Observer bias is one of the types of detection bias and is defined as any kind of systematic divergence from accurate facts during observation and the recording of data and information in studies.[1] The definition can be further expanded upon to include the systematic difference between what is observed due to variation in observers, and what the true value is.[2]
Observer bias is the tendency of observers to not see what is there, but instead to see what they expect or want to see. This is a common occurrence in the everyday lives of many and is a significant problem that is sometimes encountered in scientific research and studies.[3] Observation is critical to scientific research and activity, and as such, observer bias may be as well.[4] When such biases exist, scientific studies can result in an over- or underestimation of what is true and accurate, which compromises the validity of the findings and results of the study, even if all other designs and procedures in the study were appropriate.[5]
Observational data forms the foundation of a significant body of knowledge. Observation is a method of data collection and falls into the category of qualitative research techniques. There are a number of benefits of observation, including its simplicity as a data collection method and its usefulness for hypotheses. Simultaneously, there are many limitations and disadvantages in the observation process, including the potential lack of reliability, poor validity, and faulty perception. Participants' observations are widely used in sociological and anthropological studies, while systematic observation is used where researchers need to collect data without participants direct interactions. The most common observation method is naturalistic observation, where subjects are observed in their natural environments with the goal to assess the behaviour in an intervention free and natural setting.
Observer bias is especially probable when the investigator or researcher has vested interests in the outcome of the research or has strong preconceptions. Coupled with ambiguous underlying data and a subjective scoring method, these three factors contribute heavily to the incidence of observer bias.[6]
Examples
Examples of observer bias extend back to the early 1900's. One of the first recorded events of apparent observer bias was seen in 1904, with the case of "Clever Hans". Clever Hans was a horse whose owner, Wilhem von Olson, claimed could solve arithmetic equations. Von Olson would ask Clever Hans a series of questions involving arithmetic functions, and the horse would appear to answer by tapping its hoof with the numbered answer. This example was investigated by the psychologist Oskar Pfungst, and it was found that when the horse was nearing the correct number of taps, the owner would subconsciously react in a particular way, which signalled to Clever Hans to discontinue his tapping. This only worked, however, when the owner himself knew the answer to the question. This is an example of observer bias, due to the fact that the expectations of von Olson, the horse's owner, were the cause of Clever Hans actions and behaviours, resulting in faulty data.[7]
One of the most notorious examples of observer bias is seen in the studies and contributions of Cyril Burt, an English psychologist and geneticist who purported the heritability of IQ.[8] Burt believed, and thus demonstrated through his research because of his observer bias, that children from families with lower socioeconomic status were likely to have lower levels of cognitive abilities when compared with that of children from families with higher socioeconomic status. Such research and findings had considerable impacts on the educational system in England throughout the 1960s, where middle- and upper-class children were sent to elite schools while the children from the lower socioeconomic demographic were sent to schools with less desirable traits. Following Burt's death, further research found that the data in Burt's studies was fabricated, which was presumed to be a result of his observer bias and the outcomes he was intending to find through his studies.
Another key example of observer bias is a 1963 study, "Psychology of the Scientist: V. Three Experiments in Experimenter Bias",[9] published by researchers Robert Rosenthal and Kermit L. Fode at the University of North Dakota. In this study, Rosenthal and Fode gave a group of twelve psychology students a total of sixty rats to run in some experiments. The students were told that they either had "maze-bright" rats, who were bred to be exceptionally good at solving mazes, or that they had "maze-dull" rats, who were bred to be poor at solving mazes. They were then asked to run experiments with the rats and collect the data as they usually would. The rats were placed in T-shaped mazes where they had to run down the center and then decide to turn left or turn right. One of the sides of the maze was painted white, while the other was painted dark gray, and it was the rat's job to always turn towards the dark gray side of the maze. The rats who turned towards the dark gray side of the maze received a reward, while the rats who turned towards the white side of the maze did not. The students kept track of how many times each rat turned towards the correct (or dark gray) side of the maze, how many times each rat turned towards the incorrect (or white) side of the maze, and how long it took each rat to make a decision. They repeated this experiment ten times per day, all over the course of five days total, and in the end, they found that the "maze-bright" rats were better at both correctly completing the maze and completing the maze in the fastest time. However, there were actually no "maze-bright" or "maze-dull" rats; these rats were all genetically identical to one another and were randomly divided into the two categories. The two groups of students should have gotten the same results for both kinds of rats, but failed to do so because of observer bias. The entire effect of the experiment was caused by their expectations: they expected that the "maze-bright" rats would perform better and that the "maze-dull" rats would perform worse. Rosenthal and Fode concluded that these results were caused by smaller and more subtle biases on the part of the students. The students were unaware of the fact that they were treating the rats differently. It's possible that they had slightly different criteria for when the two groups of rats finished the maze, that they had the tendency to hit the stopwatch later for the "maze-dull" rats, or that they were paying more attention to the "maze-bright" rats overall. In this way, the students, or the observers, created what looked like a real result, but what was, in reality, totally false.
