Demand characteristics and investigator effects | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 4
- 18 min read
Updated: 6 days ago
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 50 minutes
Participants and researchers can unintentionally alter the outcome of a psychological investigation. This Demand characteristics and investigator effects A-Level Psychology revision page explains how participants may respond to clues about a study and how an investigator’s expectations or behaviour may influence results. You will also learn how careful planning, standardisation and objective recording can reduce these effects. Understanding these influences is essential when interpreting research findings and deciding whether a change in the dependent variable was genuinely caused by the independent variable.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define demand characteristics.
Explain how demand characteristics may influence participants’ behaviour.
Define investigator effects.
Explain how investigators may influence participants or the recording of results.
Distinguish demand characteristics from investigator effects.
Apply both concepts to unfamiliar research scenarios.
Suggest and justify practical ways of reducing their influence.
Revision Notes 📚
Why can participants and investigators affect research?
Psychologists often aim to investigate whether an independent variable affects a dependent variable. However, the people involved in the investigation may also influence the results.
Participants may notice clues about:
The purpose of the investigation.
The behaviour expected from them.
The result the researcher appears to want.
The differences between experimental conditions.
Investigators may also affect research through:
The way they give instructions.
Their tone of voice or body language.
The amount of help or encouragement they provide.
Their expectations about the likely outcome.
The way they record or interpret behaviour.
These influences may become extraneous variables because they affect the dependent variable independently of the intended manipulation. Identifying them therefore builds on recognising independent, dependent and extraneous variables.
What are demand characteristics?
Demand characteristics are features of an investigation that allow participants to work out its purpose or form expectations about how they are supposed to behave.
Participants do not enter a study without thoughts or expectations. They may notice:
The wording of the instructions.
The title or description of the investigation.
The behaviour of the researcher.
The tasks used.
Differences between conditions.
Questions that repeatedly focus on the same issue.
The order in which activities are completed.
These features may suggest the likely research aim or predicted outcome.
Once participants believe they understand the investigation, they may change their natural behaviour.
How demand characteristics affect behaviour
A participant who thinks they know the aim may respond in several ways.
They might:
Behave in the way they think the researcher expects.
Try especially hard to produce a particular result.
Deliberately behave differently from the expected outcome.
Monitor their behaviour more carefully than usual.
Give answers they think are appropriate for the study.
Change their behaviour because they know they are being investigated.
The important point is that the participant’s behaviour may no longer reflect how they would naturally respond to the independent variable.
Example of demand characteristics
A psychologist investigates whether background music reduces concentration.
Each participant completes:
A concentration task in silence.
The same type of task while loud music is played.
Participants may recognise that the psychologist is comparing concentration with and without music. They might assume the researcher expects poorer performance in the music condition.
Some participants may then:
Try harder while the music is playing.
Deliberately allow themselves to become distracted.
Change the speed at which they complete the task.
Their concentration scores may therefore be influenced by their expectations as well as by the music.
Demand characteristics in repeated measures designs
Demand characteristics may be particularly likely in a repeated measures design because each participant experiences every condition.
Participants can compare the conditions and identify what has changed.
For example, a participant might notice that:
One task is completed in silence and another with noise.
One set of instructions is encouraging and another is neutral.
One image is presented briefly and another for longer.
One condition involves a group and another involves working alone.
This may make the independent variable and research aim more obvious.
An independent groups design may make the comparison less obvious because each participant experiences only one condition. However, this does not remove demand characteristics completely. Participants may still infer the aim from the task, instructions or researcher’s behaviour.
You can revise the relationship between participant allocation and research effects in repeated measures, independent groups and matched pairs designs.
Demand characteristics in laboratory research
A highly controlled procedure can make participants aware that they are in a psychological investigation.
Unfamiliar tasks, specialist equipment and tightly controlled instructions may encourage participants to search for clues about the researcher’s aim.
For example, a participant might wonder:
Why a particular object has been placed in the room.
Why certain words are repeated.
Why the investigator is recording a particular response.
Why one part of the task differs from another.
The participant may then alter their behaviour based on their interpretation of these clues.
This does not mean that all laboratory research is invalid. It means researchers should consider whether the procedure itself encourages participants to behave differently.
Demand characteristics in observations
Demand characteristics may occur in an observation when participants know they are being observed.
Participants might:
Behave more politely.
Follow rules more carefully.
Avoid behaviour they think will be judged negatively.
Perform an activity more carefully than usual.
For example, students who know that classroom behaviour is being recorded may remain on task more consistently than they usually would.
The observation may then record behaviour produced partly by awareness of the study rather than typical behaviour.
Demand characteristics in questionnaires and interviews
The wording or focus of questions may reveal what the researcher is investigating.
For example, a questionnaire containing several questions about whether mobile phones interrupt studying may make the expected relationship obvious.
Participants may then change their responses because they believe:
The researcher expects phones to be distracting.
Certain answers are more acceptable.
Their responses are being evaluated.
Their previous answers should remain consistent.
In an interview, the interviewer’s reactions may also indicate which responses appear desirable. This creates an overlap between demand characteristics and investigator effects.
Demand characteristics and validity
Demand characteristics may reduce validity because the researcher may not be measuring the participant’s natural response to the independent variable.
Suppose participants score more highly in an experimental condition because they guessed that improvement was expected and tried harder.
The researcher might incorrectly conclude that the independent variable caused the higher scores.
The results may instead reflect:
The independent variable.
The participant’s interpretation of the study.
An interaction between the two.
Demand characteristics therefore provide an alternative explanation for the findings.
This connection can be developed further when revising the different types and measurement of validity.
How to identify demand characteristics in a scenario
Look for evidence that participants:
Guessed the aim.
Noticed the difference between conditions.
Discussed what result was expected.
Changed their effort after recognising the purpose.
Gave answers based on what they thought the researcher wanted.
Behaved unusually because they knew they were being studied.
A strong answer should identify the clue and explain how it could alter the dependent variable.
Example
Several participants said that they knew the researcher expected people to recall fewer words while music was playing.
A strong explanation would be:
This suggests demand characteristics because participants identified the expected effect of the independent variable. They may change their effort in the music condition, so differences in recall might be caused partly by their expectations rather than by the music itself.
What are investigator effects?
Investigator effects occur when the investigator’s behaviour, characteristics or expectations influence participants or the collection and recording of data.
The investigator may affect research without intending to do so.
Investigator effects can occur during:
Recruitment.
Allocation to conditions.
Delivery of instructions.
Presentation of materials.
Interaction with participants.
Observation of behaviour.
Scoring of responses.
Interpretation of ambiguous data.
Investigator behaviour
Researchers may behave differently towards participants in different conditions.
Differences could include:
Giving more detailed instructions.
Using a more encouraging tone.
Smiling more frequently.
Allowing additional time.
Answering more questions.
Offering hints or assistance.
Appearing more patient.
Showing disappointment or approval.
These behaviours can influence participant performance.
Example of investigator behaviour
A psychologist investigates whether encouraging feedback increases persistence on a puzzle.
The independent variable is intended to be:
Encouraging feedback.
Neutral feedback.
However, the investigator also speaks more warmly, smiles more and gives additional hints in the encouraging condition.
Participants may persist for longer because of:
The planned verbal feedback.
The investigator’s warmer behaviour.
The additional help.
The investigator’s behaviour has introduced extra differences between the conditions.
Investigator expectations
An investigator may have expectations about:
Which condition will produce higher scores.
How a particular participant is likely to behave.
Which hypothesis will be supported.
Which responses should be placed into a category.
These expectations may influence the investigation.
For example, an investigator who expects high performance in one condition might:
Explain the task more clearly.
Give more encouragement.
Wait longer before ending the task.
Interpret an unclear answer as correct.
Record borderline behaviour in the expected category.
The influence may be subtle and unintentional.
Investigator effects on participants
The investigator may directly influence participant behaviour.
For example:
A researcher expects participants who receive positive feedback to persist for longer on a puzzle. The researcher gives these participants more eye contact and encouragement.
The participants may respond to the researcher’s behaviour rather than only to the planned independent variable.
This could create a systematic difference between conditions.
Investigator effects on data recording
Investigator effects can also occur when the researcher records or scores results.
This is particularly important where judgement is required.
Examples include:
Deciding whether an answer is sufficiently accurate.
Classifying behaviour into an observational category.
Deciding when a behaviour begins or ends.
Interpreting an unclear interview response.
Choosing whether a response should be included.
If scoring criteria are vague, the investigator’s expectations may influence these decisions.
Investigator effects in observations
Observers may interpret behaviour differently based on their expectations.
Suppose an observer expects one group of children to behave more aggressively. An ambiguous interaction might be recorded as aggression for that group but as play for another group.
