The effects of 3 conditions of E outcome expectancy, (a) positive, (b) neutral, and (c) negative, were tested within the context of a standard Taffel-type verbal conditioning task. 2 Es were led to believe positive findings would result from the experiment, 2 Es expected negative results, and 2 Es were not subjected to an outcome expectancy indoctrination. 2 modes of presenting stimulus materials were employed to help assess the types of E cues (auditory, facial, gestural, etc.) used to communicate expectation. Results indicated that differences could not be demonstrated among Es possessing different outcome expectations. Moreover, differences between modes of stimulus presentation were not found.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarberT. X.SilverM. J.Fact, fiction, and the experimenter bias effect. Psychol. Bull., 1968, 70, No. 6 (Parr 2, Monogr. Suppl.).
2.
BinderA.McConnellD.SjoholemN. A.Verbal conditioning as a function of experimenter characteristics. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 55, 309–314.
3.
FergusonD. C.BussA. H.Operant conditioning of hostile verbs in relation to experimenter and subject characteristics. J. consult. Psychol., 1960, 24, 324–327.
4.
FriedmanN.The social nature of psychological research. New York: Basic Books, 1967.
5.
IngrahamL. H.HarringtonG. M.Psychology of the scientist: XVI. Experience of E as a variable in reducing experimenter bias. Psychol. Rep., 1966, 19, 455–461.
6.
KennedyJ. J.ZimmerJ. M.Reinforcing value of five stimulus conditions in a quasi-counseling situation. J. counsel. Psychol., 1968, 15, 357–362.
7.
KesselP.BarberK. L.Experimenter-subject interaction in verbal conditioning: Review of the literature. Psychol. Rep., 1968, 22, 59–74.
OrneM. T.On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. Amer. Psychologist, 1962, 17, 776–783.
11.
RosenthalR.On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: The experimenter's hypothesis as unintended determinant of experimental results. Amer. Scient., 1963, 51, 268–283.
12.
RosenthalR.Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
13.
SapolskyA.Effect of interpersonal relations upon verbal conditioning. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1960, 60, 241–246.
14.
SarasonI. G.The human reinforcer in verbal behavior research. In KrasnerL.UllmannL. P. (Eds.), Research in behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Pp. 229–243.
15.
SarasonI. G.MinardJ. G.Inter-relationships among subject, experimenter, and situational variables. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963, 67, 87–91.
16.
StraussM. E.Examiner expectancy: Effects on Rorschach experience balance. J. consult. Psychol., 1968, 32, 125–129.
17.
TaffelC.Anxiety and the conditioning of verbal behavior. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 496–501.
18.
WesslerR. L.StraussM. E.Experimenter expectancy: A failure to replicate. Psychol. Rep., 1968, 22, 709–714.
