Empirical Assessment of the Ethics of the Bogus Pipeline¹

Abstract

This study investigated the ethics of the bogus pipeline (BPL), a deceptive method used to enhance the validity of self‐reported attitudes and behavior. Potential participants in BPL studies (N= 180) read 1 of 6 descriptions of published articles using the BPL, and provided their perceptions of the costs and benefits of using this method. Results indicate that the BPL is perceived, overall, as a useful and ethical research method. Although they might experience some unpleasant emotions when exposed to the BPL, potential participants believed that the studies using the BPL should have been conducted and that their benefits outweighed the costs. The present empirical results will allow institutional review boards, granting agencies, and other policymakers to complement value‐based perspectives with utilitarian‐based perspectives in making decisions regarding the use of the BPL.

Cocaine craving and use during daily life

“…The latter approach has been tried in non-treatment-seeking cigarette smokers; results showed no association between cue-induced craving and latency to the next cigarette, but the authors noted that this portion of their findings needed to be interpreted with caution because participants recorded a mean of only 56% of the number of cigarettes per day that they had reported typically smoking at study entry (Warthen and Tiffany 2009). Reinforcement for complete EMA recording, perhaps using bogus-pipeline procedures (Aguinis and Henle 2001; Sigall 1997), could improve the reliability of this approach and enable strong conclusions about causation.…”

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).…”

“…This is not an issue unique to web-based research or eLancing in particular because deception has been used regularly for decades (Adair et al, 1985;Gross and Fleming, 1982;Sieber et al, 1995). Specifically, deception is a widely used and discussed topic in closely related fields such as psychology, sociology, and organizational behavior (Aguinis and Handelsman, 1997;Aguinis and Henle, 2001;Gross and Fleming, 1982). As concluded by a recent literature review of the use of deception in psychological research, "Deception represents an important research tool for psychologists and continues to serve as an essential means for overcoming the potential validity threats associated with the investigation of conscious human beings" (Kimmel, 2012, p. 417).…”

Can deception be desirable?

“…Yet, many others have found that participants have quite favorable attitudes (e.g. Aguinis & Henle, 2001;Korn, 1987;Ring et al, 1970). Compared to non-deceptive alternatives, participants find being a part of deception research more interesting and valuable (e.g.…”