Talk:Observer-expectancy effect

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: (I've since added this) Herd of Swine 19:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting example: 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 .  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)
replies: text: 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 CarlsonTalk 06:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confirmation bias? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "backmasking" example 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified