“THERE IS AN EFFECT ON CONFEDERATES”: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF
THE EXPERIENCES OF RESEARCH CONFEDERATES
by
Elliott Lee
100 705 694
August 23, 2010
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE B.A WITH HONOURS DEGREE
Confederates’ Experiences
Abstract
This research used qualitative research methods to systematically document the nature of
people’s experiences as confederates in psychological research. Eight confederates (2 males
and 6 females), identified using purposive sampling, participated in semi-structured interviews
regarding the nature of their experiences. Using the methods of grounded theory (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990), the analyses revealed that confederates whose role did not require acting in a
way that might distress participants had slightly positive experiences, largely because of what
they learned. Confederates whose role did involve acting in a way that might distress
participants expressed ambiguous attitudes toward being a research confederate, attitudes that
were determined by weighing the challenges, concerns, and negative feelings they
experienced against their belief in the necessity of measures, their faith in the scientific
process, improvements of their performance over time, their use of personalized coping
strategies, and learning experiences. The limitations of this research and its implications for
research confederates, researchers, and professional bodies governing research are discussed.
Keywords: confederate, experience, grounded theory
ii
Confederates’ Experiences
Acknowledgements
Thank you Dr. Connie Kristiansen for helping me finish this and helping me do it right.
Thank you to Whitney Taylor for encouraging me.
iii
Confederates’ Experiences
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................iv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. vii
List of Appendices ..................................................................................................................... viii
General Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Research Confederates’ Roles ..................................................................................................... 1
Ethical Issues Associated with the Use of Deception .................................................................. 4
Alternatives to deception ......................................................................................................... 6
Informed consent ..................................................................................................................... 7
Debriefing .............................................................................................................................. 10
Summary................................................................................................................................ 13
Studies of Research Confederates’ Experiences ....................................................................... 14
The Current Research ................................................................................................................ 17
Locating myself ..................................................................................................................... 17
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Participants and Sampling ........................................................................................................ 21
Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 23
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 25
Journaling .................................................................................................................................. 27
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 29
Challenges ................................................................................................................................. 31
Acting-related challenges ...................................................................................................... 32
Participant-related challenges ................................................................................................ 33
Concerns .................................................................................................................................... 34
Concern for the experiment ................................................................................................... 34
Concern for participants ........................................................................................................ 35
Negative Feelings ...................................................................................................................... 36
Counteracting Negative Feelings .............................................................................................. 37
Belief in necessity of methods ............................................................................................... 38
Faith in the scientific process ................................................................................................ 39
Improvement of performance ................................................................................................ 42
Personalized coping strategies ............................................................................................... 43
Learning Experience.................................................................................................................. 45
iv
Confederates’ Experiences
Negative Case ............................................................................................................................ 47
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 49
References..................................................................................................................................... 55
v
Confederates’ Experiences
List of Tables
Table 1. Participant information ...................................................................................... 21
Table 2. Participants’ overall experiences and the potential for harm their role held…30
vi
Confederates’ Experiences
List of Figures
Figure 1. Weighing scale model of confederates’ experiences ......................................... 30
vii
Confederates’ Experiences
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Email to Psychology Department Chair for Faculty Members and Graduate
Students……………………………………….…………………………………………74
Appendix B. Informed Consent.…………………………………………………………76
Appendix C. Interview Schedule...………………………………………………………78
Appendix D. Face Sheet.…………………………………………………………………80
Appendix E. Debriefing……….…………………………………………………………81
Appendix F. Post Interview Comment Sheet.……………………………………………83
viii
Confederates’ Experiences 1
“There is an effect on confederates”: A Qualitative Study of the
Experiences of Research Confederates
Elliott Lee
Psychologists have an array of research methods in their methodological toolboxes,
methods that range from national surveys, computerized questionnaires, role playing, field
studies, to personal interviews. Among these, one of the most coveted resources is the
experiment. Experiments offer the researcher almost complete control over the situation
encountered by research participants, including control over the way independent variables are
manipulated, the presence (of at least some) extraneous variables, and how dependent
variables are measured. Often, psychologists, particularly social psychologists, wish to
observe the effects of a person’s behaviour on other peoples’ behaviour, emotions, opinions or
some other dependent variable. In such cases, an effective way of manipulating the
independent variable involves the experimenter hiring a person, known as a research
confederate, to enact the various predetermined behavioural scripts that constitute the
manipulation of the independent variable. The present research is concerned with people’s
experiences being research confederates in such research.
I will begin by briefly describing the types of roles that have been enacted by research
confederates. Because the use deception is inherent to any study employing research
confederates, a discussion of the ethical issues associated with deception will be presented.
Following this, the existing, albeit scant, research examining research confederates’
experiences will be reviewed.
Research Confederates’ Roles
Confederates’ Experiences 2
Research confederates have enacted all sorts of roles, including roles that involve
enacting benign and beneficial behaviours. In Guéguen's (2007) study of tipping behaviour,
for example, the research confederate enacted a fairly benign role. Specifically, the
confederate stood in line in a bakery and either tipped the cashier 50 cents or gave no tip. As
Guéguen anticipated, the tipping behaviour of the people waiting in line behind the
confederate was influenced by the confederate’s tipping behaviour.
Bartlett and DeSteno's (2006) study of gratitude and prosocial behaviour illustrates the
use of confederates to enact positive or potentially beneficial behaviours. In this study a
research confederate either offered to help a research participant, whose computer monitor
stopped working, or engaged in a friendly discussion with a participant after viewing a
humorous video clip. Participants’ gratitude and helping behaviour was then assessed by
having them by rate their willingness to participate in an ostensibly separate survey being
performed by the confederate. Analyzing these data revealed that the research participants
expressed more gratitude in that they were more likely to help the confederate when the
confederate had helped them, relative to when the confederate had simply conversed with
them.
While some research may require confederates to enact relatively positive roles, other
studies employ confederates to enact scripts involving negative behaviours, behaviours that
sometimes have the potential to distress or harm the research participants. For instance, in his
now classic studies of obedience to authority, Milgram (1974) led research participants to
believe that they were about to take part in a study of ways of facilitating learning. Each
research participant was then informed that she or he had been randomly assigned to be the
“teacher” and that the research confederate, who was pretending to be another research
Confederates’ Experiences 3
participant, had been randomly assigned to be the “learner.” The participant was further
instructed to administer what they believed was an electrical shock whenever the learner failed
to learn and responded incorrectly. Further, with each successive error, the participant was
instructed to give the learner what appeared to be progressively stronger electrical shocks and,
as they did so, the confederate began to increasingly complain of pain and, in some cases,
potentially life-threatening medical problems (e.g., heart problems). The actual dependent
variable of interest was “obedience,” as operationalized by the level of electrical shock at
which the participant refused to continue with the experiment, values that could range from
zero to 30. Of the 40 participants in Milgram's (1963) initial experiment, 26 (65.0%) heeded
the experimenter's prods to continue despite the supposed learner’s extreme protests and went
on to administer the maximum shock level. The remaining 14 participants expressed great
agitation and anger and refused to continue with the study after having administered shocks
between levels 20 and 25.
Milgram’s (1974) methods were subjected to intense scrutiny following the release of
the initial results and concerns regarding the participants’ well-being were raised. Because
many of the research participants became increasingly distressed as the experiment
progressed, as manifest by increases in sweating, trembling, stuttering, and other signs of
tension, some declared that the methods were risqué and unethical (Baumrind, 1964).
