Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:32:29.466Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Robert Rosenthal  and
Donald B. Rubin
Robert Rosenthal
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 02138
Donald B. Rubin
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 02138
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The research area of interpersonal expectancy effects originally derived from a general consideration of the effects of experimenters on the results of their research. One of these is the expectancy effect, the tendency for experimenters to obtain results they expect, not simply because they have correctly anticipated nature's response but rather because they have helped to shape that response through their expectations. When behavioral researchers expect certain results from their human (or animal) subjects they appear unwittingly to treat them in such a way as to increase the probability that they will respond as expected.

In the first few years of research on this problem of the interpersonal (or interorganism) self-fulfilling prophecy, the “prophet” was always an experimenter and the affected phenomenon was always the behavior of an experimental subject. In more recent years, however, the research has been extended from experimenters to teachers, employers, and therapists whose expectations for their pupils, employees, and patients might also come to serve as interpersonal self-fulfilling prophecies.

Our general purpose is to summarize the results of 345 experiments investigating interpersonal expectancy effects. These studies fall into eight broad categories of research: reaction time, inkblot tests, animal learning, laboratory interviews, psychophysical judgments, learning and ability, person perception, and everyday life situations. For the entire sample of studies, as well as for each specific research area, we (1) determine the overall probability that interpersonal expectancy effects do in fact occur, (2) estimate their average magnitude so as to evaluate their substantive and methodological importance, and (3) illustrate some methods that may be useful to others wishing to summarize quantitatively entire bodies of research (a practice that is, happily, on the increase).

Keywords

experimenter biasexpectancy effectsRosenthal effectself-fulfilling prophecy.
Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , September 1978 , pp. 377 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. F. Mediation of teachers' expectancy with normal and retarded children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1971.Google Scholar
Barber, T. X.Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points. New York: Pergamon Press. 1976.Google Scholar
Barber, T. X. and Silver, M. J.Fact, fiction, and the experimenter bias effect. Psychological Bulletin Monograph Supplement 70:1–29. 1968.Google Scholar
Beez, W. V. Influence of biased psychological reports on “teacher” behavior and pupil performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1970.Google Scholar
Blake, B. F., and Heslin, R.Evaluation apprehension and subject bias in experiments. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 5:57–63. 1971.Google Scholar
Burnham, J. R. Experimenter bias and lesion labeling. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University, 1966.Google Scholar
Carter, R. M. Locus of control and teacher expectancy as related to achievement of young school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1969.Google Scholar
Cohen, J.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1969; Rev. ed., 1977.Google Scholar
Cooper, J., Eisenberg, L., Robert, J., and Dohrenwend, B. S.The effect of experimenter expectancy and preparatory effort on belief in the probable occurrence of future events. Journal of Social Psychology. 71:221–26. 1967.Google Scholar
Elashoff, J. D., and Snow, R. E. A case study in statistical inference: Reconsideration of the Rosenthal-Jacobson data on teacher expectancy. Technical Report No. 15, Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, School of Education, Stanford University, December, 1970.Google Scholar
Elashoff, J. D., and Snow, R. E. (eds.), Pygmalion Reconsidered. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1971.Google Scholar
Glass, G. V.Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,San Francisco, April, 1976.Google Scholar
Gravitz, H. L. Examiner expectancy effects in psychological assessment: The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1969.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A.Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin. 85:845–57. 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. A., Rosenthal, R., Archer, D., DiMatteo, M. R., and Rogers, P. L. The profile of nonverbal sensitivity. In: McReynolds, P. (ed.), Advances in Psychological Assessment, vol. 4. Pp. 179–221. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. W. The influence of the set and dependence of the data collector on the experimenter bias effect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duke University, 1972.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R.How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review. 39:1–123. 1969.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. W. Inducement of expectancy and set of subjects as determinants of subjects' responses in experimenter expectancy research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, 1970.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. W. and Adair, J. G.The effects of systematic recording error vs. experimenter bias on latency of word association. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality. 4:270–75. 1970.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. W.Experimenter expectancy vs. systematic recording error under automated and nonautomated stimulus presentation. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality. 6:88–94. 1972.Google Scholar
Keshock, J. D. An investigation of the effects of the expectancy phenomenon upon the intelligence, achievement and motivation of inner-city elementary school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1970.Google Scholar
Marwit, S. J. An investigation of the communication of tester-bias by means of modeling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1968.Google Scholar
Maxwell, M. L. A study of the effects of teacher expectation on the I.Q. and academic performance of children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University, 1970.Google Scholar
Mayo, C. C. External conditions affecting experimental bias. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1972.Google Scholar
Miller, K. A. A study of “experimenter bias” and “subject awareness” as demand characteristic artifacts in attitude change experiments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1970.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F., and Bush, R. R. Selected quantitative techniques. In: Lindzey, G. (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. I. Pp. 289–334. Cambridge, Mass.: Addis on-Wesley, 1954.Google Scholar
Page, J. S. Experimenter-subject interaction in the verbal conditioning experiment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 1970.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R.Experimenter expectancy and the reassuring nature of the null hypothesis decision procedure. Psychological Bulletin Monograph Supplement. 70:30–47. 1968.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R.Empirical vs. decreed validation of clocks and tests. American Educational Research Journal. 6:689–91. 1969a.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. Interpersonal expectations: Effects of the experimenter's hypothesis. In: Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. L. (eds.), Artifact in Behavioral Research. Pp. 181–277. New York: Academic Press, 1969b.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. Teacher expectations and their effects upon children. In: Lesser, G. S. (ed.), Psychology and Educational Practice. Pp. 67–87. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1971.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R.On the Social Psychology of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Further Evidence for Pygmalion Effects and Their Mediating Mechanisms. New York: MSS Modular Publication, Module 53, 1973.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R.Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1966. Rev. ed., New York: Irvington, 1976.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R.Combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin 85:185–93. 1978.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, in press, 1979.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. How often are our numbers wrong? American Psychologist, in press, 1979a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. and Fode, K. L.The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science 8:183–89. 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R.Hall, J. A., Archer, D., DiMatteo, M. R., and Rogers, P. L. The PONS test: Measuring sensitivity to nonverbal cues. In: Weitz, S. (ed.), Nonverbal communication. Rev. ed., Oxford University Press, in press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R., Hall, J. A., DiMatteo, M. R., Rogers, P. L., and Archer, D.Sensitivity to Nonverbal Communication: The PONS Test. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, in press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L.Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. and Lawson, R.A longitudinal study of the effects of experimenter bias on the operant learning of laboratory rats. Journal of Psychiatric Research 2:61–72. 1964.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. L.The Volunteer Subject. New York: Wiley- Interscience, 1975.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. and Rubin, D. B. Pygmalion reaffirmed. In: Elashoff, J. D. and Snow, R. E. (eds.), Pygmalion Reconsidered. Pp. 139–155. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1971.Google Scholar
Seaver, W. B. Jr. Effects of naturally induced teacher expectancies on the academic performance of pupils in primary grades. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1971.Google Scholar
Smith, M. L. and Glass, G. V.Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist. 32:752–60. 1977.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G.Statistical Methods. 6th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Thorndike, R. L.Review of Pygmalion in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal 5:708–11. 1968.Google Scholar
Todd, J. L. Social evaluation orientation, task orientation, and deliberate cuing in experimenter bias effect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1971.Google Scholar
Wellons, K. W. The expectancy component in mental retardation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1973.Google Scholar
Yarom, N. Temporal localization and communication of experimenter expectancy effect with 10–11 year old children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1971.Google Scholar