Talk:Observer-expectancy effect

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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]

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 ?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 makes 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.

— 1.64.193.178 (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit reads like a textbook or essay, both of which are not what Wikipedia is trying to be. For example, you should never address the reader directly or have a conversation with them ("say you were..."). See WP:TONE for further reading. Additionally your example subsection does not merit its own section and does not list any sources, which might make it count as original research. Additionally, your examples might be plain wrong; as far as I know, this bias specifically applies to researchers influencing participants.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Megaman en m:

Your edit reads like a textbook or essay, both of which are not what Wikipedia is trying to be.
— User:Megaman en m 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Then what is Wikipedia supposed to be?..

Some esotericism bible full of obscure jargons that nobody really understands?

For example, you should never address the reader directly or have a conversation with them ("say you were..."). See WP:TONE for further reading.
— User:Megaman en m 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Then what term should I use? The "subjects"?..

Additionally your example subsection does not merit its own section...
— User:Megaman en m 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

How doesn't it?..

...and does not list any sources, which might make it count as original research.
— User:Megaman en m 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

But isn't anything we (or whatever) can come up with inevitably sort of original research?

Blindly following rules without consideration eventually becomes dogmatism.

Additionally, your examples might be plain wrong; as far as I know, this bias specifically applies to researchers influencing participants.
— User:Megaman en m 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Then what could be considered "researchers" and "participants"?

Everything could apply...

— 1.64.193.178 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It requires sources to make sure that the content is verifiable, otherwise anyone whatever they want. Original research is a vital part of science; encyclopedias merely consolidate the existing information. If you have any problems with understanding any specific sentence, you're free to mention them here or rewrite them (while still maintaining a formal tone). If you want to read more about what a Wikipedia article should look like, you might like to read WP:BETTER. You're free to edit any article you want, but you should preferably make sure you have a good understanding of the article's topic before adding new content.--Megaman en m (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Megaman en m:

It requires sources to make sure that the content is verifiable, otherwise anyone whatever they want.
— User:Megaman en m 19:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

How is it less verifiable?.. Does placing the content in a quote make it any more verifiable?

What makes the content verifiable, is the content itself, not sources.

Original research is a vital part of science; encyclopedias merely consolidate the existing information.
— User:Megaman en m 19:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Why expect less, when we can actually have more?

If you want to read more about what a Wikipedia article should look like, you might like to read WP:BETTER.
— User:Megaman en m 19:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you please give some concrete example, on how this article should be improved using those referential guidelines?

— Wikipedian Right (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Megaman en m:

Tired of the pointless edit war...

The article's talk page is used for talking about how to improve that article and nothing else.
— User:Megaman en m 18:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How doesn't it pertain to the topic, as which obviously appeared to be the bottleneck of our consensus building?

If you want to talk about Wikipedia's policies, you can do so at the teahouse at WP:TEA
— User:Megaman en m 18:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Talking rules without taking them into actual examples serves little point.

...teahouse at WP:TEA
— User:Megaman en m 18:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

While you didn't seem to have realized yet: the damage of dogmatism is no less disruptive than vandalism, and much less easy to remove.

— Wikipedian Right (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the jargon in the lede is confusing, but it is wikilinked. The linked articles should be helpful to readers. I'm afraid I agree that the examples you give are not quite relevant to observer-expectancy effect, and they do need to be cited if they've been challenged. If you want examples of what would work, you could, say, quote Charles Darwin on how he felt that his theories biassed his observations, and he had to fight to remember data that did not fit his conception, by writing it down. You might also discuss and cite relevant psychological experiments; there are a lot of them in the peer-reviewed literature. This would give you examples, which might make it easier to get the gist of the article; the existing horse example is inadequate. I suggest that you write up a few such examples, with citations.

Megaman en m has put quite a lot of effort into explaining policies to you. It's now up to you to put some serious thought and scholarly effort into reading up on this topic (and Wikipedia policies, as needed). When you've done your best to write some well-cited encyclopedic sentences about it, we can spend more time attempting to reach a consensus. HLHJ (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

@HLHJ:

You're merely repeating part of Megaman en m's points... which are all already responded in the previous comments.

I suggest that you read the entire discussion (again if already) before further commenting.

I'm afraid I agree that the examples you give are not quite relevant to observer-expectancy effect, and they do need to be cited if they've been challenged.
— User:HLHJ 04:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I've already responded Megaman en m's directly on-topic challenge and yet have no response on it, challenge further if you would like.

— Wikipedian Right (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with some of Megaman en m's points, as well as with some of yours. Neither a popular star singer nor a general secretary of the republic is primarily engaged in scientific research. Until you respond with researched, cited statements, in the way we have both suggested, then we can't really have further discussion. If you'd rather contribute to Wikipedia without researching or citing statements, you could join the Wikipedia:Typo Team. Wikipedia editors are volunteers; please be considerate of our time. HLHJ (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

@HLHJ:

Neither a popular star singer nor a general secretary of the republic is primarily engaged in scientific research.
— User:HLHJ 15:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not the point but merely some straight-up analogy for the ease of understanding.

Also note: scientific research originates from practice and in turn serves practice.

Until you respond with researched, cited statements, in the way we have both suggested, then we can't really have further discussion.
— User:HLHJ 15:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why you insist that the content must be reported by some authority.

Does the validity of the content really get altered this way?..

— Wikipedian Right (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the content is evinced by citations; citations are required for any content whose accuracy has been challenged. This is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works. I will not be responding further to this thread unless I see you have put as much effort into citing your challenged content as I have into this discussion. I advise other editors to do the same. HLHJ (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian Right: Please stop using the tq2 template. Use tq instead with normal indentation. Your threads are extremely difficult to follow. O3000 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

@Objective3000:

How beautiful it is!

So you would prefer things end in another bunch of hardly readable text walls?..

— Wikipedian Right (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INDENT. O3000 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

It was never about the debate, it is always about the truth.

An encyclopedia that's open, free, anyone can edit: a dream place for anyone to freely exchange whose knowledge. Don't you agree?
— User:Wikipedian Right 03:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

— Wikipedian Right (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]