However, none of the issues that were raised concerned the research confederate, who was
simply described as “a forty-seven-year-old accountant, trained for the role; he was of IrishAmerican descent and most observers found him mild-mannered and likable” (Milgram, 1974,
p.16). That many of the research participants became increasingly distressed as they
administered shocks that they believed caused the confederate increasing levels of pain and
Confederates’ Experiences 4
harm, suggests that the research confederate may have had a parallel experience. Research
indicating that empathic people suffer with those they witness suffering (e.g., Batson, 1998;
Hoffman, 2000) suggests that Milgram’s research confederate may have experienced
increasing levels of distress as he witnessed research participants’ increasingly distressful
responses to his role-related behaviour. Indeed, it is possible that the research confederate
obeyed Milgram’s instructions to act in ways that distressed the research participants in the
same way that the actual participants obeyed the experimenter’s instructions to punish and
thereby distress the supposed “learner.” Given this possibility, the present research is
designed to examine the nature of research confederates’ experiences.
Ethical Issues Associated with the Use of Deception
The use of a research confederate implies the use of deception, which is a divisive
topic among psychologists. One of the first discussions of the ethical issues surrounding
deception appeared in the 1950s, when Vinacke (1954) expressed his concerns about how
readily psychologists resorted to the use of deception to ensure participants’ naivety without
considering the potential repercussions of such deception. Vinacke (1954) also questioned
whether debriefing procedures were sufficient to remove any negative effects deception may
have on research participants, whether the use of deception might harm the public’s image of
the psychological community, and whether the benefits of scientific research findings
outweigh the costs of any potential harm to research participants.
Not only did Vinacke’s (1954) simple commentary stimulate public discussion of the
ethics of deception, it also detailed the most common issues raised in subsequent debates
regarding the use of deception. Like Vinacke (1954), Kelman (1967) indicated that, “what
concerns me most is not so much that deception is used, but precisely that it is used without
Confederates’ Experiences 5
question.” (p. 3). Indeed, deception has become almost normative within research, even
though governing bodies often suggest that it be used only as a last resort. The American
Psychological Association (APA, 2002), for example, asserts that deception is only warranted
when the possible results of a study are of great scientific, educational, or applied value and
when there are no other research options.
Although considerable arguments have been made against the use of deception in
psychological research, there are also a number of benefits of associated with the use of
deception in psychological research. A main argument for the use of deception is that the
purpose of experimental research is to determine the causes of events that occur in the real
world (Aronson, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, & Gonzales, 1990), which means that experimental
paradigms most similar to the real world are optimal. Deception is employed to make an
experimental situation similar to a real-life experience by having a naive participant.
Deception is ideal because it provides situations to which the participant reacts, versus
situations in which they think of how they might react (as in role playing scenarios or
experiments that involve vignettes with the question “what do you think you would do in such
a situation?”).
Deception is also inherent in many measurement devices used by social scientists
(Kelman, 1967). For example, most of the questionnaires used by psychologists do not
explicitly state what they measure, for fear of biasing results by social desirability and other
concerns. Thus, it may not be too much of stretch to extend the deception to the hypothesis of
the overall study. This argument only holds in the case of passive deception, where the
purpose of the study is concealed, not in studies where a large-scale hoax is involved.
Confederates’ Experiences 6
Alternatives to the use of deception. Because most researchers are likely to believe
that their research findings are likely to have great scientific, educational, or applied value,
using this criterion to justify the use of deception is problematic. There is also some evidence
that existing alternatives to the use of deception, such as role playing, may be ineffective.
Role playing involves telling participants the purpose of the research and then asking them to
act how they think they would if the situation were real. In addition to being ethically sound,
role playing avoids some of the negative repercussions of other research methods, such as
evaluation apprehension, suspiciousness, and docility toward the experiment (Miller, 1972).
In a pioneering comparison of role playing and deception, Willis and Willis (1970) had
pairs of participants rank the aesthetic value of ten photographs. They then provided each
participant with information about their partner’s ranking and information about the similarity
of their own rankings and their partner’s rankings to the rankings of a panel of experts. After
considering this information the participants were asked to re-rank the photographs and their
conformity to their partner’s rankings was assessed. Two variables were manipulated within
this context. “Perceived task competence” was manipulated by the experimenter’s feedback
after the participants’ initial ranking indicating that either the participant’s rankings or their
partner’s rankings were more in line with the rankings of the expert panel. The second
independent variable, “instructional set,” was manipulated by telling some participants that the
study was interested in how much they would be influenced by their partner’s rankings or that
the study concerned their ability to use additional information to improve their performance.
In addition, before the study half of the participants were deceived about the purpose of the
study, among other things. The remaining participants were truthfully informed that the
experiment involved a comparison of role playing and deception procedures.
Confederates’ Experiences 7
The analyses of these data revealed that role playing duplicated the obvious or strong
main effect of perceived task competence observed in the deception condition but not the
more subtle or weaker interaction between instructional set and perceived task competence.
Willis and Willis (1970) therefore concluded that, while there may be some merit to using
role-playing over deception when the effects of interest are known to be strong, role playing
should be used with awareness of the fact that some effects may go undetected.
Miller (1972) also noted a number of weakness in his review of role-playing as an
alternative to deception, with one being the fact that participants act differently when in role
plays as opposed to deception situations. Similarly, although an infamous role play study
replicated Milgram’s (1974) obedience findings, role playing was best when the researcher
was absent (Geller, 1978). Overall, then, the evidence that role playing is a viable alternative
to deception is at best mixed.
Informed consent. In the addition to concerns regarding the effectiveness of
alternatives to the use of deception, researchers have debated issues associated with the nature
of informed consent when research involves deception. Informed consent refers the process
of disclosing the purpose and proceedings of a study to participants in a way that allows them
to make an informed decision whether or not to participate in the study. Deception is used
whenever the true purpose of the research is not revealed, something that occurs whenever the
nature of the research is disguised by a false but believable “cover story.” When deception is
used, participants who agree to participate have essentially consented to misinformation
(Smith & Richardson, 1983). Indeed, some have argued that when deception is used informed
consent serves no purpose other than to supplement the cover story (Adair, Dushenko, &
Lindsay, 1985).
Confederates’ Experiences 8
Because consent procedures inform participants of what they will be exposed to and
required to do during the study, some researchers (e.g., Baron, 1981) have argued that the
purpose of informed consent can be served even when deception is used. This belief hinges
on the entire proceedings being revealed to the participant prior to their participation,
something that does not always occur. For example, the participants in Asch's (1951)
conformity study were not informed of either the true purpose of the study or its methods.
This experiment involved a single participant in a room with several confederates whom they
believed to be other participants. Three lines were presented on a screen and each individual
in the room was required identify which of the three lines was most similar in length to a
fourth line. Within this context, the research confederates gave the same wrong answer by
declaring that they believed one of the incorrect lines matched best with the fourth line. A
total of 37 participants conformed to the confederates’ responses by choosing the incorrect
line at least once, whereas only 2 of the individuals in the no-confederate control condition
made actual errors. Using Baron’s (1981) explanation of informed consent I would suggest,
albeit facetiously, that participants should have been informed that the confederates would be
giving predetermined incorrect responses. I say facetiously because the results could not be
duplicated if the participants had known that the others were giving a prescribed incorrect
answer.
The APA (1982) agrees with the aforementioned issues regarding informed consent in
studies using deception, stating that “deception employed in research intrinsically
compromises the agreement on which consent is based” (p. 35). However, the APA does
allow deception under the conditions identified earlier. They also offer some guidelines for
situations in which informed consent may be waived, such as when the research is not
Confederates’ Experiences 9
expected to harm or distress the participant, when the research involves educational research
of normal practices or anonymous participant information (such as naturalistic observation or
archival research) and in organizations where there are no repercussions for employees (APA,
2002).
