In an earlier paper by Grieger (1971), grave errors of scholarship occurred; these included the reporting of the experimental results from three samples that, although they did not exist, were miraculously tested for significance and were declared “nonsignificant.” In the present paper by Grieger and Saavedra there is reference to a phantom footnote, confusion over the nature of the unit normal distribution, confusion over the difference between power and effect size, and a number of errors of fact. The behavioral sciences may be well served by public controversies that involve the debating of subtle points. They are unlikely to be well served by papers failing to meet even the most rudimentary criteria of scholarship.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Cohen, J.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Grieger, R. M., II. Pygmalion revisited: A loud call for caution.Interchange, 1971,2(4), 78–91.
Mosteller, F., & Bush, R. R. Selected quantitative techniques. In G. Lindzey (Ed.),Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Pp. 289–334.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L.Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.
This paper was written in response to the invitation of the editor. Its preparation was supported by a research grant from the Division of Social Sciences of the National Science Foundation.
About this article
Cite this article
Rosenthal, R. On the consistency of calling for caution carelessly: Further notes on mythical experiments and phantom footnotes. Interchange 3, 94–95 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145951
- Normal Distribution
- Early Paper
- Behavioral Science
- Subtle Point
- Public Controversy