Amelioration of deception and harm in psychological research: The important role of debriefing.

Abstract

The present study attempted to determine the effects of deception and harm on research participants' perceptions of their experiences in psychology experiments. In addition, the role of debriefing in reducing any negative effects was examined. Four hundred and sixty-four students who had participated in psychology experiments during the academic quarter completed questionnaires that included items dealing with their perceptions of harm and benefit, adequacy of debriefing, and experimenters' behavior. Results indicated that those participants who had been deceived evaluated their experience more positively than those who had not participated in deception experiments. Also, effective debriefing seemed to eliminate negative effects perceived by participants who felt they had been harmed.Ethical aspects of psychological research have received considerable attention during the last two decades, emerging in the 1960s as an important methodological issue with the controversy surrounding Milgram's (1963) study of obedience (cf. Baumrind, 1964;Milgram, 1964). Initially, concern with the "ethics" involved in psychological research using human participants centered around possible traumatic psychological consequences to the research participant but soon expanded to cover other issues such as the use of deception (Kelman, 1967), invasion of privacy (Panel on Privacy and Behavioral Research, 1967), and, later, informed consent (Berscheid, Baron, Dermer, &Libman, 1973). As a result of studies such as these and the massive undertaking by the American Psychological Association (APA) Ad Hoc Committee on Ethical Standards in Psychological

Conducting field experiments using eLancing's natural environment

“…Fortunately, there is evidence that participants do not perceive deception to be unethical (Aguinis and Henle, 2001;Collins et al, 1979;Smith and Berard, 1982;Sullivan and Deiker, 1973;Wilson and Donnerstein, 1976), and debriefing seems to eliminate the negative effects of deceptive research on participants (Holmes, 1976;Smith and Richardson, 1983). Moreover, the type of deception involved when conducting a study using eLancing is defined as "mild deception," which consists of "creating false beliefs… such as misleading [participants] about the research sponsor or study purpose" (Kimmel, 2012, p. 402).…”

Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense

“…Second, participants endorse the scientific utility of deception experiments (Clark & Word, 1974;Gerdes, 1979) and seem to be prepared to tolerate deception in the interest of research (Aitkenhead & Dordoy, 1985). Third, participants in deception experiments report having enjoyed the experience more, having felt less bored, and having perceived more educational benefit from their participation than participants in nondeception experiments (e.g., Finney, 1987;S. S. Smith & Richardson, 1983).…”

A Practical Guide to Ethical Research Involving Humans

“…Nonetheless, Sieber (1992) gives excellent guidance, and Smith and Richardson (1983) discuss the crucial role of debriefing in deception experiments.…”

“…This is the least objectionable form of partial disclosure, since it does not affect the subjects' assessments of the risks of 4 Listed in the references section as: Public Welfare, Protection of Human Subjects, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Pt. 46 (45CFR §46), (2005), http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/ guidance/45cfr46.htm participation; full disclosure is provided at the conclusion of the experiment (Smith and Richardson, 1983); and no outright deception is involved.…”