The APA also provides provisions for handling informed consent procedures in studies
involving deception, provisions that are similar to the informed consent guidelines for studies
that do not involve deception. In addition, however, participants must be given the
opportunity to refuse to participate and withdraw from the study without any negative
repercussions and, following the experiment, participants must be informed of the deception
and why it was necessary (APA, 1982, 2000).
In Canada, the ethical regulations governing psychological research are set in place by
the Tri-Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada. The Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE), which
oversees the Tri-Council Policy Statement (TCPS), requires researchers to provide people
with the opportunity to give informed consent at their own accord (PRE, 2005). However,
any or all of the requirements of informed consent can be waived by the Research Ethics
Board if the research poses very little risk to participants, if it could not otherwise be
conducted, if there is no therapeutic intervention involved, and whenever possible and
appropriate, participants are provided with complete information regarding the study
following their participation. It is interesting to note that, while the PRE is in charge of
interpreting and implementing the TCPS, it does not indicate that they enforce it.
Confederates’ Experiences 10
Debriefing. Debates regarding the use of deception in psychological research have
also focussed on whether debriefing a participant about the true purpose of an experiment can
subsequently undo any harm caused by the deception. Debriefing is a procedure designed to
remove any misconceptions created during the research, such as those associated with any
deception, and to restore any trust that was lost between researcher and participant (Baumrind,
1979; Sieber, 1983; Smith & Richarson, 1983). Debriefing participants may also involve
attempts to help reassure the participant that they have contributed to science and to
knowledge and that these contributions are educational and beneficial to themselves and
society (Sieber, 1983). Moreover, to ensure the well-being of the participant, the debriefing
should clarify all aspects of any deception or hoax (Sieber, 1983). When research
confederates have been used, debriefings may also include formally introducing the
confederate and their true identity to the participant (Sieber, 1983). Milgram (1963) referred
to this arrangement as “a friendly reconciliation” (p. 374) and is deemed important because it
provides an opportunity to both appease any harm done and to ensure that the participant
holds no antipathy for the confederate.
While the intent and goals of debriefing are clearly laudable, debriefing a participant is
not necessarily effective in correcting misconceptions and reinstating a participant’s trust in
the researcher or psychology more generally. Indeed, findings regarding the “belief
perseverance effect” suggest that debriefing may do more to appease the researcher than the
participant. In this regard Anderson, Lepper, and Ross (1980) had some participants read case
studies suggesting that risk takers make better firefighters and other participants read case
studies suggesting that cautious people make better firefighters. The participants were then
instructed to think of a theory that would explain the findings of the case studies they read.
Confederates’ Experiences 11
After doing so, the participants were then told that the information in the case studies was
false and had been made up for the purposes of the study. Despite receiving this information,
participants continued to believe the information they had read. Such findings, then, do not
bode well for the ability of debriefing procedures to address the misconceptions stemming
from the use of deception.
Other research suggests that debriefings may effectively address the misconceptions
associated with research using deception and that participants may actually enjoy such
research experiences. In an early study by Smith and Richardson (1983), individuals who had
recently participated in psychological research studies were polled about their perceptions of
the informed consent procedure, how considerate the experimenter had been, the debriefing
procedure, any effects of their participation on their trust of psychologists, whether any
educational benefits were noted, whether deception had properly been explained, and their
overall evaluation of the study they had participated in. They were also asked about any harm
they experienced during the study and whether the researcher had properly addressed it and
helped to reduce or remove it. Interestingly, and contrary to expectations, participants who
had been deceived felt more positive about their participation than those who had not been
deceived. In addition, individuals who reported harm that they believed had been addressed
effectively reported the most educational benefit from their participation while those who
reported harm that they believed had not been addressed effectively reported the least trust of
psychologists. Finally, the debriefing was reported as being most effective when it removed
all negative aspects of their research participation, when the participants felt they had learned
something, and when the researcher showed care and concern while conducting the
debriefing. These findings suggest that researchers have a responsibility to properly address
Confederates’ Experiences 12
any potential harm their experimental situation creates in participants and they should offer
the debriefing as an educational element to help mitigate this harm.
Oczak and Niedźwienska (2007) recently proposed a new method of debriefing for
research involving deception, a method designed to address two issues. First, an educational
element is used to help eradicate any effects when participants gaining new and potentially
negative knowledge of themselves. Essentially, this consists of an opportunity to use the new
knowledge in a positive rather than negative manner. Second, participants are taught how to
recognize deception so as to help eradicate the effects of the deception and to equip
individuals with the ability to recognize and cope with future occasions when they may be
deceived.
To test their debriefing method, Oczak and Niedźwienska (2007) had 60 participants
participate in a study of suggestibility. Participants were told that they were participating in a
study of memory. At the outset, the participants were asked to complete the State Self-Esteem
Scale (SSES) and three Semantic Differential (SD) scales assessing their current mood,
psychological experiments, and themselves. After completing these measures, the participants
completed the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS). Then, half of the participants were
debriefed using a traditional approach and the remaining participants were debriefed using the
new method. All participants were then met by another researcher who declared that she was
interested in people's reactions to participating in psychological research and asked
participants to complete the SSES and SD scales again. The experimental participants were
also asked to complete the GSS again.
Participants who received the new extended debriefing were less suggestible following
the debriefing than participants who received the traditional debriefing (Oczak &
Confederates’ Experiences 13
Niedźwienska, 2007). In addition, while the individuals who were given the standard
debriefing developed more negative moods over the course of the study, those who received
the new extended debriefing reported more positive moods. Relative to participants who
received the traditional debriefing, those who received the new debriefing also had more
positive evaluations of experiments and increases in self-esteem. In sum, this new extended
debriefing holds the potential for increasing participants' post-experiment mood, respect for
psychological experiments, and self-esteem following their participation in research involving
deception.
Summary. Given that lack of viable alternatives to the use of deception, some
comfort comes from evidence indicating that it is possible to design debriefing procedures that
effectively address any distress or harm caused by the use of deception. It is also comforting
to know that new approaches to informed consent procedures are being implemented to ensure
that participants are able to provide their informed consent to studies using deception. Such
innovations include informing participants that the study may or may not use deceptive
methods.
However, while there are guidelines regarding researchers’ treatment of research
participants, there are no professional guidelines for confederates to follow or guidelines to
protect them. The only potential guidelines recognizing the welfare of research confederates
are statements such as this one made by the APA (1992): “Psychologists take reasonable steps
to implement appropriate protections for the rights and welfare of human participants, other
persons affected by the research, and the welfare of animal subjects” (6.06d). The reference
to “other persons affected by the research” may include confederates, but this is unclear.
Confederates’ Experiences 14
The newest version of the APA ethical guidelines states that work should only be
delegated to those who can “perform competently on the basis of their education, training, or
experience” (2002, 2.05). In view of this, the APA encourages researchers to train their
research personnel and to ensure their competence (Tangney, 2000). Again, however,
confederates are not mentioned explicitly. Although one might believe there is no need to
develop guidelines for the protection of research confederates, research examining the nature
of research confederates’ experiences suggests that this belief may be misguided.
Studies of Research Confederates’ Experiences
To date, only one autobiographical qualitative case study and one experimental study
address the nature of people’s experiences as a research confederate. Oliansky (1991)
documented his experience as a confederate in a study in which participants were led to
believe that the study was designed compare the abilities of untrained student counsellors with
counsellors who had been trained. In reality, however, the study was designed to assess how
participants’ feelings were affected by their ability versus inability to help someone
experiencing emotional distress. To this end, participants were instructed to “counsel” a
confederate who divulged a fictitious story of an ex-lover. The manipulation of the
independent variable occurred at the end of the so-called “counselling” session when the
confederate acted in ways suggesting that he either improved or did not improve.
