a double blind experimental procedure

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Double-Blind Studies in Research

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

A double-blind study is one in which neither the participants nor the experimenters know who is receiving a particular treatment. This procedure is utilized to prevent bias in research results. Double-blind studies are particularly useful for preventing bias due to demand characteristics or the placebo effect .

For example, let's imagine that researchers are investigating the effects of a new drug. In a double-blind study, the researchers who interact with the participants would not know who was receiving the actual drug and who was receiving a placebo.

A Closer Look at Double-Blind Studies

Let’s take a closer look at what we mean by a double-blind study and how this type of procedure works. As mentioned previously, double-blind indicates that the participants and the experimenters are unaware of who is receiving the real treatment. What exactly do we mean by ‘treatment'? In a psychology experiment, the treatment is the level of the independent variable that the experimenters are manipulating.

This can be contrasted with a single-blind study in which the experimenters are aware of which participants are receiving the treatment while the participants remain unaware.

In such studies, researchers may use what is known as a placebo. A placebo is an inert substance, such as a sugar pill, that has no effect on the individual taking it. The placebo pill is given to participants who are randomly assigned to the control group. A control group is a subset of participants who are not exposed to any levels of the independent variable . This group serves as a baseline to determine if exposure to the independent variable had any significant effects.

Those randomly assigned to the experimental group are given the treatment in question. Data collected from both groups are then compared to determine if the treatment had some impact on the dependent variable .

All participants in the study will take a pill, but only some of them will receive the real drug under investigation. The rest of the subjects will receive an inactive placebo. With a double-blind study, the participants and the experimenters have no idea who is receiving the real drug and who is receiving the sugar pill.

Double-blind experiments are simply not possible in some scenarios. For example, in an experiment looking at which type of psychotherapy is the most effective, it would be impossible to keep participants in the dark about whether or not they actually received therapy.

Reasons to Use a Double-Blind Study

So why would researchers opt for such a procedure? There are a couple of important reasons.

• First, since the participants do not know which group they are in, their beliefs about the treatment are less likely to influence the outcome.
• Second, since researchers are unaware of which subjects are receiving the real treatment, they are less likely to accidentally reveal subtle clues that might influence the outcome of the research.  

The double-blind procedure helps minimize the possible effects of experimenter bias.   Such biases often involve the researchers unknowingly influencing the results during the administration or data collection stages of the experiment. Researchers sometimes have subjective feelings and biases that might have an influence on how the subjects respond or how the data is collected.

In one research article, randomized double-blind placebo studies were identified as the "gold standard" when it comes to intervention-based studies.   One of the reasons for this is the fact that random assignment reduces the influence of confounding variables.

Imagine that researchers want to determine if consuming energy bars before a demanding athletic event leads to an improvement in performance. The researchers might begin by forming a pool of participants that are fairly equivalent regarding athletic ability. Some participants are randomly assigned to a control group while others are randomly assigned to the experimental group.

Participants are then be asked to eat an energy bar. All of the bars are packaged the same, but some are sports bars while others are simply bar-shaped brownies. The real energy bars contain high levels of protein and vitamins, while the placebo bars do not.

Because this is a double-blind study, neither the participants nor the experimenters know who is consuming the real energy bars and who is consuming the placebo bars.

The participants then complete a predetermined athletic task, and researchers collect data performance. Once all the data has been obtained, researchers can then compare the results of each group and determine if the independent variable had any impact on the dependent variable.  

A Word From Verywell

A double-blind study can be a useful research tool in psychology and other scientific areas. By keeping both the experimenters and the participants blind, bias is less likely to influence the results of the experiment. 

A double-blind experiment can be set up when the lead experimenter sets up the study but then has a colleague (such as a graduate student) collect the data from participants. The type of study that researchers decide to use, however, may depend upon a variety of factors, including characteristics of the situation, the participants, and the nature of the hypothesis under examination.

National Institutes of Health. FAQs About Clinical Studies .

Misra S. Randomized double blind placebo control studies, the "Gold Standard" in intervention based studies . Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS . 2012;33(2):131-4. doi:10.4103/2589-0557.102130

Goodwin, CJ. Research In Psychology: Methods and Design . New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.

