Can deception be desirable?

Abstract

Critics of deception in research allege harm to society, the discipline of psychology, the researchers and participants. However, neither empirical findings nor a ‘reasonable-person’ test seem to support those allegations. By and large, researchers who use deception consider its costs and benefits, and the kind and degree of deceit that is typically used in psychology is of a benevolent type. Moreover, participants prefer to participate in deception research rather than its non-deceptive alternatives. In the light of these premises, we argue that deception can be desirable, especially when considering cost and benefits to research participants.

Blue Genes? Understanding and Mitigating Negative Consequences of Personalized Information about Genetic Risk for Depression

“…Some authors have also argued that deceiving research participants can trigger suspicion that in turn can alter their responses in a way that impairs experimental control, although there is disagreement about whether such effects are substantial or only negligible (Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008; Ortmann & Hertwig, 2002). Notably, empirical research has shown that when participants are told (after completing an experiment) that they were deceived during the experimental procedures, they typically do not report negative psychological reactions to the deception, and participants often feel positively about research that involves deception (Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2016). In particular, participants may find participating in deception-based research to be more enjoyable and interesting, and to have more educational value, than participating in nondeceptive research (Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2016).…”

“…Notably, empirical research has shown that when participants are told (after completing an experiment) that they were deceived during the experimental procedures, they typically do not report negative psychological reactions to the deception, and participants often feel positively about research that involves deception (Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2016). In particular, participants may find participating in deception-based research to be more enjoyable and interesting, and to have more educational value, than participating in nondeceptive research (Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2016). Factors such as the content of the false information provided to participants (rather than the fact that it was false) or the level of professionalism of an experimenter (rather than whether or not she engaged in deception) appear to be more potent determinants of participants’ reactions than deception itself (Boynton, Portnoy, & Johnson, 2013; Epley & Huff, 1998).…”

What happens after debriefing? The effectiveness and benefits of postexperimental debriefing

“…There has been much debate about when and whether deception should be permitted and ethical review boards often heavily scrutinize potential harms of deception research (Kimmel, 2011). However, this debate often solely focuses on harms and does not consider benefits (Uz & Kemmelmeier, 2017). While there are extreme instances of harmful deception (e.g., Tuskegee syphilis study), most deceptive procedures used by psychologists are innocuous (e.g., telling participants they are in a study about learning when the study is actually about personality; Kimmel, 2011).…”

Assessing the acceptability of individual studies that use deception: A systematic review of normative guidance documents

“…Often mentioned are the risks to participants, such as an infringement upon participants' rights (e.g., autonomy), as well as potential emotional and social harms (e.g., reputational damage) (Wendler and Miller 2008;e.g., Kimmel 2012;Rhodes and Miller 2012;Roulet et al 2017). However, subjects might also benefit from participation in research (e.g., gained self-insight), as might researchers conducting these studies (e.g., a better reputation), although for the latter group risks have also been described (e.g., moral distress, safety concerns) (Maguire et al 2019;Marzano 2018;e.g., Falcone 2010;Roulet et al 2017;Kimmel 2012 Uz and Kemmelmeier 2017). Furthermore, deception might lead to suspicion or less trust from the participant, community or society towards the researcher, study, or science and its institutes in general; this in turn may for instance bias participant behavior when subjects expect to be deceived (e.g., as can be the case for psychology students participant in research for credits) (Kimmel 2012;Hertwig and Ortmann 2008a;Baumrind 1978).…”

“…Furthermore, deception might lead to suspicion or less trust from the participant, community or society towards the researcher, study, or science and its institutes in general; this in turn may for instance bias participant behavior when subjects expect to be deceived (e.g., as can be the case for psychology students participant in research for credits) (Kimmel 2012;Hertwig and Ortmann 2008a;Baumrind 1978). However, that does not mean that deception is necessarily damaging to relationships, as it might also be experienced as entertaining or as a method that is necessary to reveal otherwise difficult to gain self-insights (Benham 2008;Uz and Kemmelmeier 2017). Important and often mentioned are the benefits to science such as a decrease in biased participant behavior or in the necessary study resources, as well as an increased access to difficult-to-reach communities (Kimmel 2012;Roulet et al 2017;Hilbig, Thielmann, and Böhm 2021;Sieber, Iannuzzo, and Rodriguez 1995).…”