Three laboratory experiments allow description of how the presence of a one-way mirror raises feelings of vulnerability and test anxiety. It turned out that, despite some occasional differences, task performance was not a function of the presence of a one-way screen in the experimental room. The absence of significant results raises the question of how certain one can be that in general no meaningful effects can be ascribed to this feature of the situation. Four reasons are discussed for accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis without reserve.
References
1.
CookT. D.GruderC. L.HenniganK. M.FlayB. R.History of the sleeper effect: Some logical pitfalls in accepting the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 662–679.
2.
CrowneD. P.MarloweD.The approval motive. New York: Wiley, 1964.
3.
GreenwaldA. G.Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, 1–20.
4.
van HeerdenJ.HoogstratenJoh.Significance as a determinant of interest in scientific research. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1978, 8, 141–143.
5.
HoogstratenJoh.VorstH. C. M.Group cohesion, task performance, and the experimenter expectancy effect. Human Relations, 1978, 31, 939–956.
6.
InnesJ. M.YoungR. F.The effect of presence of an audience, evaluation apprehension and objective self-awareness on learning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 35–42.
7.
LieblingB. A.ShaverP.Evaluation, self-awareness, and task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 9, 297–306.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L.The volunteer subject. New York: Wiley, 1975.
10.
WicklundR. A.DuvalS.Opinion change and performance facilitation as a result of objective self-awareness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 319–342.
