Experimenter influence is something that has been brought up a lot as a criticism of psychology; however, we are not the only science that has influences of experimenter bias. I feel that in fact we are one of the few sciences that actually control for experimenter bias.
First of all I feel that it is necessary to address what experimenter bias actually is. It is the idea that the person conducting the study has preconceived ideas over its outcome, and this in turn influences they way the research is carried out, and any errors that may occur (allpsych*).
As psychologists we are very conscious of the fact we are working with very very complex living humans, compared to some of the other sciences that do not rely on information from people. But you are probably thinking ‘what does that fact we are working with humans have to do with experimenter bias?’, well this is where our rigid experimental controls come in to play. Working with people there are a lot of precautions to not openly or covertly influence the participants in our studies, such as a double blind experiment.
Double blind experiments are when neither the participants or the researcher know who is in the control condition and who is in the experimental group**. Sounds like a fantastic idea in theory doesn’t it, all experiments should be conducted like this so that there is no possible influence the experimenter can have on the participants. However, in practise this is a lot more difficult to achieve, because sometimes there are different procedures between the control and experimental. An example of this might be an imitation experiment, where in the control group children do not see the target action whereas in the experimental group they will. It is therefore not possible for the researcher to not know which group they are in based on the procedure. Another issues with double blind experiments are the fact that there is not always a control group. For example in a repeated measure study there is only one participant and therefore influence may be seen across the condition.
So; what does this tell us about researchers being objective? It shows that even though there are measures to prevent experimenter influence on participants, whether they mean to or not, there are time when objectiveness is just not completely possible to achieve when researchers have preconceived ideas of the outcome of the experiment.
* http://allpsych.com/dictionary/e.html
** http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-double-blind-test.htm
Methodology Musings 
I do agree that we are one of the few sciences that controls for human error to the max compared to others that solely think away from human study. Because human investigation from Biologists, Chemists etc this could lead to them essentially missing something which us as Psychologists may see. With regard to experimenter biases, as I have said before we are all human and we all have wants, needs and hopes. This effects everything not just our research and so because it effects and generalises across all…should we have to control for this error? What if some studies do control for Exp biases and some don’t can it be relied and applied as much as one that may have been too stringently controlled? Another way to look at it is that experimenters are not the only ones that have a bit of bias about them. Social desirability bias from the participant can also effect the out come of a study by trying to do as much right as possible trying to make the research happy. How we act and live is never 100% objective as otherwise we are all not human so should our research seek for 100% objectivity?? Who knows!
Great blog 🙂
Pingback: TA- Comments « So…what do you think?
I think its hard for a researcher to be truly objective when analyzing their own research findings especially when data being collected is open to interpretation. If a researcher has put alot of time and effort into conducting a study then they are going to want to find soemthing significant. Which may lead them to interpret their data with rose tinted glasses i.e. they see what they want to see. This is more evident in research which focusus on qualitiative data such as open ended interviews and observational studies where the researcher interprets a persons behaviour.
There are ways to counter this problem so the results are more objective. The most effective way is by adding other people to observe a behaviour enables inter rater reliability which removes to an extent the problem of a researcher just marking behaviours that fit their hypothesis. An example of a study that used inter rater reliability is the Bobo doll experiment by Bandura (1961) where observers constantly compared and calibrated their ratings of behaviours to make sure they were similar.
http://www.experiment-resources.com/bobo-doll-experiment.html
True objectivity is difficult to achieve in research. One way of doing this is to ask an independent individual, who has no stake/ nothing to gain from the results of the experiment or even any idea of what the experiment is being conducted for, to conduct the experiment. This way, if there was a part in the experiment where the participant had to choose something based on what the researcher said/showed them then the researcher would not unconsciously influence the participants decision. This method of maintaining objectivity is used in studies to do with moral choices in children, where the experimenter holds out two soft toys (previously involved in a “role play”) and the child has to choose one of them; the experimenter holding the toys does not know which toy was the “bad one” in the role play which was acted out to the child.
Biases in experiments could occur however, because of funding and resources. At the minute, obtaining money to conduct research could be difficult, and some companies could potentially use this as a way of asking researchers to only publish research involving their new drug/treatment etc. which makes it look good.
To conclude, true objectivity is difficult to achieve but control groups, independent researchers and non-biased people being involved will help maintain objectivity.
Objectivity is important in research, but let us not forget the power of subjectivity. In planning my literature review this week, my project supervisor pointed out that despite identical results within the research we are reviewing, each of us within our group will create our own scientific story. This is also true of individual researchers; I feel that by controlling for experimenter bias in influencing the results (which, as you said, IS important), this should not mean that the interpretation of those results also needs to be entirely objective. Preconceived expectations may influence how a researcher presents their results, but as long as this is not abused with extreme data manipulation, subjectivity can actually advance our knowledge by highlighting angles and ideas that different researchers may not have thought of. The only way to be thorough within one specific area of research is to actually allow the diversity of different ideas and interpretations.
I really enjoyed reading your blog, it was easy to understand and obviously well thought out, and I also agree with the ideas you put forward. Double blind techniques are, like you say, useful but hard to implement, but they are the ideal really…. The title of your blog ‘Is it possible for a researcher to be truly objective when conducting their experiments?’ got me thinking, is it actually?? In my opinion, any researcher conducting any experiment will be looking for some kind of result, otherwise they wouldn’t be conducting the experiment in the first place. Therefore to me, a researcher can never truely be 100% objective, as they are always going to be looking for a result. There is even the issue of researchers going to the extreme to find a result, such as inventing their own results (for example Diederik Stapel), or the company who’s funding them telling them what to find, or hiding some results that they *do* find (for example GlaxoSmithKline). Basically, what I’m saying is that in my opinion no researcher can ever be completely 100% objective when conducting their experiments.
Pingback: For my TA – comments due by wednesday 14th march « suuzblog
It must be difficult for a researcher to design a truly objective piece of applied research. Often they want to find a specific result to prove their own worth or theory to be true. It makes sense that the methods and design predict a reliable outcome in applied research. However in theoretical research the conclusion is not predicted. In this situation objectivity is more obvious as the experiment does not pursue an end goal. In “Reason and the Aim of Science, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach”, Karl Popper says that true objectivity doesn’t exist in research and that if it does we won’t know what we are doing. Popper’s philosophy is similar to the differences between applied and theoretical research or your example of double blind experiments. In double blind experiments and theoretical research the researcher knows much less about the outcomes that a typical scientific, applied piece of research. Cost (monetary, time etc) is often a negative against blind or theoretical research and so applied is far more common. In applied research, if objectivity is a fairly consistent bias it can add up to stats error. Daston and Galison (2007) said in their book “How To Be Objective” that the persona of the subject and researcher themselves are integral to science. They say that great scientific personalities have shaped science rather than hindered it through altering their skills to fulfil an unobtainable “true objectivity”. I feel that their ideas are a good conclusion – that instead of pursue true objectivity we should appreciate the complexities of the researchers and their great minds as a force pushing research forward not back. 🙂
http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/how-to-be-objective