Deceiving experimental subjects.

Empirical Assessment of the Ethics of the Bogus Pipeline1

“…In fact, Aguinis and Handelsman's ( 1997a) article delineated clear differences between a deontological (i.e., value-based) and a utilitarian (i.e., data-based) approach to deciding about the ethics of using the BPL. Nevertheless, like many others (e.g., Gergen, 1973;Sieber, 1983;Vinacke, 1954;Wilson & Donnerstein, 1976), we believe that data can complement value-based decisions and provide useful information.…”

“…Moreover, following a recommendation regarding ethical issues in social psychology in general (e.g., Gergen, 1973;West & Gunn, 1978), recent debates on the ethics of using the BPL concluded with the recommendation that empirical research be conducted to inform the debate (Aguinis & Handelsman, 1997b). Although empirical research might not be a substitute for value-based decisions, from a utilitarian perspective (Aguinis & Handelsman, 1997b) data may provide useful information and complement belief-based recommendations (Gergen, 1973;Sieber, 1983;Vinacke, 1954;Wilson & Donnerstein, 1976).…”

“…On both sides of the debate, researchers have long recognized the need to inform ethical decision making regarding the use of deception by conducting empirical research (Gergen, 1973;West & GUM, 1978). Although ethical debates may not be resolved by collecting data, some have suggested that the insight that potential participants could offer about the effects of research using deception should be a critical factor in deciding the ethics of various deceptive procedures (Gergen, 1973;Sieber, 1983;Vinacke, 1954;Wilson & Donnerstein, 1976). Unfortunately, despite the call for such research, little empirical data have been gathered to provide support, or lack thereof, to claims that deception may be justified (see Fisher & Fyrberg, 1994, for a notable exception).…”

Evaluating Deception in Psychological Research1

“…A more indirect approach can also be used. Rather than establishing that the same behavior occurs in the deceptive situation and the real one, it may be possible to demonstrate, at the vel~least, that the deceptive situation elicits different behavior than the same situation stripped of its dissimulations (Vinacke, 1954). A deception study can be compared with the same experiment in which the subjects are correctly infoTI~ed about the aspects of the investigation that would otherwise be falsified.…”

“…Subjects may be eager and cooperative, bored, or vindictive and intent on sabotaging the investigation (Allen, 1966;Baumrind, 196 1 1;Brock & Becker, 1966;Fillenbaum, 1966;Goldberg, 1965;Holmes, 1967;Kelman, 1967;MacKinney, 1955;Masling, 1966;Milgram, 1964;Riecken, 1962;Vinacke, 1954). Considering the many possible differences in the perceptions and motivations of suspicious subjects, the only certainty is that their disbelief increases extraneous variation in a study (Kelman, 1967).…”