Whatever Happens in the Laboratory Stays in the Laboratory: The Prevalence and Prevention of Participant Crosstalk

Abstract

Foreknowledge in research participants can undermine the validity of psychological research. Three studies examined a potentially major source of foreknowledge: participant crosstalk in an undergraduate subject pool. Participants in all three studies attempted to win extra experimental credit by guessing the number of beans in a jar—a nearly impossible task without foreknowledge of the answer. Participants guessing incorrectly were told the correct answer by the experimenter. In Study 1, 23 of 809 participants showed clear evidence of having received the correct answer from a prior participant. In Study 2, a classroom-based treatment asking students not to talk about experiments to other students significantly reduced crosstalk rates. In Study 3, a laboratory-based treatment supplemented the classroom-based treatment. After revealing the number of beans in the jar, the experimenter obtained a verbal commitment from participants that they would not tell anyone about the experiment. The combined treatment nearly eliminated crosstalk.

Keywords

crosstalk methodology participant pool research methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aronson, E. (1966). Avoidance of inter-subject communication. Psychological Reports, 19, 238.

Aronson, E. , Ellsworth, P.C. , Carlsmith, J.M. , & Gonzales, M.H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill .

Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Edlund, J.E. , Sagarin, B.J. , & Johnson, B.S. (2007). Reciprocity and the belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 589-596.

Farrow, J.M. , Farrow, B.J. , Lohss, W.E. , & Taub, S.I. (1975). Intersubject communication as a contaminating factor in verbal conditioning. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 40, 975-982.

Glinski, R.J. , Glinski, B.C. , & Slatin, G.T. (1970). Nonnaivety contamination in conformity experiments: Sources, effects, and implications for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 478-485.

Golding, S.L. , & Lichtenstein, E. (1970). Confession of awareness and prior knowledge of deception as a function of interview set and approval motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 213-223.

Horka, S.T. , & Farrow, B.J. (1970). A methodological note on intersubject communication as a contaminating factor in psychological experiments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 10, 363-366.

Lichtenstein, E. (1970). "Please don't talk to anyone about this experiment": Disclosure of deception by debriefed subjects. Psychological Reports, 26, 485-486.

10.

Martin, D.W. (2000). Doing psychology experiments. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

11.

Sagarin, B.J. , Rhoads, K. , & Cialdini, R.B. (1998). Deceiver's distrust: Denigration as a consequence of undiscovered deception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1167-1176.

12.

Taub, S.I. , & Farrow, B.J. (1973). Reinforcement effects on intersubject communications: The scuttlebutt effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 37, 15-22.

13.

Walsh, W.B. (1976). Disclosure of deception by debriefed subjects: Another look. Psychological Reports, 38, 783-786.

14.

Walsh, W.B. , & Stillman, S.M. (1974). Disclosure of deception by debriefed subjects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 315-319.

15.

White, D.G. (1977). Intersubject communication: The effect of perceived relevance of message on young children's experimental performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 421-422.

16.

White, D.G. , & Le Huray, G.J. (1974). The effect of intersubject communication as a contaminating factor in research involving young children . European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 269-273.

17.

Wuebben, P.L. (1967). Honesty of subjects and birth order. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 350-352.