Kalat, JW. Introduction to Psychology . Boston, MA: Cengage Learning; 2017.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• General Categories
• Mental Health
• IQ and Intelligence
• Bipolar Disorder

Double-Blind Procedure in Psychology: Definition, Purpose, and Applications

A cornerstone of rigorous scientific inquiry, the double-blind procedure has revolutionized psychological research by minimizing bias and ensuring the integrity of experimental findings. This methodological approach has become a gold standard in psychological studies, providing a robust framework for investigating human behavior, cognition, and emotions. But what exactly is a double-blind procedure, and why has it become so crucial in the field of psychology?

Imagine you’re participating in a groundbreaking study on a new anxiety medication. You’re handed a pill, but you have no idea whether it’s the real deal or just a sugar pill. Interestingly, neither does the researcher who gave it to you. This scenario perfectly encapsulates the essence of a double-blind procedure. It’s a clever way to keep both participants and researchers in the dark about who’s getting what treatment, all in the name of scientific objectivity.

The double-blind procedure isn’t just some fancy scientific jargon – it’s a powerful tool that helps psychologists separate fact from fiction in their research. By keeping everyone involved in the study blissfully unaware of who’s in which group, we can avoid all sorts of sneaky biases that might creep in and muddy the waters of our results. It’s like putting on a blindfold to taste test different sodas – you can’t be influenced by the brand or the color, so you’re more likely to give an honest opinion.

But where did this brilliant idea come from? Well, it’s got quite the history! The concept of blinding in research dates back to the 18th century, but it wasn’t until the mid-20th century that double-blind procedures really took off in psychology. As the field grew more sophisticated and researchers became more aware of the subtle ways that expectations could influence results, the double-blind procedure emerged as a crucial tool for maintaining scientific rigor.

Unpacking the Double-Blind Mystery: Definition and Key Elements

So, what exactly is a double-blind procedure in psychology? At its core, it’s a research method where neither the participants nor the researchers directly involved in the study know who’s receiving which treatment or condition. It’s like a scientific game of hide-and-seek, where the true nature of the experiment is concealed from both parties.

The essential components of a double-blind study are deceptively simple, yet incredibly powerful. First, you’ve got your participants, blissfully unaware of whether they’re in the experimental group or the control group. Then you’ve got your researchers, who are equally in the dark about which participants are receiving which treatment. Finally, there’s a third party – often called the “blinded administrator” – who knows the full details of the study but doesn’t interact directly with the participants.

Now, you might be wondering, “How does this compare to other types of studies?” Well, let’s break it down. In a single-blind study in psychology: definition, methods, and applications , only the participants are kept in the dark about their group assignment. The researchers know who’s who, which can potentially lead to some unintentional bias. And in an open-label study? Well, that’s just a free-for-all where everyone knows everything. It’s like comparing a poker game where everyone’s cards are face-down (double-blind) to one where only some cards are hidden (single-blind) or where all cards are face-up (open-label).

The roles in a double-blind study are carefully choreographed to maintain the integrity of the experiment. Participants are like actors in a play, following instructions without knowing the full script. Researchers are both directors and audience members, guiding the study but unaware of the plot twists. And the administrators? They’re the stagehands, working behind the scenes to keep everything running smoothly without influencing the performance.

The Purpose and Perks of Going Double-Blind

Now that we’ve got the basics down, let’s dive into why psychologists are so gung-ho about double-blind procedures. First and foremost, it’s all about minimizing bias. We humans are a funny bunch – our expectations can seriously mess with reality, even when we don’t mean them to. By keeping both participants and researchers in the dark, we can avoid the pesky placebo effect and other forms of unintentional influence.

But it’s not just about avoiding bias – double-blind procedures are like a shot of espresso for scientific objectivity. When neither the participants nor the researchers know who’s in which group, we can be more confident that any differences we observe are due to the actual treatment or intervention, not because of some unconscious cues or expectations.

This boost in objectivity leads to more reliable and valid results. It’s like building a house on solid foundations – when you start with unbiased data, you can construct more robust theories and draw more accurate conclusions. This is crucial in psychology, where we’re often dealing with complex human behaviors and experiences that can be easily influenced by external factors.

