Results

• Davis & Tolman 1924, “A Note on the Correlations Between Two Mazes”
• Tolman & Jeffress 1925, “A Self-Recording Maze”
• Tolman & Nyswander 1927, “The Reliability and Validity of Maze-Measures for Rats”
• Tolman 1924, “The Inheritance of Maze-Learning Ability in Rats”
• Stone & Nyswander 1927, “The Reliability of Rat Learning Scores from the Multiple-T Maze as Determined by Four Different Methods”
• Tryon 1930, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, I: The Measurement of the Reliability of Individual Differences”
• Tryon 1931, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, II: The Determination of Individual Differences by Age, Weight, Sex and Pigmentation”
• Tryon 1931, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, III: The Community of Function Between Two Maze Abilities”
• Tryon 1931, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, IV: The Constancy of Individual Differences: Correlation between Learning and Relearning”
• Tryon 1931, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, V: Luminosity and Visual Acuity as Systematic Causes of Individual Differences and an Hypothesis of Maze Ability”
• Heron 1933, “An Automatic Recording Device for Use in Animal Psychology”
• Krechevsky 1933, “Hereditary Nature of ‘Hypotheses’”
• Heron 1935, “The Inheritance of Maze Learning Ability in Rats”
• Hamilton 1935, “The Association Between Brain Size and Maze Ability in the White Rat”
• Tryon 1939, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, VI: Disproof of Sensory Components: Experimental Effects of Stimulus Variation”
• Tryon 1940, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, VII: The Specific Components of Maze Ability and a General Theory of Psychological Components”
• Tryon 1940, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, VIII: Prediction Validity of the Psychological Components of Maze Ability”
• Tryon 1940, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, XIII: Genetic Differences in Maze-Learning Ability in Rats”
• Tryon et al 1941, “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, IX: Ratings of Hiding, Avoidance, Escape, and Vocalization Responses”
• Tryon 1941 , “Studies in Individual Differences in Maze Ability, X: Ratings and Other Measures of Initial Emotional Responses of Rats to Novel Inanimate Objects”
• Heron 1941, “The Inheritance of Brightness and Dullness in Maze Learning Ability in the Rat”
• Hall 1951, “The Genetics of Behavior” (in Handbook of Experimental Psychology⁠, Stevens 1951)
• Hirsch & Tryon 1956, “Mass Screening and Reliable Individual Measurement in the Experimental Behavior Genetics of Lower Organisms”
• Cooper & Zubek 1958, “Effects of Enrich and Restricted Early Environments on the Learning Ability of Bright and Dull Rats”
• McClearn 1959, “The Genetics of Mouse Behavior in Novel Situations”
• McClearn 1962, “The Inheritance of Behavior”
• Rosenthal, R, & Fode, K. (1963). “The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat”⁠. Behavioral Science, 8, 183-189.
• Scott & Fuller 1965, Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog
• Hirsch et al 1967, Behavior-Genetic Analysis
• McClearn 1970, “Behavioral Genetics”
• Wahlsten 1972, “Genetic experiments with animal learning: A critical review”⁠. Behavioral Biology, 1972, 7, 143-182
• Innis 1992, “Tolman and Tryon: Early research on the inheritance of the ability to learn”

Criticism

• Rosenthal, R, & Fode, K. (1963). “The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat”⁠. Behavioral Science, 8, 183-189.
• Experimenter Effects In Behavioral Research⁠, Rosenthal 1976 (review)

Rosenthal & Fode 1963 tested the ability of expectancy effects to create ‘maze-bright’-like differences in rats; undergraduate students were told random rats were maze-bright or dull, and there were subsequent small differences which were just barely statistically-significant⁠.

While they do not explicitly cite Tolman or Tryon, they use maze-running as the task and the term ‘maze-bright’, and approvingly quote Pavlov about how supposed genetic effects may in fact be solely environmental. Given how well-known Tryon was, the specific term, and Rosenthal’s broader research paradigm which is purely environmental and his claims to make enormous changes in highly heritable traits by simple expectancy effects like the (debunked) Pygmalion effect⁠, Rosenthal & Fode 1963 has been interpreted as implying that Tryon’s rats were not genetically modified and possibly the observed differences were merely Tryon et al’s expectancy effects—maze-brightness becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.¹

This is false for many reasons:

1. p-Hacking: Rosenthal & Fode 1963 is highly dubious to begin with: the p-values are all one-tailed (despite Rosenthal’s other experiments supposedly showing that expectancy effects are complex & their directions difficult to predict, making one-tailed unjustified except to make the p-values much smaller²), and despite that, still generally only just p < 0.05 (a classic indicator of a result that will fall prey to the Replication Crisis). Other results of Rosenthal like the Pygmalion effect have signally failed to replicate, and there do not appear to be any replications of Rosenthal & Fode 1963.
2. Too Small Effect: The expectancy effect is far smaller than the genetic effect observed within a few generations, much less the final generation. The genetic effects of selection can easily accumulate; the supposed environmental effect would not.
3. Irrelevant to Automated Experiments: The mechanism of bias as proposed is impossible—Tolman & Tryon invested great efforts into automated maze-running machinery precisely to make the measurements as accurate & unbiased as possible. Undergraduate students could not have biased the maze-running measurements by handling the rats during testing because there were no humans involved during testing! (Rosenthal does not mention this in either version.)