Demand characteristics

Features of an experiment that helps participants to work out what is

expected of them, and lead them to behave in certain predictable ways.

Demand characteristics and investigatory effect participants use cue’s to

do the experiment this distorts the results.

Young, Adelstein and Ellis (2007)

obtained evidence of strong demand characteristics in a study on the
experience of motion sickness in a virtual environment. They assessed
motion sickness by using a questioner. In one condition, this questionnaire
was given only after the participants had been in the virtual environment.
In the other conditions the participants where given the questionnaire
before the virtual environment. A problem with giving participants the
questionnaire before the experiment is that it would distort the results as
they would be more aware of the environment and would be more aware
of motion sickness. Although a problem with not telling them what is
going on is that it is ethically wrong.

Key words
Investigators affect
The effect of investigator expectations on the response of participants.
Sometimes referred to as the experimenter expectancy effect.

Single blind
A procedure in which the participants are not informed of the condition in
which they have been placed.

Double blind
A procedure where neither the participants nor the experimenter knows
the precise aims of the study. This reduces experimenter effect.

The most famous example of an investigator/ experimenter effect was

reported by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968). They carried out a study in
which they arranged for teachers to ‘’overhear’’ that certain randomly
selected children were expected to make late gains in academic
development. What happened was that these children did actually make
greater gains than non-selected children. This was described as the
Pygmalion effect, in which individuals can perform surprisingly well
because others expect them to. More specifically what happened was that
the investigator implanted ideas into the mind of the experimenters
subsequent research produced mixed findings.
As Coolican (2004) pointed out it proved hard to replicate the Pygmalion
effect for several years after the original study. However, Kieran and gold
(2000) reported a meta-analysis of 13 Pygmalion studies carried out in work
organizations and found that there was a modernly strong overall Pygmalion
effect how does the Pygmalion effect occur? Rosenthal (2003) argued that four
factors are involved.

1. Climate: teachers behave more warmly to students for whom they

have high expectations.

2. Input: teachers teach more natural to students of whom they

expect much.

3. Output: teachers ask their ‘’special’’ students for answers more

often than other students.

4. Feedback: teachers give more detailed feedback to special

students.