Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
0146167208331255v1
35/5/635    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Edlund, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Kutter, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Edlund, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Kutter, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Whatever Happens in the Laboratory Stays in the Laboratory: The Prevalence and Prevention of Participant Crosstalk

John E. Edlund

Northern Illinois University, jedlund{at}hamilton.edu

Brad J. Sagarin

Northern Illinois University

John J. Skowronski

Northern Illinois University

Sara J. Johnson

Northern Illinois University

Joseph Kutter

Northern Illinois University

Foreknowledge in research participants can undermine the validity of psychological research. Three studies examined a potentially major source of foreknowledge: participant crosstalk in an undergraduate subject pool. Participants in all three studies attempted to win extra experimental credit by guessing the number of beans in a jar—a nearly impossible task without foreknowledge of the answer. Participants guessing incorrectly were told the correct answer by the experimenter. In Study 1, 23 of 809 participants showed clear evidence of having received the correct answer from a prior participant. In Study 2, a classroom-based treatment asking students not to talk about experiments to other students significantly reduced crosstalk rates. In Study 3, a laboratory-based treatment supplemented the classroom-based treatment. After revealing the number of beans in the jar, the experimenter obtained a verbal commitment from participants that they would not tell anyone about the experiment. The combined treatment nearly eliminated crosstalk.

Key Words: crosstalk • methodology • participant pool • research methods

This version was published on May 1, 2009

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 35, No. 5, 635-642 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167208331255
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?