Clear behavioural categories are therefore important.
A category such as “acts aggressively” requires considerable interpretation. A category such as “hits, kicks or pushes another person” is more observable and precise.
Investigator effects in interviews
The interviewer may influence participants through:
Tone of voice.
Facial expression.
Follow-up questions.
Approval or disapproval.
The amount of time allowed for an answer.
Differences in prompting.
For example, an interviewer may respond enthusiastically to one type of answer but move quickly past another.
Participants may notice these reactions and adjust later responses.
Structured interviews can reduce some variation because the interviewer uses prepared questions and standardised prompts. An unstructured interview allows greater flexibility, but this also creates more opportunity for the interviewer to influence the direction of the conversation.
Investigator effects in experiments
Investigator effects may occur when:
Different researchers conduct different conditions.
Instructions are not standardised.
Timing is controlled manually and inconsistently.
Researchers know which condition each participant is completing.
Scoring requires subjective judgement.
Researchers expect a particular outcome.
For example, if one researcher conducts the experimental condition and another conducts the control condition, differences in researcher behaviour may become an extraneous variable.
Investigator effects and reliability
Investigator effects may reduce reliability if researchers do not apply the same procedure or scoring criteria consistently.
For example:
One investigator allows partial answers to receive a mark.
Another investigator requires a complete answer.
One observer records a behaviour as helping.
Another records the same behaviour as talking.
The resulting data depend partly on who collected or scored them.
Standardised procedures and objective scoring rules may improve consistency. This is explored further in measuring and improving reliability across research methods.
Demand characteristics and investigator effects compared
Feature | Demand characteristics | Investigator effects |
Main source of influence | The participant’s interpretation of the investigation | The investigator’s behaviour, characteristics or expectations |
What happens? | Participants change their behaviour because they notice clues about the study | The investigator influences participants or the recording of data |
Example | A participant guesses the expected result and changes their effort | A researcher gives one condition more encouragement |
Possible consequence | Behaviour no longer reflects a natural response to the IV | Conditions or scores are treated differently |
Main threat | An alternative explanation for the findings | An alternative explanation or inconsistency in data collection |
Possible control | Reduce unnecessary clues and avoid making comparisons obvious | Standardise interaction, measurement and scoring |
The concepts can occur together.
For example, an investigator’s enthusiastic reaction may reveal the expected outcome. This is an investigator effect because the researcher behaves differently, but it may also create demand characteristics by giving the participant a clue about the study.
Reducing demand characteristics
Researchers can reduce demand characteristics by making the purpose and expectations of the study less obvious, while still meeting ethical requirements.
Possible procedures include:
Using neutral instructions.
Avoiding language that suggests the expected outcome.
Removing unnecessary clues from materials.
Avoiding titles that reveal the research aim.
Using an independent groups design where experiencing all conditions would reveal the comparison.
Ensuring participants do not receive different unplanned information.
Piloting the procedure to identify obvious clues.
Using a consistent explanation of the task.
Debriefing participants appropriately after the investigation.
The procedure used must still deal appropriately with ethical issues. Researchers should not simply remove information participants need in order to make an informed decision or participate safely. Ethical design is considered more fully in ethical issues and the British Psychological Society’s code.
Using neutral instructions
Instructions should tell participants what they need to do without revealing an unnecessary expectation.
Consider the following instruction:
This study is testing whether distracting music makes people perform badly.
This clearly suggests the expected result.
A more neutral instruction would be:
You will complete a word-learning task under one of the study conditions.
The second instruction gives less information about the predicted outcome.
Reducing clues in research materials
Researchers should review:
Task titles.
Repeated wording.
Differences between conditions.
Labels on equipment.
Question order.
Explanations provided to participants.
For example, labelling a condition “high-distraction condition” may reveal the expected effect. A neutral label such as “condition B” would provide fewer clues.
Selecting an appropriate experimental design
A repeated measures design may reveal the manipulation because participants experience every condition.
Where this creates a serious risk of demand characteristics, an independent groups design could be used so that each participant experiences only one condition.
However, this introduces the possibility of participant differences between groups. Researchers must weigh one problem against another and use appropriate controls, such as random allocation.
Piloting for demand characteristics
A pilot study may reveal that participants:
Guess the aim.
Ask whether a particular result is expected.
Notice a repeated pattern.
Change their strategy between conditions.
