China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Research Methods
Published in Nancy J. Stone, Chaparro Alex, Joseph R. Keebler, Barbara S. Chaparro, Daniel S. McConnell, Introduction to Human Factors, 2017
Nancy J. Stone, Chaparro Alex, Joseph R. Keebler, Barbara S. Chaparro, Daniel S. McConnell
Finally, demand characteristics are cues or clues within the research setting that suggest a certain response or behavior is desired. When one interviewer constantly smiles and nods approval, while a second interviewer does not smile or nod, the demand characteristics differ. In the former case, the interviewer is encouraging responses, whereas the second interviewer is neutral, but possibly discouraging certain types of responses. These subtle differences can impact your research project or evaluation, reducing generalizability.
Emotions, Associations, and Sound
Published in Nick Zacharov, Sensory Evaluation of Sound, 2018
Another well-known issue when dealing with measures using self-report is the demand characteristics described as the total sum of cues that convey the researchers’ hypothesis to the participants and thus may influence the participants’ behaviour (Orne, 1962). Related to demand characteristics is the issue of using predefined labels for defining the emotions, which are being rated.
System Stability and Sustainability
Published in R. S. Bridger, Introduction to Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2017
Subject reactivity is the term used to describe changes in behavior bought about by participation in experiments or field trials. Social psychologists have done a great deal of research on the behavior of subjects during experiments and the factors that can bias the findings. In general, participants in experiments or trials are conscious of the fact that they are being observed and often feel that they themselves are being evaluated (even if they are not). The result is that they are usually compliant and make an effort to perform well. When new equipment or methods are being tested, the benefits may be overestimated because of this. Subject reactivity can take several forms: A Response to the “Demand Characteristics” of the Experiment: Demand characteristics are all the cues from the experimental situation that influences subjects' behavior. Orne (1962) coined the term after conducting a classic experiment in which subjects were asked to carry out a tiresome and meaningless task. Orne was impressed by the subjects' diligence and how readily they accepted the task. Subjects may try to guess the experimental hypothesis and confirm it by behaving in what they perceive to be the “correct” way. The demand characteristics of experiments can have serious implications for the assessment of the effects of mild stressors on task performance. This is probably one of the reasons why research concerning the effects of noise on performance is inconclusive (experimental subjects work harder to overcome the distracting effects of the noise). In real work situations, mild stressors can have a large impact on performance of work tasks because people are not so readily motivated to continue working in unpleasant conditions. They may even have the right to stop work or go home if work conditions exceed certain limits.Novelty and Disruption Effects: Novel interventions may have short-term effects on performance because they are novel, not because they work better. The novelty creates interest, diverts attention from problems, and may even heighten arousal and, therefore, boost performance. New office furniture, for example, may lead to reductions in musculoskeletal complaints in the short term as everyone experiments with it and gets used to the change. In situations where change is common, novelty effects may be less likely than in situations where change is rare.Pretest Sensitization: Administration of questionnaires or interviews before a trial may “prime” people to respond in ways that differ from how they would respond had the pretest not been administered.
The Link between Individual Predictors of Risk and Risky Flight Behavior: A Systematic Review
Published in The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 2023
Yassmin Ebrahim, Brett R. C. Molesworth, Oleksandra Molloy
The benefits of using subjective risk propensity measures are the efficiency in which they can be administered, the robust validity in introspective scales, and their scalability in terms of administration (Naglieri et al., 2004). This efficiency often allows for numerous scales to be utilized, thereby broadening the enquiry of factors that may be attributed to certain behaviors. However, there are limitations associated with subjective measures which include demand characteristics (Nichols & Maner, 2008) and social desirability bias (Chung & Monroe, 2003). Demand characteristics occur when the participant tries to “work out” what the (true) aim of the study and answer in line with this assumption (Orne, 2002). Social-desirability bias, otherwise known as “Impression management” is where an individual presents, or attempts to present a favorable image of themselves (Chung & Monroe, 2003). Another limitation of the existing risk prediction scales is that they attempt to summarize an individual’s willingness or propensity for risk based on a single or multiple metrics. They do not, however, consider known factors/predictors that may in parallel temper this risk appetitive (i.e., calculative risk-taker). Hence, the use of such scales in isolation may fail to adequately distinguish between impulsive and calculative risk-takers.
Social stress in human-machine systems: opportunities and challenges of an experimental research approach
Published in Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2023
Juergen Sauer, Andreas Sonderegger, Simon Thuillard, Norbert K. Semmer
Based on our previous experience in implementing different types of social stressors in lab-based research, we would argue that it is by no means straightforward to achieve a successful experimental manipulation of social stress. For example, when trying to implement illegitimate tasks, even manipulations such as being asked to produce analyses that subsequently were – visible for the participant – thrown into the dustbin, yielded only very small effects. As illegitimate tasks have frequently been shown to be associated with strain, we attribute such results to a tendency among (psychology) students to accept many, even rather strange, requests when participating in an experiment. The ‘demand characteristics’ of the experimental situation induce test participants to assume that this request must serve a ‘legitimate purpose’ (Orne 1962, 777). Careful piloting is therefore required to ensure that tasks are not ‘legitimised’ in this way. Our research group is currently developing scenarios in which illegitimate tasks are presented in a different context, such as a seminar in which a series of absolutely legitimate tasks, like giving presentations, is unexpectedly followed by an illegitimate task, such as making copies of personal documents for the teaching assistant.