The Experts below are selected from a list of 24 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Sukanya Wichchukit - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
various paired preference tests Experimenter Effect on take home choice
Journal of Sensory Studies, 2010Co-Authors: B H Weiss, Michael Omahony, Sukanya WichchukitAbstract:ABSTRACT Three types of paired preference test were performed on a total of 213 consumers. In each test, consumers were required to choose between two types of chocolate. They performed the traditional preference test which measured relative degrees of liking. Also , they performed a “Choosing” preference tests where they were required to specify which of two chocolates they were more likely to choose when offered both or whether they might choose either or neither. They also performed a “Buying” preference tests where they specified which of two chocolates they were more likely to buy or whether they might buy either or neither. After testing, they were able to take away either one type of chocolate or two types of chocolate. For one group of consumers, this was done while the Experimenter was not watching; for the other group, the consumers were being observed. Observing the consumers as they selected chocolates to take away had a biasing Effect. Correspondence between the three types of test and what consumers took away with them was low. The results were discussed in term of “test” preferences and “operational” preferences. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Accurate prediction of acceptance of a product in the marketplace is important. The goal of any test of acceptance is to predict consumer behavior. Therefore, an acceptance test is only valid in terms of how well it predicts the behavior of the consumers in the real world, once they have left the testing situation. It is costly if such tests do not predict this behavior accurately. Accordingly, validation studies should monitor the behavior of the consumers for a requisite amount of time after the test. This has been done for a few studies involving hedonic scales, but there are no published reports for paired preference tests. There is a reluctance to perform such studies because of the time and costs involved. One alternative is to offer consumers the chance to select the products being tested, to take away with them once the test has finished. This might give a clue to “real world” behavior. Since this approach is simple and cost-Effective, it is worth investigating.
B H Weiss - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
various paired preference tests Experimenter Effect on take home choice
Journal of Sensory Studies, 2010Co-Authors: B H Weiss, Michael Omahony, Sukanya WichchukitAbstract:ABSTRACT Three types of paired preference test were performed on a total of 213 consumers. In each test, consumers were required to choose between two types of chocolate. They performed the traditional preference test which measured relative degrees of liking. Also , they performed a “Choosing” preference tests where they were required to specify which of two chocolates they were more likely to choose when offered both or whether they might choose either or neither. They also performed a “Buying” preference tests where they specified which of two chocolates they were more likely to buy or whether they might buy either or neither. After testing, they were able to take away either one type of chocolate or two types of chocolate. For one group of consumers, this was done while the Experimenter was not watching; for the other group, the consumers were being observed. Observing the consumers as they selected chocolates to take away had a biasing Effect. Correspondence between the three types of test and what consumers took away with them was low. The results were discussed in term of “test” preferences and “operational” preferences. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Accurate prediction of acceptance of a product in the marketplace is important. The goal of any test of acceptance is to predict consumer behavior. Therefore, an acceptance test is only valid in terms of how well it predicts the behavior of the consumers in the real world, once they have left the testing situation. It is costly if such tests do not predict this behavior accurately. Accordingly, validation studies should monitor the behavior of the consumers for a requisite amount of time after the test. This has been done for a few studies involving hedonic scales, but there are no published reports for paired preference tests. There is a reluctance to perform such studies because of the time and costs involved. One alternative is to offer consumers the chance to select the products being tested, to take away with them once the test has finished. This might give a clue to “real world” behavior. Since this approach is simple and cost-Effective, it is worth investigating.
Michael Omahony - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
various paired preference tests Experimenter Effect on take home choice
Journal of Sensory Studies, 2010Co-Authors: B H Weiss, Michael Omahony, Sukanya WichchukitAbstract:ABSTRACT Three types of paired preference test were performed on a total of 213 consumers. In each test, consumers were required to choose between two types of chocolate. They performed the traditional preference test which measured relative degrees of liking. Also , they performed a “Choosing” preference tests where they were required to specify which of two chocolates they were more likely to choose when offered both or whether they might choose either or neither. They also performed a “Buying” preference tests where they specified which of two chocolates they were more likely to buy or whether they might buy either or neither. After testing, they were able to take away either one type of chocolate or two types of chocolate. For one group of consumers, this was done while the Experimenter was not watching; for the other group, the consumers were being observed. Observing the consumers as they selected chocolates to take away had a biasing Effect. Correspondence between the three types of test and what consumers took away with them was low. The results were discussed in term of “test” preferences and “operational” preferences. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS Accurate prediction of acceptance of a product in the marketplace is important. The goal of any test of acceptance is to predict consumer behavior. Therefore, an acceptance test is only valid in terms of how well it predicts the behavior of the consumers in the real world, once they have left the testing situation. It is costly if such tests do not predict this behavior accurately. Accordingly, validation studies should monitor the behavior of the consumers for a requisite amount of time after the test. This has been done for a few studies involving hedonic scales, but there are no published reports for paired preference tests. There is a reluctance to perform such studies because of the time and costs involved. One alternative is to offer consumers the chance to select the products being tested, to take away with them once the test has finished. This might give a clue to “real world” behavior. Since this approach is simple and cost-Effective, it is worth investigating.
