Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Ano de publicação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull ; 35(5): 635-42, 2009 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19234298

RESUMO

Foreknowledge in research participants can undermine the validity of psychological research. Three studies examined a potentially major source of foreknowledge: participant crosstalk in an undergraduate subject pool. Participants in all three studies attempted to win extra experimental credit by guessing the number of beans in a jar-a nearly impossible task without foreknowledge of the answer. Participants guessing incorrectly were told the correct answer by the experimenter. In Study 1, 23 of 809 participants showed clear evidence of having received the correct answer from a prior participant. In Study 2, a classroom-based treatment asking students not to talk about experiments to other students significantly reduced crosstalk rates. In Study 3, a laboratory-based treatment supplemented the classroom-based treatment. After revealing the number of beans in the jar, the experimenter obtained a verbal commitment from participants that they would not tell anyone about the experiment. The combined treatment nearly eliminated crosstalk.


Assuntos
Confidencialidade , Enganação , Conhecimento Psicológico de Resultados , Sujeitos da Pesquisa/psicologia , Comportamento Cooperativo , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Motivação
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA