Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:50:17.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Metamethodological Dimension of the “Expectancy Paradox”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Morris L. Shames
Morris L. Shames*
Affiliation:
Concordia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When an experimenter uses the experimental method to investigate the effects of the experimenter's expectancy it may be that this research, too, is affected by his expectancy and thus there is an expectancy paradox. To the extent that the experimenter expectancy effect accounts for the variation in the dependent variable and is general, that is to say, universal in psychological research, the expectancy paradox is ineluctable. However, an analysis of the research reviews extant in this area yields the conclusion that expectancy effects are neither inexorable nor highly general in psychological research and this provides the basis for its extrication from the expectancy paradox.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , September 1979 , pp. 382 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This paper was supported by F.C.A.C. Research Grant No. EQ-1135. Any correspondence concerning this article should be directed to: Morris L. Shames, Psychology Department, Concordia University, Loyola Campus, 7141 Sherbrooke St. W., Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4B 1R6.

References

Barber, T. X. (1969), Invalid arguments, postmortem analyses, and the experimenter bias effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33: 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, T. X. (1976), Pitfalls in human research: Ten pivotal points. New York: Pergamon Press Inc.Google Scholar
Barber, T. X., Calverley, D. S., Forgione, A., McPeake, J. D., Chaves, J. F., & Bowen, B. (1969), Five attempts to replicate the experimenter bias effect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, T. X. & Silver, M. J. (1968a), Fact, fiction and the experimenter bias effect. Psychological Bulletin Monograph Supplement, 70: 1–29.Google Scholar
Barber, T. X., & Silver, M. J. (1968b), Pitfalls in data analysis and interpretation: A reply to Rosenthal. Psychological Bulletin Monograph Supplement, 70: 48–62.Google Scholar
Cooper, J., Eisenberg, L., Robert, J., & Dohrenwend, B. S. (1967), The effect of experimenter expectancy and preparatory effort on belief in the probable occurrence of future events. Journal of Social Psychology, 71: 221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copi, I. M. (1971), The theory of logical types. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Janssen, J. P. (1973), The experimenter's expectation-effect: An artifact of non-standardized experimental conditions? An investigation concerning Rosenthal's experimenter-bias under standardized group experimental conditions. Psychologische Beitrage, 15: 230–248.Google Scholar
McGinley, H., McGinley, P., & Shames, M. (1970), Failure to find experimenter expectancy effects in I.Q. estimations. Psychological Reports, 27: 831–834.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. (1967), Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34: 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S., & Yates, E. (1973), Attitudes of psychologists toward experimenter controls in research. Canadian Psychologist, 14: 202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1926), The foundations of mathematics. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 25: 338–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1964), The effect of the experimenter on the results of psychological research. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1966), Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1969), Interpersonal expectations: Effects of the experimenter's hypothesis. In Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (eds.), Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1976), Experimenter effects in behavioral research: Enlarged edition. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1937), The principles of mathematics. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc. (Originally published, 1903).Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1908), Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics, 30: 222–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, A. N., & Russell, B. (1960), Principia mathematica. (Vol. 1). London: Cambridge University Press (Originally published, 1913).Google Scholar