Speaking of objectivity in psychology: defining and applying unbiased perspectives , the double-blind procedure is a key player in this arena. It helps researchers maintain a neutral stance, allowing them to analyze data without preconceived notions about what they “should” find.

All of this adds up to one big benefit: credibility. In a field that sometimes struggles with replication issues and public skepticism, double-blind studies are like a seal of approval. They show that psychologists are committed to rigorous, unbiased research methods, which can help build trust in psychological findings both within the scientific community and among the general public.

Double-Blind in Action: Applications Across Psychology

The beauty of the double-blind procedure is its versatility – it’s like a Swiss Army knife in the psychologist’s toolkit, useful in a wide range of research areas. Let’s take a whirlwind tour of how it’s applied across different branches of psychology.

In clinical psychology, double-blind procedures are the bread and butter of treatment efficacy studies. Imagine you’re testing a new therapy for depression. By using a double-blind design, you can be more confident that any improvements in mood are due to the therapy itself, not just because participants expect to feel better. This approach has been crucial in evaluating the effectiveness of various psychotherapies and pharmacological treatments.

Cognitive psychology experiments also benefit from the double-blind approach. For instance, when studying memory or attention, researchers might use double-blind procedures to ensure that their own expectations don’t inadvertently influence participants’ performance. It’s like making sure the referee in a sports match doesn’t know which team is which – it helps guarantee fair and unbiased judgments.

Social psychology, with its focus on how people interact and influence each other, is another field where double-blind procedures shine. Take a study on prejudice reduction techniques, for example. By keeping both participants and researchers blind to the experimental conditions, we can avoid the experimental bias in psychology: definition, types, and impact on research that might creep in if people knew they were in the “anti-prejudice” group.

Even in the high-tech world of neuropsychological investigations, double-blind procedures play a crucial role. When studying the effects of brain injuries or neurological conditions, using double-blind methods helps ensure that any observed differences in cognitive function are genuinely related to the condition being studied, rather than influenced by researcher expectations or participant beliefs.

The Double-Edged Sword: Challenges and Limitations

While the double-blind procedure is a powerful tool, it’s not without its challenges and limitations. It’s like a delicate soufflé – when done right, it’s magnificent, but there are plenty of ways it can fall flat.

First up, let’s talk ethics. In psychological research, we’re dealing with real people with real emotions and experiences. Sometimes, keeping participants in the dark about the true nature of a study can raise ethical concerns. Researchers have to walk a fine line between maintaining the integrity of the double-blind design and ensuring participants’ well-being and right to informed consent.

Then there’s the practical side of things. Maintaining blindness throughout a study can be trickier than keeping a straight face during a comedy show. In some cases, the nature of the treatment or intervention might be obvious, leading to unintentional unblinding. For example, if you’re studying the effects of meditation on stress, it’s pretty hard to keep participants from knowing whether they’re in the meditation group or not!

Speaking of unblinding, it’s a constant threat to the validity of double-blind studies. If participants or researchers figure out who’s in which group, it can throw a wrench in the whole works. This is especially challenging in long-term studies or those with noticeable side effects. It’s like trying to keep a surprise party secret – the longer it goes on, the more likely someone is to spill the beans.

Lastly, some types of psychological studies simply don’t lend themselves well to double-blind procedures. Take qualitative research or observational studies, for instance. These often rely on researchers’ direct interactions with participants, making it nearly impossible to maintain blindness. It’s a bit like trying to play hide-and-seek in a glass house – sometimes, the very nature of the game makes it impossible to stay hidden.

Mastering the Art of Double-Blind: Best Practices and Tips

So, how can psychologists make the most of double-blind procedures while navigating these challenges? Let’s explore some best practices for implementing this method effectively.

First things first: design is key. When planning a double-blind study, researchers need to think carefully about how to create truly indistinguishable conditions. This might involve using identical packaging for different treatments or developing convincing placebo interventions. It’s like being a magician – the trick only works if the audience can’t tell the difference between the real thing and the illusion.

Maintaining blindness throughout the research process is crucial. This often involves creating separate teams – one that interacts with participants and another that analyzes data. It’s a bit like a relay race, where each runner only knows their part of the course. Researchers also need to be vigilant about avoiding accidental unblinding through casual conversations or unintentional cues.

