Experimenter-demand explanations must assume discrimination is induced far more easily than other behaviors

Evidence

The first question to ask is why should the subjects be expecting the experimenters to expect of them this kind of behavior? The Gerard and Hoyt answer to this is that the experimental situation was rigged to cause this kind of expectation in the subjects. This answer retains its plausibility only if we assume that what was no more than a hint from the experimenters about the notion of “groups” being relevant to the subjects’ behavior had been sufficient to determine, powerfully and consistently, a particular form of in-tergroup behavior. In turn, if we assume this—and the assumption is by no means unreasonable—we must also assume that this particular form of intergroup behavior is one which is capable of being induced by the experimenters much more easily than other forms (such as cooperation between the groups in extorting the maximum total amount of money from the experimenters, or a fair division of the spoils between the groups, or simply random responding). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2710

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: A quietly devastating reductio: if experimenter hints could so powerfully produce discrimination, that very ease is itself evidence of a deep-seated behavioral tendency rather than a confound.
• XREF: connects to: Facilitation effects may partly reflect experimenter demand characteristics. — Didier Caluwaerts et al., Deliberation and Polarization: A…, 122