Oliansky (1991) heralded all of the confederates for their abilities. Consistent with the
belief perseverance effect (Anderson et al., 1980), he also expressed his concern that, even
after being debriefed, the participants may have felt burdened by the emotionally laden
information they received. He described the participants who divulged their own personal
stories in an attempt to empathize with the confederate as those who were the most affected
Confederates’ Experiences 15
when they learned of the deception and that the confederate was not actually in need of
counselling for emotional distress. As the confederate, Oliansky (1991) assumed
responsibility for initiating such distress and reported regretting being involved in the
research.
Importantly for the present research, Oliansky’s (1991) account gave voice to the
perspective of those involved in conducting deception research. In this regard he claimed that
everyone who was involved felt “doubtful and guilty about their part in the study” (Oliansky,
1991, p. 256). He recalled the embarrassment they felt while conducting research in which a
participant expressed obvious suspicion and he noted that he and his colleagues experienced
“mutual embarrassment” (Oliansky, 1991, p. 257) when they met former participants outside
the laboratory.
Oliansky (1991) also described his opposition to the use of deception and its relation to
a number of the previously mentioned ethical concerns, his belief that scientific knowledge
does not outweigh the potential harm or distress such methods might cause participants, and
his experiences of various problematic consequences of deception, including participants’
anger and confederates’ discomfort with the study and having enacted the deception.
In an experimental study, Laurens and Moscovici (2005) examined whether research
confederates are affected by the roles then enact. Based on dissonance theory, they predicted
that research confederates would engage in what they called “self-conversion” when, as part
of their role, they tried to affect participants’ beliefs.
Laurens and Moscovici (2005) had two participants enter their laboratory.
Unbeknownst to each other, one of the two participants had been previously chosen to act as a
confederate. The confederate remained in the laboratory for the duration of three experiments,
Confederates’ Experiences 16
while the participant was replaced for each experiment. The experiment was ostensibly about
colour perception and involved slides being presented on a screen for 15 seconds, during
which time the participant indicated how green or blue the slide was (100% blue and 0%
green to 0% blue and 100% green). As a latent measure of colour perception, participants
were also asked to match a colour on a colour chart with the colour of the afterimage that
appeared when the screen briefly flashed white between slides. Participants recorded this
information on a questionnaire. In a second phase of the experiment, participants were asked
to declare aloud their opinion of the colour. The third phase of the experiment was a repeat of
the first phase. The experimenter explained the procedure, and then asked potential
confederates whether they would like to continue in the role of the confederate. All potential
confederates agreed to continue and were then instructed to verbally state that a blue
projection was actually green during the second phase of the study. They were also told to
complete the questionnaire as if they were truly a participant and to report the actual colour
they saw. The members of the control group were given the same instructions as the
participants, however the researchers did not designate one of the participants as a
confederate. Both of the naive participants participated in the sequence of three experiments
without being replaced.
The analysis of the confederates' questionnaire responses revealed that they perceived
the slides in the same way as other participants. However, in the latent condition, where they
were asked to rate the colour of the afterimage and match it to a corresponding colour on a
colour chart, the confederates reported less green in the afterimage, indicating that they
perceived the actual image as more green than it actually was. Hence, by stating that the
slides appeared to be green when, in fact, they were blue, the confederates latently influenced
Confederates’ Experiences 17
their perception of the colour. As Laurens and Moscovici (2005) expressed it, “In the process
of convincing others, one also convinces oneself” (p. 191).
The Current Research
That research confederates are affected by their own behaviour begs the question: In
what other ways are research confederates affected by their research participation? The
current research is designed to address precisely this question. The answer to this question is
important because, as noted earlier, there are no professional guidelines for confederates to
follow or guidelines to protect them.
Semi-structured interviewing, a qualitative research method, was selected as the
method of choice for this research in view of the opportunity interviews offer to explore
people’s experiences and because they allow participants to express themselves in their own
way and provide participants with at least some room to determine the nature of the subject
matter that is discussed. A qualitative research method was also deemed appropriate in view
of the lack of previous research examining people’s experiences being a research confederate
and because a quantitative method (e.g., a questionnaire) would require knowledge of which
experiences to ask about.
Locating myself. In qualitative research the researcher is the tool and because of this,
it is important, for both me and the consumers of this research, that I articulate my personal
perspectives regarding issues that might affect my methods and/or interpretations and
understandings. In regard I personally find it hard to state ownership of an extreme position
either for or against the use of deception and research confederates. Much knowledge has
been gained through the use of deception, most of which could not have been achieved
otherwise. I do hold that it is only acceptable when it is fully justifiable (which,
Confederates’ Experiences 18
coincidentally, is the mantra of numerous regulatory organizations; e.g., APA, 2002; PRE,
2005). Further, I believe deception is justifiable when the knowledge gained has a practical
implication and the costs or harm to participants are determined in advance to be short-term
and treatable directly following their participation. I also believe it is justifiable only when
there are no other sufficient alternatives to using deception.
A colleague of mine once said “some of the most interesting research involves
confederates.” I feel the need to repeat this sentiment here as I believe it is true. Although
some of the most interesting research does involve deception, there are costs and in this
regard. Recognition should also be directed toward the experiences of confederates who, like
participants, are affected by the research (Laurens & Moscovici, 2005). That research
confederates may be affected in both negative and positive ways also needs to be recognized.
They may, for example, be adversely affected by having to lie to participants who are often
fellow students or by being required to act in ways that have the potential to distress or harm
the research participants. However, being a research confederate may also be associated with
any of a number of positive experiences, such as learning that they are competent actors and
feeling good about themselves as a result, as well as gaining knowledge about both the area
examined in the study and psychological research methods.
My motivation for pursuing this topic comes from my own experience as a
confederate. I was a confederate in a study that required me to express unprovoked harmful
statements toward a female participant. This was an extremely negative situation, and I
experienced great distress with little support. Because I was not closely involved with other
confederates, I would like to know whether others in similar situations experienced any
distress or if they felt it was a positive experience, and if any had any effective coping
Confederates’ Experiences 19
mechanisms. The potential for a bias toward negative experiences exists, but I do have some
measures in place to ensure that this does not occur. For example, I have recently been
involved in a positive psychology class that elucidated the importance of focusing on positive
aspects of psychology. In addition, I intentionally included questions focusing on both
positive and negative aspects of being a confederate. Importantly, I deliberately used the
methods of grounded theory to analyze the data because I believed these methods would help
me stay grounded in the realities of participants’ experiences, as opposed to taking flight in
my own preconceived notions.
With respect to my research paradigm beliefs, I cannot say that I ascribe to a single
position. I might best be described as a practicing constructivist-interpretivist with shared
positivist and postpositivist experiences. I seek to be multi-paradigmatic in order to be able to
achieve the highest grade of research possible, not being limited in my methods or
perspectives. I hold a constructivist-interpretivist perspective toward ontology defined by
“multiple, equally valid, and socially constructed realities” (Ponterotto & Grieger, 2007, p.
410); a constructivist-interpretivist approach towards epistemology defined by an “interactive
researcher-participant role” (p. 410) combined with a hint of postpositivism because I search
for an unattainable objectivity. Concerning axiology, I hold both postpositivist and
constructivist-interpretivist beliefs because I do believe biases are inevitable, valued, and
should be embraced, but I also believe that they should be dealt with in all research contexts
(e.g., during interviews or participant-researcher interactions before participation). I also
believe that research may be discussed from the first person perspective, but a degree of
objective and scientific prose is required to at least appear academic. Finally, I believe in the
possibility of using both qualitative and quantitative methods as necessary because of the
Confederates’ Experiences 20
differing applications of each, which I suppose makes me a postpositivist. It is important to
note that I am only in the toddler years of my prospective research career and, although I
would like to believe that the fluid property of my attitudes will remain forever, it may not.
