The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 7 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat
Abstract
That an experimenter can very easily influence his subjects to give him the response he wants is a problem that every investigator recognizes and takes precautions to avoid. But how does one cope with the problem of unconscious influence? It is possible that a good many contradictory or unexpected findings are due to the fact that the experimenter unknowingly communicated his desires or expectations to his subjects. Though this problem has been generally recognized and much discussed, there has heretofore been no systematic test of the hypothesis that an experimenter can obtain from his subjects the data he expects or wants to obtain. This paper reports just such a test, and discusses what can be done to avoid experimenter influence, both conscious and unconscious.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Although there is primary evidence of the impact of blinding in the clinical literature that directly compares blinded versus unblinded assessment of outcomes [82], there is limited empirical evidence in animal research [83,84].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [83]
In the citing paper
“Blinding is especially important during outcome assessment, particularly if there is a subjective element (e.g., when assessing behavioural changes or reading histological slides) [83].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [83]
Citations
Cites
Frustration theory: Restatement and extension.
Maier, N. R. F. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0046970 · Cited by 52
A study of the transposition gradient.
Ehrenfreund, D. (1952) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0055184 · Cited by 25
SUBJECTS' PERCEPTION OF THEIR EXPERIMENTER UNDER CONDITIONS OF EXPERIMENTER BIAS
Rosenthal, R., Fode, K. L., Friedman, C. J., & Vikan-Kline, L. (1960) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.2466/pms.11.7.325-331 · Cited by 22
Self-citationVARIABLES AFFECTING EXPERIMENTER BIAS IN A GROUP SITUATION.
Rosenthal, R. H., Friedman, C. J., Ca, J., Fode, K. L., Schill, T. R., Rc, W., & Vikan-Kline, L. (1964) · PubMed · Cited by 11
Self-citationZirkle, C. (1958) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.128.3336.1476-a · Cited by 8
Razran, G. (1959) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.130.3380.916 · Cited by 5
Interruption: Its Effect Upon Performance in a “Troubleshooting” Situation
Fattu, N. A., & Mech, E. V. (1953) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980.1953.9712885 · Cited by 3
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Ammons, 1957, ESP and PK: A way out, North Dakota Quart., 25, 119
- Gruenberg, 1929, The story of evolution
- Rosenthal, 1961, Series research in social psychology
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aac4716 · Cited by 8,515
Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0
Percie du Sert, N., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 · Cited by 2,677
“, when assessing behavioural changes or reading histological slides) [83].”
BackgroundResearch Methods in Psychology
Shaughnessy, J. J. (2016) · doi:10.24926/8668.2201 · Cited by 1,503
Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00075506 · Cited by 1,158
Self-citationShall we Really do it Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences
Schmidt, S. (2009) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015108 · Cited by 1,125
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenthal, R., & Fode, K. L.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Behavioral Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01-17
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 183-189
- ISSN
- 1092-7026 (ISSN-L)
- 0005-7940
- 1099-1743
- OpenAlex
- W2010723570
- Cited by
- 384
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 14.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Systems Research and Behavioral Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychology of Social Influence
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Keywords
- researcher bias, albino rats, animal behavior, unconscious influence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