Impact
Observational data forms the foundation of a significant body of knowledge. Observer bias can be seen as a significant issue in medical research and treatment. There is greater potential for variance in observations made where subjective judgement is required, when compared with observation of objective data where there is a much lower risk of observer bias.
When there is observer bias present in research and studies, the data collection itself is affected. The findings and results are not accurate representations of reality, due to the influence of the observers' biases. Although they may not intend to do so, observer bias may result in researchers subconsciously encouraging certain results, which would lead to changes in the findings and outcomes in the study. A researcher that has not taken steps to mitigate observer bias and is being influenced by their own observer bias has a higher probability of making erroneous interpretations, which ultimately will lead to inaccurate results and findings.
Research has shown that in the presence of observer bias in outcome assessment, it is possible for treatment effect estimates to be exaggerated by between a third to two-thirds, symbolising significant implications on the validity of the findings and results of studies and procedures.[1]
Preventative steps
Bias is unfortunately an unavoidable problem in epidemiological and clinical research. However, there are a number of potential strategies and solutions for the reduction of observer bias, specifically in the areas of scientific studies and research across the medical field.[5] The effects that bias has can be reduced through the use of strong operational definitions, along with masking, triangulation, and standardisation of procedures, and the continual monitoring of the objectivity of those conducting the experiments and observations. In market research surveys, researchers have described a framework called bias testing to mitigate researcher bias by empirically testing the survey questions with real-life respondents, and to not lead the respondents, neutral probing and redirecting techniques are used.[10]
Blinded protocols and double-blinded research can act as a corrective lens in terms of reducing observer bias, and thus, to increase the reliability and accuracy of the data collected.[11] Blind trials are often required in order for the attainment of regulatory approval for medical devices and drugs, but are not common practice in empirical studies despite the research supporting its necessity.[6] Double-blinding is done by ensuring both the tester and research participants lack of information that could have a potential influence on their behaviour, while single-blind describes those experiments where information is withheld from the participants that may otherwise skew the results or introduce bias, but the experimenter is entirely aware of and in possession of those facts.
An example of how observer bias can impact on research, and how blinded protocols can impact, can be seen in the trial for an anti-psychotic drug. Researchers that know which of the subjects received the placebo and those that received the trial drugs may later report that the group that received the trial drugs had a calmer disposition, due to the expectations of that outcome. Similarly, if the participants in the trial were not blinded, then they may report how they are feeling differently based on whether they were provided with the placebo or the trial drug.
A further example could be seen at schools. Boys of school-age generally outperform their female peers in science, however there is evidence that this is potentially as a result of how they are taught and treated by their teachers, who have the expectation that the boys have higher performances, and thus subtly encourage them.[12] As such, the observers, being the teachers who conduct tests and evaluate the results, have a bias and preconceived belief that boys will outperform girls, which impacts on their behaviour.
To complement blind or masked protocols and research, further strategies including standardised training for observers and researchers about how to record findings can be useful in the mitigation of observer bias.[1] Clear definition of methodology, tools and the time frames allocated for the collection of findings can assist in adequately training and preparing observers in a standardised manner. Further, identifying any potential conflicts of interest within observers before commencement of the research is essential in ensuring bias is minimised.
Finally, triangulation within research is a method that can be used to increase the findings validity and credibility.[13] Triangulation in research refers to the use of a variety of methods or data sources as a means of developing a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the subject at hand.[14] Triangulation will considerably increase the confidence in a study tremendously. There are a few ways triangulation can occur, including the use of multiple observers, which is a form of reliability in itself called interobserver reliability, measured by the percentage of times that the observers agree.
Hawthorne effect (observer effect)
Observer bias is commonly only identified in the observers, however, there also exists a bias for those being studied. Named after a series of experiments conducted by Elton Mayo between 1924 and 1932, at the Western Electric factory in Hawthorne, Chicago, the Hawthorne effect symbolises where the participants in a study change their behaviour due to the fact that they are being observed.