Interpret instructions in an unintended way.
The researcher can then revise the materials or procedure.
This shows how testing a procedure before the main investigation may improve research quality.
Reducing investigator effects
Investigator effects can be reduced by limiting opportunities for researchers to treat participants or results differently.
Possible procedures include:
Using standardised instructions.
Following a written procedure.
Giving the same assistance to every participant.
Keeping timing consistent.
Using objective measurements.
Preparing clear scoring criteria.
Training investigators and observers.
Using clear behavioural categories.
Automating instructions or data recording where appropriate.
Ensuring allocation does not depend on investigator choice.
Checking agreement between observers where observational judgement is involved.
Standardised instructions and procedures
A prepared script can ensure that each participant receives the same information.
A standardised procedure should specify:
The exact instructions.
The time allowed.
How questions should be answered.
What assistance may be provided.
How materials are presented.
How responses are measured.
How the participant is debriefed.
This reduces opportunities for an investigator to behave differently between participants or conditions.
These procedures are covered in greater depth in random allocation, counterbalancing, randomisation and standardisation.
Objective measurement
An objective measurement requires less personal interpretation.
For example:
More subjective measurement | More objective measurement |
How well the participant remembered the material | Number of correct words recalled |
How interested the participant appeared | Number of task-related questions asked |
Whether an answer was good | Score awarded using prepared criteria |
Whether the participant persisted | Number of seconds before stopping the task |
Clear measurement rules reduce the investigator’s freedom to interpret the same response differently.
Clear scoring criteria
Researchers should decide how responses will be scored before examining the results.
For a word-recall task, the criteria might state:
One mark for each correctly recalled target word.
Repeated words receive no additional marks.
Words not on the original list receive no marks.
Minor spelling errors are accepted where the intended word is clear.
The maximum score is 20.
The same criteria should be applied to every participant.
Training investigators
Researchers and observers should practise using the procedure before the main study.
Training might involve:
Reading the standardised instructions.
Practising the timing of each stage.
Applying scoring criteria to sample responses.
Using behavioural categories with practice material.
Discussing how unusual situations should be handled.
Training reduces the likelihood that different investigators will apply the procedure in different ways.
Using more than one observer
Where behaviour must be classified, more than one observer can record the same behaviour independently.
The records can then be compared to examine whether the observers agreed.
If agreement is low, the researchers may need to:
Clarify the behavioural categories.
Improve observer training.
Revise the observation schedule.
Remove categories that require excessive interpretation.
This does not automatically remove investigator effects, but it can reveal inconsistency in recording.
Automated presentation and recording
Where appropriate, technology can be used to:
Present instructions.
Control the timing of stimuli.
Randomise item order.
Record response times.
Score closed-response tasks.
For example, a computer programme can present every participant with the same instructions and allow exactly the same response time.
Automation may reduce variation in investigator behaviour. However, the researcher must still ensure that the programme and equipment work correctly and that participants understand the procedure.
Random allocation and investigator choice
If an investigator decides personally which participant enters each condition, expectations could influence allocation.
Using random allocation means that condition assignment depends on chance rather than researcher judgement.
For example, an investigator cannot place participants who appear highly motivated into the condition expected to perform best.
Random allocation does not remove investigator effects during later stages, but it reduces influence over participant assignment.
Standardisation does not solve every problem
A standardised procedure may reduce investigator effects, but it does not guarantee that:
Participants interpret instructions identically.
Researchers have no expectations.
All scoring decisions are objective.
Demand characteristics disappear.
Unexpected events will not occur.
Controls reduce the influence of these effects rather than necessarily eliminating them.
Strong examination answers should therefore use language such as:
“May reduce…”
“Makes it less likely that…”
“Limits the opportunity for…”
“Improves consistency by…”
Avoid unsupported claims that a control completely removes every source of bias.
Applying the concepts to a research scenario
Consider this investigation:
A psychologist investigates whether encouraging feedback affects puzzle performance. The psychologist personally conducts both conditions. In the encouraging condition, the psychologist smiles, gives additional hints and tells participants that most people perform well. In the neutral condition, the psychologist avoids eye contact and gives no additional help. Several participants correctly guess the expected result.
Demand characteristics
Participants who guess that encouragement is expected to improve performance may change their effort. The measured difference may therefore reflect expectations as well as the feedback.
