Probing suspicion among participants in deception research.

Abstract

Episodic future thinking about the ideal self induces lower discounting, leading to a decreased tendency toward cheating.

Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense

“…Those who suspected being tricked were less likely to bend to social pressure than those who trusted the experimental scenario. If one assumes that not all participants reveal their suspicions truthfully (see Altemeyer, 1971;Taylor & Shepperd, 1996), then the true differences between the groups may be even larger. In research on conformity behavior suspicion appears to increase the probability beta of wrongly rejecting the alternative hypothesis (Type II error) rather than increasing the probability alpha of wrongly rejecting the null hypothesis (Type I error; for an example of Type I error due to deception, see the weapon effect below).…”

The communication of anger and disappointment helps to establish cooperation through indirect reciprocity

“…No deception was used, which renders alternative explanations based on any suspicion of participants unlikely (Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008a, 2008bKelman, 1967;MacCoun & Kerr, 1987;Taylor & Shepperd, 1996). Moreover, providing tangible financial incentives makes cooperation truly costly, so that participants make more realistic and less socially desirable choices (Camerer & Hogarth, 1999).…”

Deception in stress reactivity and recovery research

“…Use of deception in experimental designs is particularly undesirable when it fails to achieve its intention, namely to assure that responses are not confounded by expectations and knowledge about the experimenters' intentions (Taylor and Shepperd, 1996). This raises the question of how often and under what circumstances participants see through psychologists' concealments.…”