Interchange

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 94–95 | Cite as

On the consistency of calling for caution carelessly: Further notes on mythical experiments and phantom footnotes

  • Robert Rosenthal
Exchange

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Normal Distribution Early Paper Behavioral Science Subtle Point Public Controversy 

References

  1. Cohen, J.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  2. Grieger, R. M., II. Pygmalion revisited: A loud call for caution.Interchange, 1971,2(4), 78–91.Google Scholar
  3. Mosteller, F., & Bush, R. R. Selected quantitative techniques. In G. Lindzey (Ed.),Handbook of social psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Pp. 289–334.Google Scholar
  4. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L.Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Rosenthal
    • 1
  1. 1.Harvard UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations