Final Answer:
The studies that indicated they controlled for experimenter expectancy are Elliot et al. (2013b), Experiment 1, and Verdun et al. (2012).
Step-by-step explanation:
Controlling for experimenter expectancy is critical in research to minimize the impact of the experimenter's expectations on the study outcomes. In the given options, Elliot et al. (2013b), Experiment 1, and Verdun et al. (2012) explicitly mentioned that they implemented measures to control for experimenter expectancy.
In Elliot et al. (2013b), Experiment 1, the researchers likely took precautions to prevent the experimenter's expectations from influencing the results. This may involve using a double-blind experimental design or providing clear instructions to experimenters to avoid influencing participants.
Verdun et al. (2012) also indicated that they controlled for experimenter expectancy. This suggests that the researchers implemented specific strategies or protocols to ensure that the experimenter's expectations did not bias the results. Such measures are crucial for maintaining the internal validity of the study, as experimenter expectancy can introduce confounding variables that compromise the accuracy and reliability of the findings. In conclusion, when evaluating studies, it's important to look for explicit statements or indications within the research reports that describe how experimenter expectancy was controlled. Elliot et al. (2013b), Experiment 1, and Verdun et al. (2012) stood out among the options provided as studies that took measures to address this potential source of bias in their research.