Martin Kaplan
discusses the effects of interviewer biases in the processes of information
elicitation in this article. The author
used participants to test the effects different personalities have on garnering
information from others. Interviewers
were asked to make behavior predictions to test how accurately they were able
to elicit information from a subject.
The author tested
two main hypotheses: differences in the
interviewer's predictions can be explained by personality groups eliciting
different information, and that if each group elicits different information,
then the information would be consistent. The experiments would test if actual
differences existed and were consistent.
Kaplan conducted
three tests to attempt to isolate a bias variable and prevent differences in
perception to affect the interviewers judgement when forecasting an
individual's behavior. The subjects were
divided as 'repressors', 'sensitizers', and 'neutrals'. The subjects were
divided based on their scores on the Byrne Scale of Repression-Sensitization
test. Twenty random subjects were
selected from each group as 'judges' and each judge was paired with a neutral
'target'.
The author then
explains the specifics of the testing and instructions given to all
participants. He explained how he
analyzed each group's discussions and interviews and compares factors like
speech time of judges and of targets and how participants rated their own
personalities. Kaplan made his own
predictions on how he thought the judges predictions would differ.
What Kaplan found is
that sensitizers tended to speak more in the interviews than their targets did.
A significant difference in relevance to criteria behavior was not found
between the groups. Kaplan found that
what he expected regarding the differences between behavior predictions:
sensitizers were more negative, repressors were more positive.
Critique:
While this study
shows that conclusions about information elicited from a subject can be
affected by internal biases, the experiment was limited in scope. It's important to mention that the researcher
tried to counter potential external variables from affecting the study because
this limited the affect that personal perception had on the information
elicited from the subject. This study is
also pretty old, but because of the type of analysis it attempts to do it seems
to be still highly relevant the methodology.
KAPLAN, M. (1968).
Elicitation of information and response biases of repressors, sensitizers, and
neutrals in behavior prediction. Journal Of
Personality, 36(1), 84-91.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1968.tb01461.x
Could you go into a little more detail on what defines a repressor, a sensitizer, and a neutral?
ReplyDeleteThese three are basic personality measures for how people deal with threats. Sensitizers tend to deal with their problems more directly whereas repressors try to avoid them. Neutrals are obviously somewhere in the middle.
DeleteThis study seems very useful since elicitation focuses heavily on specific ways of communicating. Did Kaplan go into detail about what he means when he hypothesizes that "if each group elicits different information, then the information would be consistent"? Is he saying that people with similar personality types consistently receive the same information?
ReplyDeleteNot just in how they receive the information but also in how they interpret it to make a judgement/prediction.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you Greg.
DeleteGood Article Sam.
ReplyDelete