Investigator effects
The psychologist gives additional hints and behaves more positively in one condition. These unplanned differences may influence performance independently of the intended feedback.
Improvements
The psychologist could:
Use neutral information that does not reveal the expected outcome.
Prepare a standardised script for each condition.
Specify exactly what feedback is provided.
Give no additional hints in either condition.
Keep tone, timing and assistance consistent.
Use an objective measure such as the number of correctly completed puzzle sections.
Pilot the instructions to check whether the aim is obvious.
Identifying the source of an influence
When reading an exam scenario, ask:
Did the participant notice something and alter their behaviour?
This suggests demand characteristics.
Did the researcher behave differently or make a subjective judgement?
This suggests investigator effects.
Did both occur?
Explain each one separately and show how they are connected.
Writing an effective application answer
A strong application point should include:
The relevant feature of the scenario.
The named concept.
The possible effect on behaviour or data.
A suitable control where requested.
Example
The researcher smiles more at participants in condition A.
A developed response would be:
This is an investigator effect because the researcher behaves differently towards participants in condition A. The additional positive attention may increase participants’ motivation, so their scores could be affected by the researcher rather than only by the independent variable. The researcher should follow a standardised script and keep non-verbal behaviour as consistent as possible across conditions.
Demand characteristics and investigator effects in research evaluation
When evaluating an investigation, do not merely state that demand characteristics or investigator effects are possible.
Explain:
Which feature creates the effect.
How behaviour or scoring might change.
What alternative explanation this creates.
Whether the effect is likely in the specific method or design.
How the procedure could be improved.
Weak evaluation:
The study may have demand characteristics.
Stronger evaluation:
Because the same participants completed both conditions, they could compare the tasks and identify that the researcher was investigating the effect of music on concentration. They may then alter their effort in the second condition, so differences in scores may not be caused solely by the music.
Planning to reduce both effects
When developing a complete psychological study, researchers should:
Identify which parts of the study may reveal the aim.
Write neutral, standardised instructions.
Decide which information participants need.
Select a design that limits unnecessary clues where possible.
Operationalise the dependent variable precisely.
Prepare objective scoring rules.
Train investigators and observers.
Standardise assistance, timing and researcher interaction.
Randomise allocation or material order where appropriate.
Pilot the procedure.
Revise any stage that reveals expectations or relies on subjective judgement.
Record enough procedural detail for the study to be replicated.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Demand characteristics | Features of a study that allow participants to infer its purpose or expected outcome and change their behaviour. | Identify why participants may not behave naturally in a research scenario. |
Investigator effects | Ways in which an investigator’s behaviour, characteristics or expectations influence participants or the recording of data. | Explain how the researcher may create differences between conditions. |
Participant | A person whose behaviour or responses are studied in an investigation. | Explain how awareness of the research aim may affect behaviour. |
Investigator | The researcher who plans, conducts, records or interprets an investigation. | Identify a source of inconsistent treatment or scoring. |
Extraneous variable | A variable other than the independent variable that may affect the dependent variable. | Explain why demand characteristics or investigator behaviour provides an alternative explanation. |
Independent variable | The variable changed or selected so that its effect can be investigated. | Distinguish the intended manipulation from unplanned researcher influences. |
Dependent variable | The outcome measured in an investigation. | Explain how participant or investigator behaviour could affect the recorded result. |
Standardisation | Keeping instructions, materials and procedures consistent. | Suggest how investigator effects could be reduced. |
Standardised instructions | Prepared instructions delivered consistently to participants. | Reduce differences in the information or encouragement participants receive. |
Operationalisation | Defining a variable precisely so that it can be manipulated or measured. | Produce objective scoring or behavioural criteria. |
Objective measurement | A measure based on clearly defined, observable or numerical criteria rather than personal judgement. | Suggest a way of reducing investigator interpretation. |
Random allocation | Using chance to assign participants to experimental conditions. | Reduce the investigator’s influence over condition assignment. |
Pilot study | A small-scale trial carried out before the full investigation. | Check whether participants guess the aim or researchers apply the procedure inconsistently. |
Validity | The extent to which an investigation measures what it intends to measure. | Explain the possible effect of altered participant behaviour on conclusions. |
Reliability | The consistency of a procedure or measurement. | Explain why standardised scoring and observer training are important. |
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Defining demand characteristics simply as participants knowing they are in a study.
Why this is incorrect:Demand characteristics involve participants noticing features that suggest the study’s purpose or expected behaviour. Awareness of participation alone does not fully explain the concept.