Within the Hawthorne studies, it was found that the departmental outputs increased each time a change was made, even when the changes made were reverting to the original unfavourable conditions. The subjects in the experiment were told that better lighting would result in improved productivity, and as such, their beliefs about the impact of good lighting had a more significant effect on their behaviour and output than what the actual lighting levels were.[1] Researchers formed the conclusion that the workers were in fact responding to the attention of the supervisors, not the changes in the experimental variables.
To prevent the Hawthorne effect, studies using hidden observation can be useful. However, knowledge of participation in the study would be required by law and is thought to still have the potential to cause the induction of the Hawthorne effect.[15] Further, making responses or study data completely anonymous will result in reducing the likelihood of participants altering their behaviour as a result of being observed as they take part in an experiment or study. Furthermore, conducting research prior to the studies to establish a baseline measure could assist in mitigating the Hawthorne effect from biasing the studies results significantly. With a baseline established, any potential participant bias that arises as a result of being observed can be evaluated. Furthermore, establishing a follow-up period could be of benefit to enable the examination of whether a behaviour or change continues and is sustained beyond the observation period.[12]
See also
Observer-expectancy effect, when a researcher subconsciously influences the participants of an experiment
Related Research Articles
A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures, diets or other medical treatments.
Statistical bias, in the mathematical field of statistics, is a systematic tendency in which the methods used to gather data and generate statistics present an inaccurate, skewed or biased depiction of reality. Statistical bias exists in numerous stages of the data collection and analysis process, including: the source of the data, the methods used to collect the data, the estimator chosen, and the methods used to analyze the data. Data analysts can take various measures at each stage of the process to reduce the impact of statistical bias in their work. Understanding the source of statistical bias can help to assess whether the observed results are close to actuality. Issues of statistical bias has been argued to be closely linked to issues of statistical validity.
In a blind or blinded experiment, information which may influence the participants of the experiment is withheld until after the experiment is complete. Good blinding can reduce or eliminate experimental biases that arise from a participants' expectations, observer's effect on the participants, observer bias, confirmation bias, and other sources. A blind can be imposed on any participant of an experiment, including subjects, researchers, technicians, data analysts, and evaluators. In some cases, while blinding would be useful, it is impossible or unethical. For example, it is not possible to blind a patient to their treatment in a physical therapy intervention. A good clinical protocol ensures that blinding is as effective as possible within ethical and practical constraints.
Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups, or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby failing to ensure that the sample obtained is representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The phrase "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples. If the selection bias is not taken into account, then some conclusions of the study may be false.
The Hawthorne effect is a type of human behavior reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed. The effect was discovered in the context of research conducted at the Hawthorne Western Electric plant; however, some scholars think the descriptions are fictitious.
The observer-expectancy effect is a form of reactivity in which a researcher's cognitive bias causes them to subconsciously influence the participants of an experiment. Confirmation bias can lead to the experimenter interpreting results incorrectly because of the tendency to look for information that conforms to their hypothesis, and overlook information that argues against it. It is a significant threat to a study's internal validity, and is therefore typically controlled using a double-blind experimental design.
In cognitive psychology and neuroscience, spatial memory is a form of memory responsible for the recording and recovery of information needed to plan a course to a location and to recall the location of an object or the occurrence of an event. Spatial memory is necessary for orientation in space. Spatial memory can also be divided into egocentric and allocentric spatial memory. A person's spatial memory is required to navigate in a familiar city. A rat's spatial memory is needed to learn the location of food at the end of a maze. In both humans and animals, spatial memories are summarized as a cognitive map.
A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable. This increases the reliability of the results, often through a comparison between control measurements and the other measurements. Scientific controls are a part of the scientific method.
In causal inference, a confounder is a variable that influences both the dependent variable and independent variable, causing a spurious association. Confounding is a causal concept, and as such, cannot be described in terms of correlations or associations. The existence of confounders is an important quantitative explanation why correlation does not imply causation. Some notations are explicitly designed to identify the existence, possible existence, or non-existence of confounders in causal relationships between elements of a system.
Latent learning is the subconscious retention of information without reinforcement or motivation. In latent learning, one changes behavior only when there is sufficient motivation later than when they subconsciously retained the information.
In a randomized experiment, allocation concealment hides the sorting of trial participants into treatment groups so that this knowledge cannot be exploited. Adequate allocation concealment serves to prevent study participants from influencing treatment allocations for subjects. Studies with poor allocation concealment are prone to selection bias.