Confederates’ Experiences 21
Method
Participants and Sampling
A total of 8 participants (2 males and 6 females) were interviewed regarding their
experiences as a research confederate. Purposive sampling was employed to ascertain
participants who had acted as a confederate in psychology experiments. For purposes of this
study, a confederate is regarded as someone who was hired by the researcher to pretend to be
a participant in an experiment. Requirements of the purposive sample were also that
participants must have interacted in person with participants (as opposed to a confederate who
is simply required to be present with no interaction with participants or a confederate who
interacts with participants through a computer) and a belief that they had acted in a way that
they would not normally have acted.
A summary of participants is presented in Table 1 with participants numbered in the
order they were interviewed, their pseudonym which they will be referred to as, their gender,
their age, and their year and program of study at university.
Table 1
Participant demographic information
Participant
Pseudonym
Gender
Age
Year and program of study
24
1st year Psychology, Ph.D.
Number
1
Male
Jake
2
Pants
Female
26
4th year Psychology, B.A.
3
Alice
Female
20
3rd year Political Science & Law, B.A.
Confederates’ Experiences 22
4
Laura
Female
20
3rd year Political Science, B.A.
5
Sarah
Female
19
3rd year Anthropology, B.A.
6
Kuzco
Female
21
4th year Psychology, B.Sc.
7
Bob
Male
24
3rd year Psychology, B.A.
Female
21
1st year Psychology, M.A.
Sarah
8
Smith
Due to the limited population of individuals who have acted as confederates, an array
of recruitment procedures were used in this study. Posters were the primary method of
recruitment. The recruitment posters had the Carleton University letterhead at the top left and
read:
Have you ever worked as a research confederate in a psychology study?
If so, I would like to know more about your experience!
I am looking for people who have been research confederates in psychological studies
that used some form of deception. In return for participating in a 45 minute interview
about your experiences, you will be given $15.00. To learn more, contact Elliott, at
(613) 868-1828 or elee8@connect.carleton.ca
Note: Answering questions about experiences as a research confederate in research
that used some form of deception may be distressing for some participants. This study
has been approved by the Carleton University Ethics Committee for Psychological
Research.
This notice was posted at universities in the Ottawa region and neighbouring cities.
Posters were primarily hung nearby the psychology offices and common areas (i.e.,
Confederates’ Experiences 23
cafeterias) of several large universities in the Eastern Ontario region. There were
numerous respondents to these posters, but, unfortunately, only one matched the
required criteria of the purposive sample.
Posters were placed around the campuses of several Eastern Ontario universities, concentrated
in the psychology departments, but also displayed in common areas (e.g. cafeterias).
Another recruitment method was the use of two acquaintances of mine who I knew
had acted as confederates. I emailed one and spoke with another, asking if they would be
willing to participate in an interview about their experiences as a confederate. Both
individuals have been involved in the study.
An email was also sent to the chair of the psychology department at my current
university asking her willingness to distribute a recruitment email to all staff and graduate
students, to which she complied (see Appendix A). This form of recruitment produced
numerous respondents, but, unfortunately, only two fit the description as prescribed by the
purposive sampling.
Snowball sampling, which yielded two participants, was also employed. At the
conclusion of each interview, participants were asked if they knew anyone else who had been
a research confederate and, if so, whether they could provide me with their contact
information.
Procedure
Upon initial contact with potential participants, an attempt was made to verify that
they fit the description of the purposive sample. This helped remove some individuals who
did not meet the criteria. Potential participants were informed that the focus of the research
was in their experience as a confederate and I was interested in conducting a 30 to 45 minute
Confederates’ Experiences 24
interview with them in person. If they expressed a willingness to participate, we would decide
a mutually convenient time and place to meet to conduct the interview.
Interviews began after I offered written and oral versions of informed consent and
received the participant’s informed consent to participate in the study and their consent to
audio-tape the interview (see Appendix B for the informed consent form). Interviews lasted
approximately 18 to 47 minutes, at an average of 27:48 minutes long (SD = 9:30 minutes).
Interviews were conducted following a semi-structured interview schedule (see
Appendix C for the final version of the interview schedule). The interview schedule was
designed according to Rubin and Rubin’s (1995) stages of interviewing. As such, initial
questions were designed to be “warm-up” questions that allowed participants to settle in and
develop a sense of their competence as an interviewee (i.e., “how did you hear about my
study?” and “why did you decide to participate?”). I proceeded to ask for some basic
background information about the study in which they been a research confederate, such as
how they came to be a research confederate and what the study was about. This was to help
me get an idea of their experience to build from and to help participants by beginning the
recalling of past events. I then began to ask for more detailed information about their role and
experience as a confederate, including what they were required to do and how they felt about
doing it. As participants spoke of their experiences as a research confederate, I probed for
additional information to ensure that I had understood the participant’s meanings and to gain
more insight into relevant topics that needed further elaboration.
At the conclusion of the interview, basic participant information was gathered and
collected on a face sheet (shown in Appendix D). Interviews concluded with a written and
Confederates’ Experiences 25
verbal debriefing, in which the purpose of the study was reiterated, contact information for a
counselling service was provided, and they were thanked for their participation.
Shortly after each interview, I completed the Post Interview Comment form shown in
Appendix E. Using this form I recorded information on the mood or tone of the interview, the
participant’s emotional reactions, my emotional reactions to the participant and what they
said, the strengths and weaknesses of the interview, and any other comments. This
information helped me become aware of aspects of the interview, including my behaviour that
might have affected participants’ responses, aspects of myself that may influence the
subsequent coding of the interview, and ways of improving the interview.
The interview schedule was constantly iterated. It changed slightly with each
subsequent interview. Questions were added when new categories emerged that required
elaboration and questions were removed as certain categories became fully developed.
Iteration of the interview schedule helped to elucidate and develop categories.
Data Analysis
Each interview was transcribed as soon as possible. The transcribed interviews were
then coded and analyzed using Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) version of grounded theory.
During the first stage of coding, known as open coding, small meaningful portions of data
were summarized with as few words as possible. The use of in vivo codes consisting of the
participant’s own words were sometimes used. Throughout open coding, constant
comparisons were made between interviews, looking for similar ideas and concepts (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). This helped to recognize the emergence and development of categories.
After several interviews had been open coded, axial coding began. This level of
coding entailed examining the relationships, differences, and similarities between categories
Confederates’ Experiences 26
that emerged during open coding. Axial coding involves defining categories, assigning
dimensions, and making connections between categories and subcategories. Strauss and
Corbin’s (1990) method of establishing and testing subcategory relationships through the
paradigm model was used for all categories and their respective subcategories.
The final stage of coding, selective coding, involved refining categories and their
properties, as well as their inter-relations. It also involved identifying the “core category,” a
category that was linked to all of the other categories. A storyline was designed that
surrounded the core category, which eventually became the emerging theory. Selective
coding also involved analyzing the relationship of categories to the core category through use
of the paradigm model. These relationships between categories and the core category were
tested against the data of the interviews, which fully grounded the theory. Throughout this
process, any patterns in the data or potential processes were noted, analyzed, and placed in the
theory as necessary or possible.
A tentative model composed during selective coding was distributed to all eight
participants to ensure that it encompassed their experience. A request for feedback, both
praises and critiques was request. Participants were reminded that they were not obliged to do
this, but it would be greatly appreciated. Two participants responded stating that it fit their
experience, helping to ground the theory even further.
Consistent with procedures outlined in Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) version of
grounded theory, I wrote memos throughout the analysis. Coding is stressed as both an
inductive and a deductive process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Memos helped to keep track of
any deductive theories I may have had, any observations I thought necessary that could not be
coded, or to document my conceptual and methodological thoughts as I worked with the data.
