Abstract
College student subjects were given the opportunity to pull a plunger (Linsley manipulandum) or press a small panel in a three-stage design. Five minutes of free access (baseline) was followed by a 5-min contingency phase in which 10 responses to the plunger were required to free the panel for a single press. This was followed by a 5-min return to baseline. From a postexperiment questionnaire, subjects were judged to have been either aware or unaware of the contingent relation between the plunger and the panel. Those judged to have been aware yielded much higher rates of plunger pulling during the contingent phase and were more active during baseline measurement. These results raise problems for the response suppression methodology of Eisenberger, Karpman, and Trattner (1967), since they can be as readily accounted for by Orne’s (1962) demand hypothesis.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Brewer, W. F. (1974). There is no convincing evidence for operant and classical conditioning in humans. In W. B. Weimer & D. S. Palermo (Eds.), Cognition and symbolic processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carlston, D. E., & Cohen, J. L. (1980). A closer examination of subject roles. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 38, 857–870.
Eisenberger, R., Karpman, M., & Trattner, J. (1967). What is the necessary and sufficient condition for reinforcement in the contingency situation? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 342–350.
Kruglanski, A. (1975). The human subject in the psychological experiment: Fact and artifact. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 101–147). New York: Academic Press.
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.
Premack, D. (1959). Toward empirical behavior laws: I. Positive reinforcement. Psychological Review, 66, 219–233.
Premack, D. (1963). Rate differential reinforcement in monkey manipulation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 81–89.
Premack, D. (1965). Reinforcement theory. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Premack, D. (1971). Catching up with common sense or two sides of a generalization: Reinforcement and punishment. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The nature of reinforcement. New York: Academic Press.
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Timberlake, W. (1980). A molar equilibrium theory of learned performance. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 14). New York: Academic Press.
Timberlake, W., & Allison, J. (1974). Response deprivation: An empirical approach to instrumental performance. Psychological Review, 81, 146–164.
Weber, S. J., & Cook, T. D. (1972). Subject effects in laboratory research: An examination of subject roles, demand characteristics, and valid inference. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 273–295.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Siegel, P.S., Konarski, E.A. & Bernard, S.L. Demand characteristics and the response suppression hypothesis. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 24, 365–368 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330154
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330154