Observer recorder error as affected by different tasks and different expectancy inducements

Four experiments were designed to investigate the effects of systematic observer/recorder error on experimental results where experimenters had been induced to expect certain results. In the first experiment, experimenters were induced to expect certain outcomes for three different tasks. No observer error nor experimenter-effects were observed. Postexperimental interviews indicated some suspiciousness as well as failure to understand the hypotheses on the part of experimenters. In the second experiment expectancies were induced in observers who did not act as experimenters. No observer effects were noted, and again postexperimental interviews indicated manipulation failure. In the third experiment experimenters were asked to attempt to influence subjects' responses. Three tasks were used, but in two of these tasks observer error was controlled rather than measured. No differences in subjects' responses were noted for any of the measures. However, significant observer/recorder error was noted for both male and female experimenters in the task where such error was measurable. In the fourth experiment experimenters were again asked to influence subjects' responses. For the two tasks used observer error was measured. A predicted Task × Observer Error Interaction was obtained. Again, no differences in subjects' responses were noted.     

Development of strategies for recalling letter sequences

Kindergarten, second-grade, and fourth-grade children (6, 8, and 10 years of age, respectively) were asked to recall letter sequences on a task that required the use of: (a) a verbal strategy; (b) a positional strategy; or (c) either strategy. Additional trials, allowing either strategy, were interspersed among those requiring a verbal or positional strategy; strategy use was determined from performance on these interspersed trials. The results show that children at all grade levels attempted to use a task-appropriate strategy. Performance on the verbal task showed a more marked developmental increase than did performance on the positional task. A second experiment replicated the first with the interspersed trials removed. A third experiment was designed to determine whether letter names interfered with older children's efficient use of a positional strategy. Even with this source of interference removed, the developmental pattern of Experiments 1 and 2 was replicated. There was a Sex by Condition interaction in Experiments 2 and 3 which showed that males do better in the condition requiring a positional strategy, and females do better in the condition requiring a verbal strategy.