How to improve:Refer to clues about the aim or expectations and explain how these may alter behaviour.
Mistake: Saying that demand characteristics are caused only by the researcher.
Why this is incorrect:Participants may infer the aim from the task, design, materials, questions or differences between conditions.
How to improve:Identify the particular feature that gives participants information about the investigation.
Mistake: Describing any unusual participant behaviour as demand characteristics.
Why this is incorrect:The behavioural change must be connected to the participant’s interpretation of the study.
How to improve:Explain what the participant has noticed and why this might change their response.
Mistake: Defining investigator effects only as deliberate researcher dishonesty.
Why this is incorrect:Investigator effects are often unintentional. Expectations may subtly influence behaviour, assistance or scoring.
How to improve:Refer to differences in instructions, tone, interaction, measurement or interpretation.
Mistake: Confusing demand characteristics with investigator effects.
Why this is incorrect:Demand characteristics concern how participants respond to clues. Investigator effects concern the researcher’s influence on participants or data.
How to improve:Ask whether the immediate source of the effect is the participant’s interpretation or the investigator’s behaviour and judgement.
Mistake: Stating that standardisation removes all investigator effects.
Why this is incorrect:Standardisation reduces opportunities for inconsistency, but researchers may still affect the procedure or interpretation.
How to improve:State that standardisation may reduce investigator effects by making treatment and scoring more consistent.
Mistake: Suggesting that researchers should give participants no information.
Why this is incorrect:Participants must receive the information needed to take part safely and ethically.
How to improve:Use neutral instructions and avoid unnecessary clues while still dealing appropriately with ethical requirements.
Mistake: Naming an effect without applying it to the scenario.
Why this is incorrect:Application marks require direct use of the information provided.
How to improve:Quote or paraphrase the relevant behaviour, then explain its likely effect on the dependent variable.
Mistake: Giving a vague improvement such as “avoid bias”.
Why this is incorrect:The answer does not explain what the investigator should change.
How to improve:Suggest a precise procedure, such as using a prepared script, objective scoring criteria or the same time limit for every participant.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define demand characteristics. (2 marks)
Question 2
Explain what is meant by investigator effects. (2 marks)
Question 3
A psychologist investigates whether background music affects concentration. Participants complete the task both with and without music. Several participants say that they know the psychologist expects lower scores when music is playing.
Explain how demand characteristics might affect the results. (3 marks)
Question 4
A researcher gives participants in one condition more detailed instructions than participants in another condition.
Explain why this is an example of an investigator effect. (2 marks)
Question 5
A psychologist observes cooperative behaviour during a group task. The psychologist expects one group to be more cooperative and records ambiguous behaviour as cooperation more frequently for that group.
Explain how investigator effects may have influenced the data. Suggest one way of reducing this influence. (4 marks)
Question 6
A researcher investigates whether praise affects persistence on a puzzle. The researcher tells participants:
“We are investigating whether praise makes people work for longer.”
Explain one problem with this instruction and suggest an improved way of introducing the task. (4 marks)
Question 7
A psychologist conducts an experiment using two researchers. Researcher A tests the experimental condition and provides frequent encouragement. Researcher B tests the control condition and responds to participants using brief, neutral statements.
Explain two investigator effects that may influence the results. Suggest how the procedure could be improved. (6 marks)
Question 8
A researcher investigates whether working in a group improves performance on a reasoning task. Participants in the individual condition are tested by a researcher who expects them to perform poorly. The researcher explains some questions more slowly and records partially correct answers as incorrect. Participants also know that their scores will be compared with a group condition.
Using the information provided, explain one investigator effect and one demand characteristic that could influence the findings. (6 marks)
Question 9
A psychologist uses an overt observation to investigate whether students remain on task during independent study. Students know the purpose of the observation. One observer records “looking towards the textbook” as on-task behaviour, while another observer records it as on-task only when the student is also writing.
Explain how demand characteristics and investigator effects may reduce the quality of this investigation. Suggest one improvement for each problem. (8 marks)
Question 10
A researcher plans to investigate whether encouraging feedback affects memory-test performance.
Design procedures that would reduce demand characteristics and investigator effects. In your answer, refer to:
The information given to participants
The delivery of instructions and feedback
The measurement of memory performance
The training or behaviour of investigators
The use of a pilot study
(8 marks)
Comments