Confederates’ Experiences 27
They provided a direction for the ongoing data analysis, subsequent interviews and other
methodological concerns (e.g., regarding saturation and sampling needs). One memo was
utilized as an explanation for the only negative case that was found.
Journaling
From the time of the initial conception of this study to its end, I maintained a journal
tracking my methodological thoughts and research decisions, as well as my subjective
experiences during the research process. For example, one journal entry describes an
unsuccessful method of recruitment in which I sought contact with confederates from a
researcher whom I knew had employed confederates. Upon initially approaching him, he
seemed ready to oblige in contacting his confederates on my behalf. However, after what
appeared to be a long, stressful day for him, I stood by as he read my letter of permission,
which declared my search for:
people who have been research confederates in psychological research where
their roles required them to deceive and/or mistreat research participants in
some way.
He stated that he believed that in the above statement, I was referring to him as unethical. He
proceeded to say he would speak to his colleague, but expected she would have the same
reaction he did which was “where the fuck does this kid get off?” He also blamed me for
entering research with a bias. I was taken aback at his reactions, and recorded mine in my
reflexivity journal:
He believed my letter seeking permission to contact his participants referred to
his work as unethical and that it states a preconceived notion of my results and
people’s reactions. I hope I can mend this relationship so that I can get some
participants. Otherwise, finishing my thesis does not look like a promising
prospect.
Confederates’ Experiences 28
The relationship was not mended, but I was able to find participants without his help. I did
learn that wording and language is instrumental in guiding research. From that point on, I
began to refer to participants’ roles as having “potentially caused participants harm or
distress.” This change was officially made in an addendum to the poster and any other
relevant materials.
Confederates’ Experiences 29
Results
The analysis of the transcribed interviews revealed that being a research confederate
had both positive and negative aspects. As illustrated in Figure 1, participants’ overall attitude
toward being as a research confederate can be conceptualized as a resulting value on a scale
after the positive aspects of their experiences have placed on one side of the scale and the
negative aspects on the other. On the one hand, these research confederates experienced a
number of Negative Feelings as a result of the Challenges (e.g., performing their role, acting
negatively toward participants) and Concerns (regarding the experiment and the participants)
they encountered. On the other hand, these negative feelings were often counterbalanced by
confederates’ Belief in the Necessity of the Methods used in the study (e.g., the use of
deception; regarding the ends as justifying the means), the way in which their Faith in the
Scientific Process (i.e., their confidence in Ethics Review Boards, the researcher and
experimenter, and the debriefing process) offset their sense of personal responsibility,
Improvement in their Performance over time and their use of Personalized Coping Strategies,
as well as by the positivity of confederates’ Learning Experiences. Each of these concepts is
outlined in detail below.
The favourability of participants’ experiences as a research confederate was largely
determined by the nature of the role they were required to enact. Confederates whose role
involved acting in ways that could potentially distress or harm the participants (over and
above any harm stemming from the use of deception) reported experiencing more negative
feelings and ultimately felt ambiguous about their experience as a confederate. Sarah Smith,
for example, said “I mean, it wasn’t a bad experience, but it wasn’t exactly a pleasant one.” In
contrast, confederates whose role did not require acting in ways that could potentially distress
Confederates’ Experiences 30
or harm the participants experienced fewer negative feelings that, together with the positivity
of their learning experiences, resulted in slightly positive experiences as a confederate. For
example, Bob’s slightly positive attitude was evident when he said, “I thought it was cool to
be a research confederate, you know, the whole excitement of doing something. Um, but
other than that, it had no personal effect [on me] whatsoever.” Table 1 presents an overview
of all participants’ overall experiences, in relation with the potential for harm that their role
Figure 1. Model of confederates’ experiences; scale balancing negative and positive
experiences.
Table 2
Participants’ overall experiences and the roles they enacted while interacting with research
participants.
Jake
Alice
Sarah
Laura
Pants
Kuzco
Bob
Sarah Smith
Confederates’ Experiences 31
Role
Make
sexist
remarks
Provide
support or
not
Provide
support or
not
Provide
support or
not
Act angry or
happy to
negotiations
Plan a
day
Engage in
conversation
Induce
anxiety
Overall
Attitude
Ambiguous
“Indifferent”
“Really
good”
Ambiguous
Ambiguous
Easy
“Easy, with
difficult
aspects”
Ambiguous
Challenges
Participants described a number of challenges associated with being a research
confederate, some of which were encountered regardless of confederates’ roles and others that
were unique to the particular role that a participant was required to enact. Jake, a 24-year-old
in the first year of a Ph.D. program in psychology, described the challenging nature of being a
confederate in general terms when he said:
...it’s not easy, you know, being a confederate’s never easy. Um, people don’t
necessarily like doing it, you know what I mean? Often you’re put in awkward
situations, awkward social situations especially. And so it’s always somewhat
hard on the confederate, um, you just have to be able to deal with it, and cope
with it, you know, your confederate has an outlet.
Jake had been involved in a study that required him to act as if he was another research
participant and to make sexist comments to female participants or, in the control condition,
state that he had a previous engagement and was unable to continue his participation in the
study. Not only did he describe the challenges that make being a confederate difficult, as
evident above, he also hinted that some intervention may be required to deal with these
difficulties.
In addition to the general challenges participants faced as confederates, they also
described more specific challenges, including acting-related challenges and challenges posed
by the research participants.
Confederates’ Experiences 32
Acting-related challenges. A confederate's role involves acting as directed by the
researcher while appearing to interact spontaneously and sincerely with the research
participants. Some participants described the need to accomplish these goals as a test of their
improvisational skills. In this regard Sarah, a 19-year-old in her 3rd year of a B.A. program in
anthropology, said “you had to be able to interact with people and learn a script, but also be a
little bit flexible at the same time.” Participants described the need for such flexibility as
challenging because it required reconciling the potentially contradictory demands of adhering
to a relatively rigid script so as to ensure that they enacted their role in a way that had the
intended effect on participants while simultaneously interacting with the participants, both
verbally and nonverbally, in a spontaneous and genuine way that did not arouse their
suspicion. Bob described his encounter with these potentially irreconcilable demands while
interacting with the actual research participant as if he was another participant waiting for the
study to begin:
There was a structured list [of lines], um, 'Are you here for a study?' 'What year
are you in?' You know, 'what major?' Just general questions to try to get them
to talk about themselves a little bit. But, it was structured to the point where
like I'd ask a question and then have to wait a minute, and I couldn't continue
the conversation. I had to wait for them to, you know, kind of keep it going.
And then a minute later, I'd ask the next question, kind of structure it along.
Bob’s script required him not to provide the participant with information about himself and
not to ask any questions that did not appear in the script. In addition, Bob was instructed to
ensure that there was one minute between each question, even when participants’ responses
were very brief. Given this inflexibility, Bob found it difficult to interact with the participants
in a way that appeared genuine.
Confederates’ Experiences 33
Enacting a particular role was also described as challenging when it involved acting in
a way that was personally uncharacteristic or atypical. Alice, a 20-year-old in the third year of
a double major in political science and law, put it this way:
When I was aggressive, which was pretty hard, I had to make them feel bad
about the way they reacted.
So I’d say, ‘How could you let [the other
confederate] talk to you like that? That's so awful! You're an insult to all
women, everywhere,’ and stuff like that. It was pretty hard ... It was very
difficult to play the unsupportive role, I found, because the woman, it was – I
felt like this whole hoax was on this one participant, and she was the only nonconfederate in that study. Which was, … it was just difficult, I found. A
conflict of interest in the way that I wanted to be sympathetic to her and I
wanted to be supportive, but I had to play a jerk.
Participants also found it difficult to act in ways that made participants feel badly.
