Bias

Bias yang dimaksud di halaman ini ialah keberpihakan dari peneliti atau penerbit laporan
penelitian ke kesimpulan dan rekomendasi yang tidak valid, baik yang tidak disengaja ataupun
yang tidak diakui. Bias peneliti dapat terjadi pada semua tahap penelitian (persiapan,
pengumpulan data, pengolahan data, penafsiran data dan pelaporan) dan dapat dideteksi di
laporan penelitian yang dipublikasi melalui pertemuan ilmiah atau berkala ilmiah. Bias penerbit
dari penyelenggara pertemuan ilmiah atau penerbit berkala ilmiah dapat mempengaruhi ke arah
yang keliru pembuatan keputusan pendana proyek penelitian, pembuatan kebijakan publik dan
perilaku masyarakat. Kecenderungan yang keliru ini sering diperparah oleh bias media
kecenderungan penerbit media komunikasi masa untuk lebih banyak atau lebih cepat
mempublikasikan kesimpulan dan rekomendasi penelitian yang mendukung hipotesis walaupun
tidak valid.

Bias Penafsiran Data

The placebo effect in medicine, where getting an inert (e.g. sugar) pill has a large
positive effect. Many believe that there are often large positive effects apparently simply
from the expectation created in the patient: if true, this is the placebo effect, where the
intervention in fact has no material effect, but the belief by the participant does. Although
often transmitted from the doctors expectancies, it may be independent of the doctor. It
may show particularly strongly in side-effects, where the number and severity of sideeffects may be three times larger when patients are warned about the possibility in both
groups that get the active treatment and in the placebo group. However as noted above,
some do not believe any such effect exists.

The Hawthorne effect: simply of being studied. Aspects of this suggest that the effect
did not depend on the particular expectation of the researchers, but that being studied
caused the improved performance. This might be because attention made the workers feel
better; or because it caused them to reflect on their work and reflection caused
performance improvements, or because the experimental situation provided them with

performance feedback they didnt otherwise have and this extra information allowed
improvements.

The John Henry effect (Zdep & Irvine; 1970) is the opposite of the Hawthorne effect: it
is when a supposedly control group, that gets no intervention, compares themselves to the
experimental group and through extra effort gets the same effects or results. A kind of
counter-suggestibility. http://w2.xrefer.com/entry/151552

The halo effect of uncontrolled novelty: the participant performs differently at first
because of the novelty of the treatment which may change their expectation, or simply
cause them to be more alert or otherwise perform differently. The experimenter is not
important, but a materially unjustified belief, perhaps from other social media, may be
(e.g. participants think the technology / educational intervention is wonderful and that
belief is the real cause of raised outcomes); or else simply the novelty rather than belief
matters, if it operates through (say) attention rather than through expectancies.

Experimenter effects. Specific expectations acquired, consciously or not, from the

researcher. Some experimenter effects have been demonstrated equally in positive and
negative directions. Rosenthal (1966) describes experimentally tested experimenter
effects in behavioral research, which is summarised by Rosenthal & Jacobson (1992).
Prophesying a difference caused research assistants to create an effect, and this could be
done equally in either direction (i.e. can create a positive or negative effect this way).
This was done where the experimental task being manipulated required judgements by
the nominal participants. However this was about one tenth the size of the effect
prophesied, so it would be quite wrong to describe this as seeing what you expect: it
would be more accurate to suggest that experimenters could influence subjects on
marginal cases and so systematically bias (only) within the range of experimental
noise. However if stooges acting as the first subjects behaved differently, this overrode
and created a more effective expectation (and consequent effect on real subjects). Such
effects have also been demonstrated in animal experiments and on learning and IQ
tests/tasks at least sometimes.

Jastrows effect on factory work was much bigger: here an explicit expectation about
performance was transmitted and turned out to change output by a factor of three.

The Pygmalion effect or expectancy advantage is that of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Teachers expectations of pupils can strongly affect (by about a factor of two over a year)
the amount of development they show.

Source (25 Sept 2012): http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/hawth.html

Definitions of interpretation biases
Source (12 Feb 2013): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126323/
Confirmation biasevaluating evidence that supports ones preconceptions differently from
evidence that challenges these convictions
Rescue biasdiscounting data by finding selective faults in the experiment
Auxiliary hypothesis biasintroducing ad hoc modifications to imply that an unanticipated
finding would have been otherwise had the experimental conditions been different
Mechanism biasbeing less sceptical when underlying science furnishes credibility for the data
Time will tell biasthe phenomenon that different scientists need different amounts of
confirmatory evidence
Orientation biasthe possibility that the hypothesis itself introduces prejudices and errors and
becomes a determinate of experimental outcomes

Bias Penerbit
Proteus Phenomenon: menerbitkan lebih awal laporan penelitian yang kesimpulannya
kontroversial. (10 Jan 12: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteus#cite_note-3)

Positive-outcome Bias: menerbitkan lebih sering laporan penelitian yang kesimpulannya

mendukung hipotesis. (10 Jan 12: http://www.skepdic.com/posoutbias.html)