The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand characteristics

Journal of General Psychology

Volumn 135, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 151-166

  Nichols, Austin Lee ^a,b   Maner, Jon K ^c  

^a University of Florida ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Demand characteristics; Good subject effect; Previous knowledge

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COOPERATION; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INDIVIDUALITY; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; RESEARCH SUBJECT; STANDARD;

ATTITUDE; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HELPING BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; INDIVIDUALITY; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RESEARCHER-SUBJECT RELATIONS;

EID: 44849128311     PISSN: 00221309     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/GENP.135.2.151-166     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398-413.
2. Boutcher, S. B., Fleischer-Curtain, L. A., & Gines, S. D. (1988). The effects of self-presentation on perceived exertion. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 270-280.
3. Chastain, G., & Landrum, R. E. (Eds.). (1999). Protecting human subjects: Departmental subject pools and institutional review boards. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. Chokron, S., & De Agostini, M. (2000). Reading habits influence aesthetic preference. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 45-49.
5. Eveleth, D. M., & Pillutla, A. (2003). Task demands, task interest, and task performance: Implications for human subjects research and practicing what we preach. Ethics & Behavior, 13, 153-172.
6. Galla, J. P., Frisone, J. D., Jeffrey, L. R., & Gaer, E. P. (1981). Effect of experimenter gender on responses to a sex-role attitude questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 49, 935-940.
7. Goldstein, J. H., Rosnow, R. L., Goodstadt, B., & Suls, J. M. (1972). The "good subject" in verbal operant conditioning research. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 29-33.
8. Hamilton, V. L., Sanders, J., & McKearney, S. J. (1995). Orientations toward authority in an authoritarian state: Moscow in 1990. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 356-365.
9. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2005). International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual (Technical Report A-6). Gainesville: University of Florida.
10. Levine, F. M., & De Simone, L. L. (1991). The effects of experimenter gender on pain report in male and female subjects. Pain, 44, 69-72.
11. Maner, J., Kenrick, D., Becker, D., Delton, A., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C., et al. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107-1120.
12. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
13. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776-783.
14. Paulhus, D. L. (1998). The Paulhus deception scales: BIDR version 7. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
15. Rosnow, R. L. (2002). The nature and role of demand characteristics in scientific inquiry. Prevention & Treatment, 5(1), 37.
16. Rosnow, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1997). People studying people: Artifacts and ethics in behavioral research. New York: Freeman.
17. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
18. Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492-518). New York: Guilford Press.
19. Sigall, H., Aronson, H., & Van Hoose, T. (1970). The cooperative subject: Myth or reality? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-10.
20. Silverman, I., & Shulman, A. D. (1970). A conceptual model of artifact in attitude change studies. Sociometry, 33, 97-107.
21. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 60, 870-883.
22. Stober, J., Dette, D. E., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing continuous and dichotomous scoring of the balanced inventory of desirable responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 370-389.