Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42618692›Full record

ReviewBehavior research methods2026

Addressing demand artifacts in psychological research (and beyond).

Olivier Corneille, Chloé Fournier Bernard, Peter Lush

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Behavior research methods, 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

3 authors.

Olivier CorneilleUCLouvain/IPSY. 10, Place du Cardinal Mercier, 1348, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium. olivier.corneille@uclouvain.be.
Chloé Fournier BernardUCLouvain/IPSY. 10, Place du Cardinal Mercier, 1348, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium.
Peter LushUniversity of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Demand artifacts stem from participants' beliefs about treatment effects and motivations to respond in accordance with these beliefs. These artifacts typically build on subtle cues that exert extraneous influences unbeknownst to researchers, through processes that are not part of their stated theory. Demand artifacts threaten the internal and external validity of studies, and they have been supported across a wide range of psychological domains (e.g., clinical, cognitive, and social psychology, psychology of perception) and beyond (e.g., consumer research, experimental economics, psychosomatic medicine, neurosciences). This article reviews prominent methods used to address them. Our discussion is structured around Corneille and Lush's (2023) framework of demand effects, which distinguishes between participants' hypothesis formation, motivation, and implementation strategies. We conclude this review by discussing three fundamental questions of broad interest: when should we care about demand artifacts, what is the best approach for addressing them, and how can we usefully build on demand artifacts?

Indexed as

ArtifactsResearch DesignHumansMotivationBlindingDemand artifactDemand characteristicsDemand effectExperimental artifactExperimental demandsGuessingResponse biasSocial InfluenceSubject role

Identifiers

PMID42618692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.