Alice articulated this difficulty, as well as its salience for her, when she said:
I remember I was supposed to say stuff like, ‘I can’t believe you would let him
talk to you like.’ I remember that one. Uh, ‘why would you let him do that?’
Asking questions like that, making them feel awful, those were the ones that I
remember because they were harder for me to say.
Alice’s comment also suggests that these confederates’ negative experiences may have more
impact on them than any positive experiences they had.
Participant-related challenges. The participants also described being challenged by
the research participants’ personalities and the unpredictability of their reactions. While they
found it quite easy to interact with some research participants, interacting with other
participants was more difficult. Sarah Smith, a 21-year-old in the first year of an M.A.
program in psychology whose role involved making eye contact with research participants
known to be socially anxious, described participants who had strong, negative reactions to her
Confederates’ Experiences 34
eye contact as more difficult to be involved with than those who did not have such reactions.
As she explained, this difficulty came from the fact that she felt badly for participants who
reacted negatively:
Like, it was easier with some people because they were easy people, because
some people, like the ones who kept laughing and stuff like that. It was hard for
me as another [supposed] participant I wanna say, to not laugh with them
because naturally you would laugh, but I was instructed to not laugh ... [it also
depended on] how anxious they were. Some people were, like, one girl looked
like she was going to cry, and like I can't just not feel bad when you're inducing
such high anxiety levels in someone. And then other people were just fine.
They were just as calm as I was, as relaxed as I was.
Concerns
Participants described being challenged by the acting skills required of them and
adverse reactions to their behaviour, things that were regarded as challenging because they
were related to research confederates’ concerns for the validity of experiment and the wellbeing of the research participants.
Concern for the experiment. Confederates perform their roles well when the intended
manipulation is enacted without raising participants’ suspicions regarding the true purpose of
the study. Under these circumstances, participants are likely to act spontaneously and
naturally and provide meaningful data. When confederates do not perform well in that the
intended manipulation is not enacted effectively and/or the participants become suspicious
about the purpose of the study, participants may act in ways that are either consistent or
inconsistent with what they believe is expected of them. Such data is at best meaningless and,
at worst, may lead to erroneous conclusions. Because they did not want to be responsible for
Confederates’ Experiences 35
“ruining the experiment,” these confederates were very concerned about performing their
roles well. Alice, for example, talked about worrying about raising participants’ suspicions:
…yeah it was uncomfortable to do it at times, because you didn't know how
believable it was for the participant. Or you doubted if they knew. You know
what I mean? You'd always question: ‘Do they know?’ Do they know I'm a
confederate?’ Um, and yeah, it was really hard.
Kuzco, a 21-year-old in the fourth year of a B.Sc. program in psychology, was also
concerned that she might “mess up the results of the study.” Acting as another research
participant, Kuzco’s role involved maintaining a neutral demeanor while planning a day
together with the actual research participant. Following this interaction, Kuzco rated the
extent to which the participant displayed various personality characteristics during the
interaction. She regarded her role as an integral part of the study and had been warned that
not performing her role effectively could have adverse effects on the results of the study.
Given this warning, it is perhaps not surprising that she said,
So I guess when I was doing that, I was like, 'Hmm, am I gonna like offend
somebody or like mess up the results of the study because they didn't act a
certain way or didn't act not a certain way?’
Concern for the participants. Participants were concerned about the well-being of the
actual research participants because they realized that some participants might be distressed
by the use of deception and/or how they were treated during the experiment. Kuzco expressed
her concern for participants by saying:
It was basically like I, you know, I'd finish up my session and I'd be walking
back to my car or something and I'd be like, 'Hmm,' you know, a little – It was
almost like I wondered how they felt about it because they knew that it was
basically all pretend. So that was more my kind of concern there.
Confederates’ Experiences 36
Kuzco indicated that her concerns consisted of only fleeting thoughts that occurred as she
finished her research work for the day. However, earlier in the interview Kuzco talked about
feeling badly for some of the participants because the deception used in the study entirely
negated the connection she had created with them. She described this by saying “I kinda felt
like I made a connection with them so then I kind of negated that because, like, I'm just here,
pretending, kind of thing.” The fact that the connection with the participant was created in
situations that were part of a hoax contributed to a feeling that the connection would be lost
when the hoax was revealed. This led to feeling bad about those situations where they
experienced connections with participants.
Feeling badly was most frequently associated with confederate roles that required
acting in ways that could potentially distress or harm the research participants. Sarah Smith
described feeling badly when she increased participants’ levels of anxiety:
It was awkward. Like some of the people, like, I felt bad sometimes because
you could tell they were feeling really awkward, like some of them would
fidget and couldn't maintain eye contact or they'd laugh. So I felt bad because I
didn't want to make people feel anxious.
Witnessing their overt signs of anxiety first hand, Sarah Smith had compunctions about being
responsible for participants’ anxiety and was concerned about their well-being.
Negative Feelings
The challenges that confederates encountered as they enacted their roles contributed to
their concerns. These concerns, in turn, instilled a number of negative feelings. All of the
confederates reported feeling negatively about at least one aspect of their involvement. For
example, performing their role and performing potentially distress-inducing actions made
some confederates feel awkward. Laura, a 20-year-old in the third year of a political science
Confederates’ Experiences 37
B.A., described feeling awkward while acting negatively toward a female research participant
because it was inconsistent with her normal behaviour. She said, “I felt really awkward doing
it ... when it was unsupportive, I had such a hard time. Like, I had to always remind myself
that I was acting, definitely.”
Other participants described feeling nervous about their acting ability within the
context of their concern for the experiment. They also described feeling nervous about acting
in ways that could potentially distress or harm the participants within the context of their
concern regarding the participants’ well-being. For Jake, these two sources of feeling nervous
converged:
Basically I had to do yelling at a certain time period when the stopwatch came
to, I think 8 minutes. I had a little stopwatch in there while I was [performing
the task]. So at the 8 minute mark is when I would yell. And towards that 8
minute mark, I would always get very nervous. My heart would start beating,
I'd start breathing a little bit heavier. I would actually be worried that the
participant would find out that I was nervous. So, it was very hard, towards that
mark, to start yelling at them. I would often times have to just, I don't know,
fake to myself that I didn't like the way [the participant was acting] so that I
would have the energy to get angry at them.
Of all of the roles enacted by the participants in this study, the role enacted by Jake probably
had the most potential to distress or harm the research participants. Given this, it is not
surprising that Jake was sufficiently nervous to increase his heart and respiration rates.
Although such intense nervousness may be rare, Jake’s experience provides some insight into
just how challenging a research confederate’s role can be.
Counteracting Negative Feelings
Several factors counteracted any negative feelings participants had as a result of being
a research confederate. These factors included confederates’ belief in the necessity of the
Confederates’ Experiences 38
methods used in the study, their faith in the scientific process, the improvement in their
performance over time, and their use of personalized coping strategies.
Belief in the necessity of the methods. Confederates are used in experiments to
implement a manipulation and, because participants must be naive to this reality, deception is
inherent to any study that involves confederates. The participants in this study believed that
researchers needed to employ confederates and use deception in order to study some
phenomena, and these beliefs counteracted any negative feelings they had regarding their
involvement in these procedures.
Pants, a 26-year-old in her fourth year of a B.A. program in psychology, talked about
how the study she was involved in could not have been conducted without the use of
deception:
I have a hard time with [deception]. Like, it’s starting to kind of get better,
which may or may not be a good thing, but like, I still think it’s a hard thing to
do…the negotiation study might have worked if – maybe not, if you told
people you were looking at how they react to somebody's emotional
statements. It probably wouldn't have worked, but there might have been –
they're looking at, again, emotional reaction and how important the initial
attitude is on – like how it affects how you argue. So I don't know, I personally
can't think of a better way to do what they did.
