Humans are the “raison d'etre” for human factors, yet what do we really know about the characteristics of those who serve as our subjects and on whom our science is built? What do we need to know? This article addresses issues related to subject selection and data reporting, provides some recommendations, and hopefully raises some questions. Our subjects, as volunteers, differ from the population they are drawn from in many ways, specifically individuals volunteer as a function of the type of experiment. Volunteers have a greater sense of personal responsibility than non-volunteers. They tend to be higher in the need for social approval, and more social than non-volunteers. Volunteers for experiments involving risk taking score significantly higher in risk taking/arousal seeking, and are less anxious than non-volunteers. They are also less authoritarian and less conforming than non-volunteers. Finally, volunteers tend to be better educated than non-volunteers. Articles, which reported findings on human subjects and were published in Human Factors (N=84) or Ergonomics (N=64) between August 1989 and April 1991, were reviewed. Forty percent of the Human Factor articles did not provide sufficient detail for the reader to determine if the subjects were fulfilling a course requirement, paid or unpaid. Our literature seems to be based on individuals between 18 and 30 years of age. In the issues of Human Factors, which were reviewed, among those articles reporting data derived from subjects, the gender of 42 percent of the subjects could not be determined from the article. In 27 percent of the human factor articles demographic data were not reported. It is recommended that authors provide additional information on the characteristics of their subjects, so that researchers and practitioners alike can develop an informed opinion about the applicability/ limitations of the findings. As a minimum, details on age (mean, SD, median and range), gender, and specific demographics should be reported.
[1]
H. Parsons.
What Happened at Hawthorne?
,
1974,
Science.
[2]
D. Schubert,et al.
Increasing Volunteer Representativeness by Recruiting for Credit or Pay
,
1976
.
[3]
O. Favreau.
Sex bias in psychological research.
,
1977
.
[4]
Leonard Krasner,et al.
Pergamon General Psychology Series
,
1979
.
[5]
R. Rosenthal,et al.
The Volunteer Subject
,
1965
.
[6]
B T Davies,et al.
Anthropometry of Algerian women.
,
1990,
Ergonomics.
[7]
Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.
Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis
,
1984
.
[8]
Q. Mcnemar,et al.
Opinion-attitude methodology.
,
1946,
Psychological bulletin.
[9]
James C Geddie.
Profiling the Characteristics of the Developmental Test Participant.
,
1976
.
[10]
David Meister,et al.
Behavioral foundations of system development
,
1984
.
[11]
S. Rosenzweig.
The experimental situation as a psychological problem.
,
1933
.
[12]
D. Broadbent,et al.
Work Preferences as Moderators of the Effects of Paced and Unpaced Work on Mood and Cognitive Performance: A Laboratory Simulation of Mechanized Letter Sorting
,
1990,
Human factors.
[13]
E. Boring.
A history of experimental psychology, 2nd ed.
,
1950
.
[14]
R. Rosenthal,et al.
The volunteer subject revisited
,
1976
.
[15]
J. Jobe,et al.
Risk taking as motivation for volunteering for a hazardous experiment.
,
1983,
Journal of personality.
[16]
Robert Rosenthal,et al.
The Volunteer Subject
,
1976
.