evidence to evaluate the capabilities, attributes and judgments of the parties involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Observer-expectancy effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040618030759/http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/expectations/ to http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/expectations/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the revision 940218724

While it is not actual vandalism, it is unsourced and written in an unencyclopedic style.
— User:Megaman en m 09:02, 11 February 2020

Why wouldn't some straight-up analogy which gives the idea within minutes be preferred, over the confusing verbiage which hardly make any sense at all?

And if you did get the idea from the original text, you shall realize that they describe exactly the same thing.