Psychological research is conducted in a number of areas including, but not limited to psychobiology, human development, social psychology, psychotherapy, child psychology and personality (Jackson, 2008 and Kling, 1971). Wilhelm Wundt, with the first laboratory at the University of Leipzig in 1876 (Kling, 1971) exposed formal experimentation to the scientific method. The scientific method had been applied to psychological research previously, but not as controlled. These experiments, when done efficiently, and following a set of rules and guidelines, continue to further the knowledge of psychology. The laboratory approach to study, which “entails observing behavior in a contrived and controlled situation” (Jackson, 2008) brings with it issues that are threats to the internal validity, called confounds . One of the threats of a study is the participant effect due to demand characteristics. (Jackson, 2008)
The participant effect, according to Jackson (2008) in Research Methods, is when the participant will affect the results of the study is a conscious or unconscious way. A demand characteristic, as coined by Martin T. Orne (1962) which is one such example of a participant effect, is when a participant will give their answers, not necessarily based on the truth, but rather according to what they think the researcher has hypothesized. Orne came to his conclusions on demand characteristics based on post-experiment talks with the research participants. (Rosnow, 2002) They would ask questions, such as “Did I ruin the experiment”. Orne learned that what subjects meant was “‘Did I perform well in my role as experimental subject?’ or ‘Did my behavior demonstrate what the study was designed to show?'” (Orne, 1962). Demand characteristics, according to Banyard (2002), can occur through four different roles by the participant. The roles include the good participant, the bad participant, the faithful participant, and the apprehensive participant. A good participant will attempt to try and figure out what the researching is looking to prove, and then try to help support the researcher. A bad participant attempts to do just the opposite, and ruin the results of an experiment. A faithful participant will do exactly as instructed while an apprehensive participant will behave in a way he thinks is socially acceptable due to what he fears the researcher will think of him.
Demand characteristics can be present in every experiment. “Some of these demand characteristics are explicitly present in the experimenter’s instructions to the subject, but many of them are implicit in the solicitation materials, campus scuttlebutt, incidental remarks made by the research assistants, and hints communicated by the procedures. The important thing to understand is that demand characteristics are not just communicated by the experimenter…. Rather, some demand characteristics are brought into the experiment by the subject, whereas others arise as the experiment proceeds; in either case, they are everywhere” (Kilstrom, 2002).
In addition to complicating the data analysis, demand characteristics potentially undermine the generalizability of research to behavior in the natural environment where similar cues are absent and may raise concerns about what Orne (1970) called the “ecological validity of the psychological experiment.” As a result to the possibility of demand characteristics in any experiment there is a need to better understand how they function and how data should be interpreted. The influence on demand characteristics in therapy is a valid consideration. According to Wayne G. Whitehouse, Emily Carota Orne, and David F. Dinges (2002) clients who undergo therapy can have preconceived notions of different forms of therapy and different therapists. “These preconceptions, in turn, should modulate their level of commitment to pursuing treatment and the behavioral investment they are willing to make” (Whitehouse, et al., 2002).
Many studies have been conducted to observe the effects of demand characteristics in experiments as well as in psychological treatment methods. Inadvertent termination of hypnosis with hypnotized and simulating subjects, a study by Ornes and Evans (1966), used a hypnosis experiment that revealed a demand characteristic. This experiment was under the guise of an experiment to study the physiology of hypnotism. The participants were strapped to a polygraph, put under hypnosis by a tape-recorded voice, and then given suggestions while a research assistant observed them. One of the suggestions was to tap a foot to imagined music with their eyes closed. There was then a faked blown fuse, which caused the desk lamp and tape recorder to turn off, but not an overhead lamp and polygraph. Through a one-way mirror the researchers were able to observe the participants reactions. The assistant would turn back on the lights and then return 30 minutes later. They found the participant reactions startling. The participants kept their eyes closed for an average of 25 minutes, continued tapping for 17, kept their arms fixed to the chair for the polygraph for 23 minutes. When the assistant returned they seemed to still be deeply hypnotized. Another experiment was conducted were the same situation was repeated, but this time there were no lights left on at all, and the one way mirror was more inconspicuous. In this run the participants stopped their tapping and opened their eyes almost immediately. When the assistant returned they faked going back into a hypnotic state. When the research was looked over it was concluded that the participants in the first study thought they were being watched and the blown fuse was a ruse, while the second group too the blown fuse to be genuine. The participants who thought they were still being watched acted as they thought the researchers wanted them to act. This was a perfect example of a demand characteristic.