But how do you know if your blinding efforts have been successful? That’s where assessment comes in. Many studies now include “guess tests” at the end, asking participants and researchers to guess which condition they were in. If they can’t guess better than chance, that’s a good sign your blinding was effective. It’s like a final exam for your study design – if everyone passes (by failing to guess correctly), you know you’ve done a good job.

When it comes to reporting, transparency is key. Researchers should clearly describe their blinding procedures, any instances of unblinding, and the results of any blinding assessments. This helps other scientists evaluate the strength of the study and potentially replicate it in the future. It’s all part of the scientific process of building knowledge brick by brick, study by study.

Wrapping Up: The Future of Double-Blind in Psychology

As we’ve seen, the double-blind procedure is a powerful tool in the psychologist’s arsenal, helping to minimize bias and enhance the credibility of research findings. From clinical trials to cognitive experiments, it’s played a crucial role in advancing our understanding of the human mind and behavior.

But what does the future hold for this tried-and-true method? As psychology continues to evolve, so too will our research techniques. We might see more sophisticated blinding methods, perhaps leveraging technology to create more convincing placebos or to maintain blindness in long-term studies. There’s also growing interest in “triple-blind” designs, where even the data analysts are kept in the dark about group assignments until after initial analyses are complete.

At the same time, there’s a push for more transparency in psychological research. This might lead to new ways of implementing and reporting double-blind procedures, ensuring that studies are both rigorous and open to scrutiny. It’s all part of the ongoing effort to make psychological science more robust and reliable.

As we look to the future, it’s important to remember that no research method is perfect. Double-blind procedures are a valuable tool, but they’re not the only tool in the box. Good science requires a critical eye and a willingness to question our methods, even the ones we hold dear.

So, the next time you read about a psychological study, take a moment to consider the methods behind the findings. Was it double-blind? Single-blind? Open-label? Each approach has its place, and understanding these methods can help us all become more informed consumers of psychological research.

In the end, the double-blind procedure is more than just a research technique – it’s a testament to psychology’s commitment to objectivity and scientific rigor. It reminds us that in the quest to understand the human mind, we must always be willing to challenge our own perceptions and biases. After all, isn’t that what psychology is all about?

References:

1. Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002). Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. The Lancet, 359(9307), 696-700.

2. Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

3. Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gøtzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., … & Altman, D. G. (2010). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c869.

4. Karanicolas, P. J., Farrokhyar, F., & Bhandari, M. (2010). Blinding: Who, what, when, why, how?. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 53(5), 345.

5. Hróbjartsson, A., Emanuelsson, F., Skou Thomsen, A. S., Hilden, J., & Brorson, S. (2014). Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 43(4), 1272-1283.

6. Boutron, I., Estellat, C., & Ravaud, P. (2005). A review of blinding in randomized controlled trials found results inconsistent and questionable. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(12), 1220-1226.

7. Bang, H., Ni, L., & Davis, C. E. (2004). Assessment of blinding in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25(2), 143-156.

8. Wood, L., Egger, M., Gluud, L. L., Schulz, K. F., Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., … & Sterne, J. A. (2008). Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ, 336(7644), 601-605.

9. Fergusson, D., Glass, K. C., Waring, D., & Shapiro, S. (2004). Turning a blind eye: the success of blinding reported in a random sample of randomised, placebo controlled trials. BMJ, 328(7437), 432.

10. Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332.

Was this article helpful?

Would you like to add any comments (optional), leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Post Comment

Related Resources

Brain Samples: Unlocking the Secrets of Neuroscience

Discover Psychology Impact Factor: Exploring the Journal’s Influence and Significance

Confidence Intervals in Psychology: Enhancing Statistical Interpretation and Research Validity

Control Condition in Psychology: Definition, Purpose, and Applications

Dependent Variables in Psychology: Definition, Examples, and Importance

Debriefing in Psychology: Definition, Purpose, and Techniques

Correlation in Psychology: Definition, Types, and Applications

Data Collection Methods in Psychology: Essential Techniques for Researchers

Histogram in Psychology: Definition, Applications, and Significance

Dimensional vs Categorical Approach in Psychology: Comparing Methods of Classification