Francis Beauvais - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
benveniste s experiments explained by a non conventional Experimenter Effect
2018Co-Authors: Francis BeauvaisAbstract:Background: Benveniste’s biology experiments suggested the existence of molecular-like Effects without molecules (“memory of water”). In this article, it is proposed that these disputed experiments could have been the consequence of a previously unnoticed and non-conventional Experimenter Effect. Methods: A probabilistic modelling is built in order to describe an elementary laboratory experiment. A biological system is modelled with two possible states (“resting” and “activated”) and exposed to two experimental conditions labelled “control” and “test”, but both are biologically inactive. The modelling takes into account not only the biological system, but also the Experimenters. In addition, an outsider standpoint is adopted to describe the experimental situation. Results: A classical approach suggests that, after experiment completion, the “control” and “test” labels of biologically-inactive conditions should both be associated with the “resting” state (i.e., no significant relationship between labels and system states). However, if the fluctuations of the biological system are also considered, a quantum-like relationship emerges and connects labels and system states (analogous to a biological “Effect” without molecules). Conclusions: No hypotheses about water properties or other exotic explanations are needed to describe Benveniste’s experiments, including their unusual features. This modelling could be extended to other experimental situations in biology, medicine, and psychology.
Marilyn Schlitz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Experimenter Effects and the remote detection of staring
Journal of Parapsychology, 1998Co-Authors: Richard Wiseman, Marilyn SchlitzAbstract:. . . the Experimenter Effect is the most important challenge facing modern experimental parapsychology. It may be that we will not be able to make too much progress in other areas of the field until the puzzle of the Experimenter Effect is solved. (Palmer, 1986, pp. 220-221.) The apparent detection of an unseen gaze (i.e., the feeling of being stared at, only to turn around and discover somebody looking directly at you) is a common type of ostensible paranormal experience, with between 68% and 94% of the population reporting having experienced the phenomenon at least once (Braud, Shafer, & Andrews, 1993a; Coover, 1913). Some parapsychologists have attempted to assess whether this experience is based, at least in part, on genuine psi ability. Such studies use two participants: a "sender" and a "receiver." These individuals are isolated from one another, but in such a way that the sender can see the receiver. Early experiments had the sender sitting behind the receiver (Coover, 1913; Poortman, 1959; Titchener, 1898); some later studies have used one-way mirrors (Peterson, 1978) or a closed-circuit television system (Braud, Shafer, & Andrews, 1993a, 1993b; Williams, 1983). The experimental session in this type of study is divided into two sets of randomly ordered "stare" and "non-stare" trials. During stare trials the sender directs his/her attention toward the receiver; during non-stare trials the sender directs his/her attention away from the receiver. Either during or after each trial a response is made by the receiver. In early studies, the receivers made verbal guesses as to whether they believed they had been stared at; later studies have measured receivers' electrodermal, activity (EDA) throughout each trial. A number of studies have obtained statistically significant differences between responses to stare and non-stare trials and in a recent review of this work, Braud, Shafer, and Andrews (1993b) concluded: We hope other investigators will attempt to replicate these studies. We recommend the design as one that is straightforward, has already yielded consistent positive results, and addresses a very familiar psi manifestation in a manner that is readily communicable and understandable to the experimental participants and to the public at large. (p. 408) Both authors of the present paper previously attempted to replicate this staring Effect. The first author (R. W.) is a skeptic regarding the claims of parapsychology who wished to discover whether he could replicate the Effect in his own laboratory. The second author (M. S.) is a psi proponent who has previously carried out many parapsychological studies, frequently obtaining positive findings. The staring experiments carried out by R. W. showed no evidence of psychic functioning (Wiseman & Smith, 1994; Wiseman, Smith, Freedman, Wasserman, & Hurst, 1995). M. S.'s study, on the other hand, yielded significant results (Schlitz & LaBerge, 1997). Such "Experimenter Effects" are common within parapsychology and are open to several competing interpretations (see Palmer, 1989a, 1989b). For example, M. S.'s study may have contained an experimental artifact absent from R. W.'s procedure. Alternatively, M. S. may have worked with more psychically gifted participants than R. W. had, or may have been more skilled at eliciting participants' psi ability. It is also possible that M. S. and R. W. created desired results via their own psi abilities, or fraud. Little previous research has attempted to evaluate these competing hypotheses. This is unfortunate, because it is clearly important to establish why Experimenter Effects occur, both in terms of assessing past psi research and attempting to replicate studies in the future. For these reasons, the authors agreed to carry out a joint study in the hope of learning why our original studies obtained such dramatically different results. METHOD Design Our joint study required M. …
