Experimenter Bias

[Creepy-]

Experimenter Bias

As scientists, psychologists try to conduct their studies in an objective, unbiased way so that their own views will not influence results. However, objectivity is a goal that scientists strive for, not an accomplished fact that can be taken for granted (MacCoun, 1998). In reality, most researchers have an emotional investment in the outcome of their research. Often they are testing hypotheses that they have developed themselves and that they would like to see supported by the data. It is understandable, then, that experimenter bias is a possible source of error in research.

Experimenter bias occurs when a researcher's expectations or preferences about the outcome of a study influence the results obtained. Experimenter bias can slip through to influence studies in many subtle ways. One problem is that researchers, like others, sometimes see what they want to see. For instance, when experimenters make apparently honest mistakes in recording subjects' responses, the mistakes tend to be heavily slanted in favor of supporting the hypothesis (O'Leary, Kent, & Kanowitz, 1975).

Research by Robert Rosenthal (1976) suggests that experimenter bias may lead researchers to unintentionally influence the behaviour of their subjects. In one study, Rosenthal and Fode (1963) recruited undergraduate psychology students to serve as the "experimenters". The students were told that they would be collecting data for a study of how participants rated the success of people portrayed in photographs. In a pilot study, photos were selected that generated (on the average) neutral ratings on a scale extending from -10 (extreme failure) to +10 (extreme success). Rosenthal and Fode then manipulated the expectations of their experimenters. Half of them were told that they would probably obtain average ratings of -5. The other half were led to expect average ratings of +5. The experimenters were forbidden from conversing with their subjects except for reading some standardized instructions. Even though the photographs were exactly the same for both groups, the experimenters who expected positive ratings obtained significantly higher ratings than those who expected negative ones.

How could the experimenters have swayed the participants' ratings? According to Rosenthal, the experimenters unintentionally influences their subjects by sending subtle non-verbal signals as the experiment progressed. Without realizing it, they sometimes smiled, nodded, or sent other positive cues when participants made ratings that were in line with their expectations. Thus, experimenter bias may influence both researchers' observations and their subjects' behaviour (Rosenthal 1994).

In the realm of Socionics we almost invariably act as both experimenter (or rather, observer) and subject. Due to bias we may ignore information that contradicts with our own ideas, or unintentionally misinterpret the information to comply with our ideas.

The bias also applies to our analysis of others and their perceived type.

I don't know how much we can do about the issue (double-blind studies are quite impractical for us), but I think we should at least be aware of it.

[Sarah]

Thanks for posting this, Ishy. I have been thinking about it since you posted it, and it is a strange and interesting problem. I agree that there may not be much we can do apart from being aware of it. So far this is all I have come up with (it may only apply to me personally):

1. Periodically remind myself that realistically, at any given time, at least some and possibly all of what I think and believe is incorrect. Since I don't know which of my ideas/beliefs are wrong, or how many, I must try to cast doubt on all of them. Seeing other people's biases is a good reminder that I am as blind to my own.

2. Engage in dialogue with others, especially those who disagree. Occasionally this doesn't help, like in a group of people who all agree or come to agree with one another, and thus reinforce biases, but given enough time, new ideas usually arise and mistakes come to light.

[Creepy-]

Thanks for the reply, Sarah! Those are good ideas of yours. I also try to doubt everything, hopefully it works somewhat

[Rick]

Very important topic!

In fact, one of the things that divides professionals and people who are moving towards professionalism from amateurs and quacks is that they recognize that they, too, are prone to experimenter bias. It's more "fun" to believe that your guru or your own conclusions are infallible, but certainly less intellectually honest.

Experimenter bias is a big problem in socionics, and trying to remove it requires mental discipline. It can be a very enlightening task, since it makes you realize the limitations of your own mind and your perception.

If you are typing, you can try to implement certain "good habits" to reduce bias. These habits depend on what method you are using. For example:

1. Typing using photographs:
- gather as many pictures as possible
- ask yourself what personality traits you notice in the pictures without using socionics terms, and write these down or make a point to remember them
- make sure your type version reconciles these non-socionic observations
- show the pictures to other people and see if they see the same traits in the person that you do (I especially like this one)
- formulate why you believe the person to be of a certain type
- try to imagine that the person is of a different type (try going through the whole socion); could any others possibly fit?

