▁explicitly . ▁For ▁example , ▁Feld man ▁& ▁Pro h aska ▁used ▁conf eder ate ▁sub ordinates ▁to ▁el ic it ▁negative ▁expect ations ▁from ▁subjects ▁acting ▁as ▁students ▁or ▁teachers ; ▁in ▁doing ▁so , ▁the ▁eth ical ▁concerns ▁of ▁subjects ▁having ▁to ▁be ▁direct ▁" v ict ims " ▁of ▁the ▁G ole m ▁effect ▁were ▁avoided . ▁O z ▁& ▁E den ▁designed ▁a ▁study ▁in ▁which ▁military ▁squad ▁leaders ▁were ▁differenti ated ▁by ▁treatment ▁and ▁control ▁conditions . ▁In ▁the ▁treatment ▁condition , ▁squad ▁leaders ' ▁per ception s ▁were ▁manip ulated ▁as ▁to ▁believe ▁that ▁low ▁scores ▁on ▁a ▁physical ▁fit ness ▁test ▁were ▁not ▁indic ative ▁of ▁a ▁sub ordinate ' s ▁in e pt itude , ▁whereas ▁the ▁control ▁condition ▁involved ▁no ▁manip ulation . ▁Thus , ▁the ▁G ole m ▁effect ▁was ▁measured ▁indirect ly ▁through ▁theoret ically ▁creating ▁a ▁" buffer " ▁from ▁the ▁effect ▁in ▁the ▁treatment ▁condition . ▁In ▁this ▁manner , ▁the ▁experiment ers ▁never ▁actually ▁created ▁the ▁G ole m ▁effect ▁in ▁their ▁participants ; ▁rather , ▁they ▁measured ▁a ▁naturally ▁occurr ing ▁G ole m ▁effect ▁in ▁comparison ▁to ▁a ▁" G ole m ▁treatment " ▁group . ▁ ▁There ▁is ▁evidence ▁that ▁even ▁studies ▁that ▁directly ▁generate ▁and ▁measure ▁G ole m ▁effects ▁in ▁participants ▁are ▁still ▁very ▁vi able ▁and ▁can ▁be ▁passed ▁by ▁eth ics ▁bo ards ▁and ▁other ▁regul atory ▁bodies . ▁Reyn olds ▁designed ▁a ▁study ▁in ▁which ▁support ▁instruct ors ▁for ▁an ▁intro