Experimenter's bias
Experimenter's bias refers to the unconscious and unintentional influence that a researcher’s expectations can have on the design, conduct, and interpretation of an experiment. This phenomenon can skew results and is commonly identified in various forms, such as the self-fulfilling prophecy, observer bias, and interpreter bias. One notable example is the Pygmalion effect, discovered by psychologist Robert Rosenthal, which illustrates how teacher expectations can shape student performance. Experimenter's bias can manifest through subtle cues like word choice, tone, and body language, affecting human and animal subjects alike. To mitigate these biases, modern studies often utilize methods like single-blind or double-blind designs, standardization of procedures, and trained assistants to separate the roles of investigator and experimenter. Understanding and preventing experimenter's bias is crucial across disciplines such as social psychology, education, medicine, and politics, as it impacts the integrity of research findings. Recent discussions have also explored the role of artificial intelligence in experiments, offering both potential solutions and new concerns regarding bias in AI training.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Experimenter's bias
The results of experiments can be flawed or skewed because of a number of different biases. Those designing, conducting, or analyzing an experiment often hold expectations regarding the experiment’s outcome, such as hoping for an outcome that supports the initial hypothesis. Such expectations can shape how the experiment is structured, conducted, and/or interpreted, thereby affecting the outcome. This typically unconscious and unintentional phenomenon is known as experimenter’s bias.
The main types of experimenter’s bias include self-fulfilling prophecy, observer bias, and interpreter bias. Most modern social science and clinical experiments are designed with one or more safeguards in place to minimize the possibility of such biases distorting results.
Overview
In the mid- to late 1960s, psychologist Robert Rosenthal began uncovering and reporting on experimenter’s bias in social science research. His most famous and controversial work was a 1968 study on teacher expectations. In it, Rosenthal and his colleagues gave students a standardized intelligence test, then randomly assigned some to a group designated “intellectual bloomers” and told teachers that these students were expected to perform very well academically. When tested eight months later, the “intellectual bloomers” had indeed done better than their peers, suggesting that teacher expectancy had affected the educational outcomes. This phenomenon, in which a person's behavior is shaped by and conforms to the expectations of others, came to be known as the Pygmalion effect, named for the play by George Bernard Shaw. Rosenthal’s work shed light on issues of internal validity and launched a new area of research into methodologies.
The most widely recognized form of experimenter’s bias, the self-fulfilling prophecy, occurs when an experimenter’s expectancy informs their own behavior toward a study subject, eliciting a particular predicted response and thereby confirming the original expectations. Among the subtle factors that can sway outcomes among human study participants are the experimenter’s word choice, tone, body language, gestures, and expressions. Similarly, animal subjects may respond to experimenters’ cues, differential handling, and, in the case of primates, nonverbal body language. The Pygmalion effect is one type of self-fulfilling prophecy. Another is the experimenter expectancy effect, in which the experimenter's expectations influence their own behavior toward the subjects in such a way as to increase the likelihood of those expectations being met.
Other biases arise not from the experimenter's interaction with the subjects but rather from their observations and interpretations of their responses. Observer bias occurs when the experimenter's assumptions, preconceptions, or prior knowledge affects what they observe and record about the results of the experiment. Interpreter bias is an error in data interpretation, such as a focus on just one possible interpretation of the data to the exclusion of all others.
To attempt to prevent bias, most social science and clinical studies are either single-blind studies, in which subjects are unaware of whether they are participating in a control or a study group, or double-blind studies, in which both experimenters and subjects are unaware of which subjects are in which groups. Other ways of avoiding experimenter’s bias include standardizing methods and procedures to minimize differences in experimenter-subject interactions; using blinded observers or confederates as assistants, further distancing the experimenter from the subjects; and separating the roles of investigator and experimenter.
Experimenter’s bias and the prevention thereof have implications for areas of research as diverse as social psychology, education, medicine, and politics. Though, by the twenty-first century, advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) led some experts to recommend integrating the technology into experimentation to possibly prevent experimenter's bias affecting participant behavior and response, others expressed concerns about the potential for experimenter's bias to influence the AI's training.
Bibliography
Charness, Gary, et al. "How Generative AI Can Benefit Scientific Experiments." World Economic Forum, 9 Oct. 2023, www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/10/generative-ai-scientific-experiments-benefit/. Accessed 30 July 2024.
Colman, Andrew M. A Dictionary of Psychology. 4th ed. Oxford UP, 2015.
Finn, Patrick. “Primer on Research: Bias and Blinding; Self-Fulfilling Prophecies and Intentional Ignorance.” ASHA Leader, 2006, pp. 16–22.
Gould, Jay E. Concise Handbook of Experimental Methods for the Behavioral and Biological Sciences. CRC, 2002.
Greenberg, Jerald, and Robert Folger. Controversial Issues in Social Research Methods. Springer, 1988.
Halperin, Sandra, and Oliver Heath. Political Research: Methods and Practical Skills. Oxford UP, 2012.
Jussim, Lee. Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Oxford UP, 2012.
Rosenthal, Robert, and Ralph L. Rosnow. Artifacts in Behavioral Research. Oxford UP, 2009.
Schultz, Kenneth F., and David A. Grimes. “Blinding in Randomised Trials: Hiding Who Got What.” Lancet, vol. 359, no. 9307, 2002, pp. 696–700, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07816-9. Accessed 30 July 2024.
Simkus, Julia. "Observer Bias: Definition, Examples, & Prevention." Simply Psychology, 31 July 2023, www.simplypsychology.org/observer-bias-definition-examples-prevention.html. Accessed 30 July 2024.
Supino, Phyllis G. “Fundamental Issues in Evaluating the Impact of Interventions: Sources and Control of Bias.” Principles of Research Methodology: A Guide for Clinical Investigators. Edited by Supino and Jeffrey S. Borer. Springer, 2012, pp. 79–110.