2. Typing in real life:
- again, try to describe the person in non-socionic terms; simply describe obvious traits and behavioral and thinking styles -- anything that you can pick up that you are sure of
- study your internal reactions to the person (okay, this takes a lot of previous experience and self-knowledge); can you tell how you are reacting to the person? why? try to separate 'socionic' reactions (functional interaction) from non-socionic reactions (i.e. the person shares your views, interests, or tastes)
- observe how other people respond to this person; try to formulate how they interact with him or her and why
- have other people describe the person without using socionics terminology; everything should fit together fairly neatly

[porntips]

Alphas are immune to experimenter bias.

[Creepy-]

Alphas are immune to experimenter bias.

[Rick]

Alphas are immune to experimenter bias.

Perhaps, but only because they don't perform experiments .

[porntips]

We don't need to.

[porntips]

My ENTP intuition (and it probably won't take too much to convince me otherwise) is that it's futile to try and make socionics more 'objective' in this early stage of its development. Science is boring - the most interesting discoveries are the result of thought experiments and freak accidents - not methodical lab work. And science, despite what "research psychologists" would have you believe, has absolutely nothing useful to say about the mind.

[Creepy-]

My ENTP intuition (and it probably won't take too much to convince me otherwise) is that it's futile to try and make socionics more 'objective' in this early stage of its development. Science is boring - the most interesting discoveries are the result of thought experiments and freak accidents - not methodical lab work. And science, despite what "research psychologists" would have you believe, has absolutely nothing useful to say about the mind.

Oh? Want to back this up?

[porntips]

Relativity - thought experiment, later confirmed by experimentation
Rutherford & the neutron - freak accident
Penicillin - freak accident
Evolution - thought experiment later confirmed by evidence

And experimental psychology is just a joke. Gutless speculation based on surface-level correlations in narrow domains. Its like trying to figure out how a computer works without access to the source code.

[Creepy-]

How about examples of psychological endeavours? Or neurology? That might be more compelling.

[porntips]

Name something exciting or new that's been found by research psychological endavours.

Neurology, (taking the mind-as-computer paradigm which is fair enough as they're both emergent systems) can't have anything useful to say about the mind. It's almost impossible to traverse the abstraction barriers created by emergence from the bottom up.

[Rocky]

I think these biases happen in socionics all the time...

For example, with inter-type relationships. I think some people tend to take these too ridgly (sorry). They may look at say, me an Ishy ( ), superegos, and say something like "Super-ego have their functions conflicting with each other, so, you two are now duals," and one of us is now ESTP or ENFP.

They seem to do this with the functions, too (sometimes ignoring the ID).

I think a lot of socionists "type" people and claim to know their type, without actually verifying it first. This would also lead to misconceptions about types in favor of sparring the socionists ego. Pretty much, everyone wants to be right, and whatever they think they believe is right. This sort of inflatted arrogance is extremely common even among people on sites like this with little (if any) actual experience on the matter. They all think that they are the "guru".

*sigh*

[Creepy-]

Name something exciting or new that's been found by research psychological endavours.

You're the one making a claim, the onus is on you to back it up, not on me

Neurology, (taking the mind-as-computer paradigm which is fair enough as they're both emergent systems) can't have anything useful to say about the mind. It's almost impossible to traverse the abstraction barriers created by emergence from the bottom up.

It can't? Perhaps we have different definitions of what makes the "mind".

[Creepy-]

I think these biases happen in socionics all the time...

For example, with inter-type relationships. I think some people tend to take these too ridgly (sorry). They may look at say, me an Ishy ( ), superegos, and say something like "Super-ego have their functions conflicting with each other, so, you two are now duals," and one of us is now ESTP or ENFP.

They seem to do this with the functions, too (sometimes ignoring the ID).

I think a lot of socionists "type" people and claim to know their type, without actually verifying it first. This would also lead to misconceptions about types in favor of sparring the socionists ego. Pretty much, everyone wants to be right, and whatever they think they believe is right. This sort of inflatted arrogance is extremely common even among people on sites like this with little (if any) actual experience on the matter. They all think that they are the "guru".

*sigh*

*sighs with Rocky*

I don't think we're like duals, but our "opposing" quadras certainly don't get in the way of us getting along.

And I think people should give more consideration to the ID.