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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
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.
Rights and permissions
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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02145951