Responding to a commentary by Harrington and Ingraham (1967) on a commentary by Rosenthal (1967) on Ingraham and Harrington (1966) is intended to serve three purposes: (a) to call greater attention to the very important research conducted by Ingraham and Harrington, (b) to point up substantial areas of agreement between us, and (c) to point up residual differences in viewpoint with only light as a by-product.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HarringtonG. M.IngrahamL. H.Psychology of the scientist: XXV. Experimenter bias and tails of Pascal. Psychological Reports, 1967, 21, 513–516.
2.
IngrahamL. H.HarringtonG. M.Psychology of the scientist: XVI. Experience of E as a variable in reducing experimenter bias. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 455–461.
3.
MasseyF. J.The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1951, 46, 68–78.
4.
RosenthalR.Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
5.
RosenthalR.Psychology of the scientist: XXIII. Experimenter expectancy, experimenter experience, and Pascal's Wager. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 619–622.
6.
RosenthalR.FodeK. L.The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 183–189.
7.
RosenthalR.PersingerG. W.MulryR. C.Vikan-KlineL.GrotheM.Emphasis on experimental procedure, sex of subjects, and the biasing effects of experimental hypotheses. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1964, 28, 470–473.
8.
SnedecorG. W.Statistical methods. (5th ed.) Ames: Iowa State College Press, 1956.
