Abstract:Psychologists, economists, and philosophers have long argued that in environments where deception is normative, moral behavior is harmed. In this article, we show that individuals making decisions within minimally deceptive environments do not behave more dishonestly than in nondeceptive environments. We demonstrate the latter using an example of experimental deception within established institutions, such as laboratories and institutional review boards. We experimentally manipulated whether participants recei… Show more
“…The main argument against authorized deception was that it might reduce study validity, which is also mentioned by several researchers (Dowrick et al, 2007;Finney, 1987;Gogtay et al, 2020;Holmes & Bennett, 1974;Martin & Katz, 2010). However, there is also some evidence that suggests that authorized deception leads to more appreciation by participants (Allen, 1983;Dowrick et al, 2007;Finney, 1987;Gogtay et al, 2020;Holmes & Bennett, 1974;Klein & Smith, 2004;Martin & Katz, 2010;Wiener & Erker, 1986) and that signaling the potential use of deception might not influence validity for all deceptive studies (Gerlach et al, 2019;Krawczyk, 2015;Mitkidis et al, 2022). Regarding conditions, some guidelines required ethics approval for a waiver of authorized deception.…”
Informed consent and debriefing of research participants in studies that use deception are ethical safeguards for which existing scholarly work on their implementation remains variable and insufficiently clear. A systematic review of research ethics guidelines was conducted to sketch a picture of whether, why and how informed consent and debriefing are recommended when using deception. Documents roughly agreed on several general principles, but varied significantly in the specifics of why and whether these safeguards are necessary, in which conditions and how they should be implemented. Various aspects that appear in the literature could not be found in the guidelines. In our review, guidance was integrated and showed a variation of implementation strategies that could help in contextualizing these safeguards.
“…The main argument against authorized deception was that it might reduce study validity, which is also mentioned by several researchers (Dowrick et al, 2007;Finney, 1987;Gogtay et al, 2020;Holmes & Bennett, 1974;Martin & Katz, 2010). However, there is also some evidence that suggests that authorized deception leads to more appreciation by participants (Allen, 1983;Dowrick et al, 2007;Finney, 1987;Gogtay et al, 2020;Holmes & Bennett, 1974;Klein & Smith, 2004;Martin & Katz, 2010;Wiener & Erker, 1986) and that signaling the potential use of deception might not influence validity for all deceptive studies (Gerlach et al, 2019;Krawczyk, 2015;Mitkidis et al, 2022). Regarding conditions, some guidelines required ethics approval for a waiver of authorized deception.…”
Informed consent and debriefing of research participants in studies that use deception are ethical safeguards for which existing scholarly work on their implementation remains variable and insufficiently clear. A systematic review of research ethics guidelines was conducted to sketch a picture of whether, why and how informed consent and debriefing are recommended when using deception. Documents roughly agreed on several general principles, but varied significantly in the specifics of why and whether these safeguards are necessary, in which conditions and how they should be implemented. Various aspects that appear in the literature could not be found in the guidelines. In our review, guidance was integrated and showed a variation of implementation strategies that could help in contextualizing these safeguards.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.