The Prevalence and Prevention of Crosstalk: A Multi-Institutional Study

• Published in: The Journal of social psychology Vol. 154; no. 3; pp. 181 - 185
• Main Authors: Edlund, John E., Nichols, Austin Lee, Okdie, Bradley M., Guadagno, Rosanna E., Eno, Cassie A., Heider, Jeremy D., Hansen, Edward J., Sagarin, Brad J., Blackhart, Ginette, Cottrell, Catherine A., Wilcox, Kenneth Tyler
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Philadelphia, PA Routledge 04.05.2014; Taylor & Francis; Taylor & Francis Inc
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Colleges & universities; Confidentiality - psychology; Cooperative Behavior; crosstalk; data integrity; Deception; Disclosure - statistics & numerical data; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Humans; Information Dissemination; Knowledge of Results (Psychology); Laboratories; Methodology. Experimentation; participant pools; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Psychometrics. Statistics. Methodology; Research Design; Research methodology; research methods; Research Subjects - psychology; Social Facilitation; social influence; Social psychology; Students - psychology; Human; research methods; Social influence; Social psychology; Methodology; crosstalk; Scientific research; Interference; University environment; data integrity; Experimental study; participant pools
• ISSN: 0022-4545; 1940-1183
• DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2013.872596

It is a common problem in psychology subject pools for past study participants to inform future participants of key experimental details (also known as crosstalk). Previous research (Edlund, Sagarin, Skowronski, Johnson, & Kutter, 2009) demonstrated that a combined classroom and laboratory treatment could significantly reduce crosstalk. The present investigation tested a laboratory-only treatment for the prevention of crosstalk at five universities, along with institutional-level moderators of crosstalk. Results indicated the presence of crosstalk at all universities and that the laboratory-based treatment was effective in reducing crosstalk. Importantly, crosstalk rates were higher (but successfully neutralized) in research pools with higher research credit requirements. Therefore, this research provides valuable guidance regarding crosstalk prevalence and its minimization by researchers.