In social research, particularly in psychology, the term demand characteristic refers to an experimental artifact where participants form an interpretation of the experiment's purpose and subconsciously change their behavior to fit that interpretation. Typically, demand characteristics are considered an extraneous variable, exerting an effect on behavior other than that intended by the experimenter. Pioneering research was conducted on demand characteristics by Martin Orne.
In fields such as epidemiology, social sciences, psychology and statistics, an observational study draws inferences from a sample to a population where the independent variable is not under the control of the researcher because of ethical concerns or logistical constraints. One common observational study is about the possible effect of a treatment on subjects, where the assignment of subjects into a treated group versus a control group is outside the control of the investigator. This is in contrast with experiments, such as randomized controlled trials, where each subject is randomly assigned to a treated group or a control group. Observational studies, for lacking an assignment mechanism, naturally present difficulties for inferential analysis.
In natural and social science research, a protocol is most commonly a predefined procedural method in the design and implementation of an experiment. Protocols are written whenever it is desirable to standardize a laboratory method to ensure successful replication of results by others in the same laboratory or by other laboratories. Additionally, and by extension, protocols have the advantage of facilitating the assessment of experimental results through peer review. In addition to detailed procedures, equipment, and instruments, protocols will also contain study objectives, reasoning for experimental design, reasoning for chosen sample sizes, safety precautions, and how results were calculated and reported, including statistical analysis and any rules for predefining and documenting excluded data to avoid bias.
Clinical trials are medical research studies conducted on human subjects. The human subjects are assigned to one or more interventions, and the investigators evaluate the effects of those interventions. The progress and results of clinical trials are analyzed statistically.
Psychological research refers to research that psychologists conduct for systematic study and for analysis of the experiences and behaviors of individuals or groups. Their research can have educational, occupational and clinical applications.
The introspection illusion is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly think they have direct insight into the origins of their mental states, while treating others' introspections as unreliable. The illusion has been examined in psychological experiments, and suggested as a basis for biases in how people compare themselves to others. These experiments have been interpreted as suggesting that, rather than offering direct access to the processes underlying mental states, introspection is a process of construction and inference, much as people indirectly infer others' mental states from their behaviour.
Funding bias, also known as sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, funding publication bias, and funding effect, refers to the tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias has been associated, in particular, with research into chemical toxicity, tobacco, and pharmaceutical drugs. It is an instance of experimenter's bias.
Observational methods in psychological research entail the observation and description of a subject's behavior. Researchers utilizing the observational method can exert varying amounts of control over the environment in which the observation takes place. This makes observational research a sort of middle ground between the highly controlled method of experimental design and the less structured approach of conducting interviews.
Imitative learning is a type of social learning whereby new behaviors are acquired via imitation. Imitation aids in communication, social interaction, and the ability to modulate one's emotions to account for the emotions of others, and is "essential for healthy sensorimotor development and social functioning". The ability to match one's actions to those observed in others occurs in humans and animals; imitative learning plays an important role in humans in cultural development. Imitative learning is different from observational learning in that it requires a duplication of the behaviour exhibited by the model, whereas observational learning can occur when the learner observes an unwanted behaviour and its subsequent consequences and as a result learns to avoid that behaviour.
↑ Miettinen, Olli S. (2008-11-01). "M. Porta, S. Greenland & J. M. Last (eds): A Dictionary of Epidemiology. A Handbook Sponsored by the I.E.A.". European Journal of Epidemiology. 23 (12): 813–817. doi:10.1007/s10654-008-9296-5. ISSN0393-2990. S2CID41169767.
↑ Gillie, Oliver (1977). "Did Sir Cyril Burt Fake His Research on Heritability of Intelligence? Part I". The Phi Delta Kappan. 58 (6): 469–471. ISSN0031-7217. JSTOR20298643.
↑ Rosenthal, Robert; Fode, Kermit L. (1963). "Psychology of the Scientist: V. Three Experiments in Experimenter Bias". Psychological Reports. 12 (2): 491. doi:10.2466/pr0.1963.12.2.491.
1 2 West, Charles (February 1980). "Book Reviews: Achenbach, Thomas M. Research in Developmental Psychology: Concepts, Strategies, Methods. New York: The Free Press, 1978. 350 + xiii pp. $14.95". Educational Researcher. 9 (2): 16–17. doi:10.3102/0013189x009002016. ISSN0013-189X. S2CID145015499.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