Experimental and Psychotherapeutic Demand Characteristics and the Cognitive Therapy Rationale: An Analogue Study by Jonathan W. Kanter, Robert J. Kohlenberg, and Elizabeth F. Loftus (2004) looks at another study conducted. In this study they took 198 undergraduate students who had volunteered for the study in exchange for credit. The study took a treatment rationale for depression based on cognitive therapy and manipulated it. This rationale states that an ABC sequence occurs pertaining to thoughts. A represents a recent event, B represents automatic thoughts about the event, and C represents the resulting affective response. In the study they handed out pamphlets using this rationale to half the participants. The other half of the participants received a pamphlet outlining an ACB approach to thought sequence. Bringing the order of thought to be an event, an affective response, and then a thought about the event. After these manuals were distributed and studied the participants were given a test to analyze what they believe their personal process to be. Those with the ABC pamphlets stated the order was ABC, and those with ACB stated it was ACB. This study concluded that the power of suggestion was very strong. The participants were led to believe, implicitly, that they were being asked to recognize a pattern of thought and affect, and then support the pattern. A demand characteristic could be the reasoning behind their answers.
Many more studies on demand theory have been conducted, and almost all of them have come to the same conclusion. The studies ,though, seem to focus more on a participant trying to play the “good” role and help with the experiment. Studies on the other roles a participant may play are important. All facets of this effect are important to research. A study on participants who may follow the role of an apprehensive is due. It is to be hypothesized that participants whom are faced with personal questions will answer along the lines they believe the researcher would commend them for, as opposed to participants who are given an anonymous survey. The ramifications of such studies will allow researchers to further understand and disseminate their data to be more applicable to the study. Therapists should explore to what depths patients may hold out on information they deem inappropriate, personal, or embarrassing. The current research has brought great understanding to research and therapy, but it needs expanding to include the broader reasons for demand characteristics.
References
Banyard, Philip (2002). Psychology in Practice: Health. Portland, OR: Hodder and
Stoughton
Jackson, S. (2008). Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Kanter, J., Kohlenberg, R. J., & Loftus, E. F. (2004). Experimental Psychotherapeutic
Demand Characteristics and the Cognitive Therapy Rationale: An Analogue
Study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 28, No. 2
Kihlstrom, J. (2002). Demand characteristics in the laboratory and the clinic:
Conversations and collaborations with subjects and patients. Prevention &
Treatment, 5, Article 36.
Kling, J. W., & Riggs, L. (1971). Experimental Psychology. NY: Holt.
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.
Orne, M. T. (1970). Hypnosis, motivation, and the ecological validity of the
psychological experiment. In W. J. Arnold & M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation (pp. 187-265). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Orne, M. T., & Evans, F. J. (1966). Inadvertent termination of hypnosis with
hypnotized and simulating subjects. International Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Hypnosis, 14, 71- 78.
Rosnow, R. L. (2002). The nature and role of demand characteristics in scientific
inquiry. Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 37.
Wayne G. Whitehouse, Emily Carota Orne, and David F. Dinges, D., Orne, E., &
Whitehouse, G. (2002). Demand Characteristics: Toward an Understanding of
Their Meaning and Application in Clinical Practice. Prevention & Treatment,
5,Article 34.
