No Evidence of Experimenter Demand Effects in Three Online Psychology Experiments.

Lucas Woodley, Xavier Roberts-Gaal, Rachel Calcott, Fiery Cushman

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lucas WoodleyDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6821-7443

Xavier Roberts-GaalDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5006-2873

Rachel CalcottDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4708-8754

Fiery CushmanDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6929-9982

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experimenter demand effects occur when participants alter their behavior to align with perceived study hypotheses, threatening internal validity. Concern about demand effects is pervasive in psychology. Experimenter demand may be especially acute in studies relying on experienced participants recruited online (e.g., via Prolific), who may readily guess hypotheses, or when using common paradigms (e.g., vignette studies and interventions) where study goals are transparent. We conducted three preregistered experiments (

Indexed as

demand effectsexperimenter demandinternal validityreactance

Identifiers

PMID42534604

DOI10.1162/OPMI.a.367

PMCPMC13421554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.