Pants’ role involved negotiating with participants and acting either angry or happy in response
to the participant’s offers during the negotiation. Because of the difficulties she had while
enacting her role as a confederate, Pants wrestled with whether there was an alternative to
using deception. Ultimately she concluded that the use of deception was justified because she
believed that the results would have been tainted if the participants had known the true
purpose of the research.
Confederates’ Experiences 39
Some participants also believed that the results of the experiment were important and
justified using research confederates and deception, as well as potentially distressing or
harming the participants. Bob put it this way:
...there were some times where, um, people really didn't want to talk and I still
had to push the boundaries. Um, those were the few times where I actually
thought, ‘Mmm...maybe this isn't the best thing to be doing’ thing, but at least
if it generates, you know, research data, stuff like that, you know, that might
help other people. That kind of stuff.
Although Bob felt somewhat negatively about pushing participants' personal boundaries, these
feelings were alleviated by his belief that he was contributing to science and his hope that the
results of the study would be helpful for others.
Faith in the scientific process. While believing that confederates and deception were
necessary for scientific progress helped to reduce any negative feelings participants had as a
result of their personal concerns, these beliefs did not necessarily reduce any negative feelings
associated with their concerns regarding the well-being of the participants in the research they
were involved with. Instead these research confederates’ concerns regarding participants'
well-being were alleviated by their faith in the scientific process, faith that included their
confidence in the procedures of Ethics Review Boards, their confidence in the competence of
the research and the experimenter, and their confidence in the effectiveness of debriefing
procedures. Moreover, confederates’ faith in the scientific process also reduced any sense of
personal responsibility they might have felt for participants’ distress.
The participants in this study had a great deal of respect for Ethics Review Boards and
were confident that the members of such boards acted in ways that ensured the well-being of
the participants in the research they were involved with. Sarah explained her trust in the
ethics committee:
Confederates’ Experiences 40
I guess, simply put, it was approved by the ethics committee so people who
know more about it were – approved it. I guess that given the fact that it was a
very short experience and that at any point, she could say, you know, ‘I really
don't feel like continuing the study.’ Or um, that kind of thing.
Sarah held the ethics committee in a high regard, believing that they had a good understanding
of the potential effects of the study on research participants and how any potential negative
effects could be minimized and addressed. She also recognized that safeguards ensuring
participants' well-being are required in order to receive the approval of an Ethics Review
Board. As a result, the fact that an Ethics Review Board had approved the study she was a
confederate in essentially eliminated any concerns Sarah had regarding participants’ wellbeing.
The confederates’ also described their confidence in the researcher’s ability to design
an ethically sound study and the experimenter’s (i.e., research assistant’s) ability to conduct
the study appropriately as alleviating any concerns or negative feelings they had about their
role-related behaviour. Jake’s faith in the researchers and research assistants involved in the
study he participated in was evident when he said:
…those times when I didn't come back in, I think, I'm pretty sure the
experimenter could handle the situation, could debrief without me. I saw her
debrief a couple of times and she was very good at it. … I have faith that, you
know, that the people who designed the study thought about [the procedure]
and came up with the best way to do it. And that was, unfortunately, me yelling
at [the participants]. And it was bad at first, but it eventually got better.
Although the method used to manipulate the independent variable was somewhat extreme
(i.e., having the confederate yell at the participants), Jake believed that that the researcher who
designed the study was competent and, as a result, selected a way of manipulating the
independent variable that was both effective and appropriate. Jake also believed that the
Confederates’ Experiences 41
experimenter (i.e., the research assistant) was capable of effectively debriefing or de-hoaxing
the participants in a way that overcame any distress the participants may have experienced.
Taken together, these beliefs reduced Jake’s concerns and negative feelings about the effects
of his role-related behaviour on the participants.
Many of these confederates expressed confidence that their study’s debriefing
procedures effectively removed any distress or harm the participants may have experienced.
Laura, for example, believed that the study she was involved with would have minimal
negative effects on the research participants and that these effects would stem from issues
related to the use of deception rather than her role-related behaviour. Laura’s role involved
pretending to be a research participant and either providing support or not providing support
to female research participants who had faced discrimination. Laura also believed that the
debriefing procedure would help participants understand why the deception was necessary and
reduce any ill feelings on the part of the participant. As she put it,
I think [the study is] still ethical, because it's all explained afterwards. It's
obviously nothing that's personal and I feel for most people that wouldn't affect
them later on, other than just feeling like, ‘Oh I get it. I didn't see that coming
ahead of time.’ ... The debriefing process was full and explained everything
and kind of rectified these weird things [i.e., negative effects felt by
participants or issues in how the participant perceived the confederate] that
came up.
Bob also believed that the debriefing removed any negative effects the study had on the
participants but, like Jake, he was primarily concerned about any distress or misperceptions
that occurred as a result of his role-related behaviour:
But you know, hopefully everything will be later explained and the whole
process will take care of that. And once they find out, ‘Ooh, ok, it was a job,’
or something like that, you know. Most people were fine with it.
Confederates’ Experiences 42
Confederates’ faith in the scientific process reduced any concerns or negative feelings
they had about the contribution of their role-related behaviour to participants’ distress.
Specifically, believing that their study had been examined and approved by the members of a
well-informed, competent Ethics Review Board, that the study had been designed by a
competent researcher and conducted by a competent experimenter, and that any problematic
experiences for the participants would be dealt with effectively during the debriefing
procedure allowed the confederates to minimize any sense of being personally responsible for
any distress or harm experienced by the research participants. Alice described her lack of
personal responsibility for any negative effects the participants experienced when she stated,
“Of course [having others involved in the research] was going to alleviate the guilt. I didn’t
plan it. I wasn’t the one telling myself to be unsupportive because, like I said before, I was
sincerely like ‘oooo, this is really awful.’” Although Alice did not enjoy acting in way that
distressed the participants, she did not accept any responsibility for participants’ distress
because she did not design the study. Instead, she assigned this responsibility to the
researchers who designed the study and told her how to act during the study.
Improvement of performance. Confederates’ concerns about their ability to enact the
role required of them, which often involved acting in ways that were alien to their normal reallife behaviour, dissipated with practice. Pants described how enacting her role became easier
over time:
The first time I had to get really angry I was really nervous. I was like, ‘shit, I
don’t know if I’m going to do this well enough,’ or like I was afraid of how the
people were going to react. Um, but then by the time – like, we ran it with 80
people – by the time we hit 25, it was just like I was coming to work. So it was
a lot easier to act.
Confederates’ Experiences 43
Like many of the confederates, Pants was initially nervous because she feared that she would
not be able to act convincingly and because she was afraid of the participants’ reactions. With
practice, however, her performance improved and her nervousness subsided. Indeed, that
enacting her role became like “coming to work” suggests that she became desensitized or
habituated to her role.
Laura also described comparable improvements in her performance of being mean and
unsupportive:
Yep, at first I was hardly able to be that unsupportive. Like I would kind of
water it down and be just sort of mediocre supportive and [the researchers
would] be like, ‘that’s not helpful for this study.’ But yeah … I got meaner in
the unsupportive role over time.
Practice and the habituation that resulted from the repetitive re-enactment of their role
reduced confederates’ concerns and anxiety regarding their ability to effectively enact the role
required of them. Any remaining negative feelings would have to be dealt with in a manner
that was unique to each confederate.
Personalized coping strategies. Believing in the necessity of the methods (i.e., in the
need for deception and that the ends justify the means), having faith in the scientific process
(i.e., their confidence in Ethics Review Boards, the researcher and the experimenter, and the
debriefing procedures), and the increasing ease with which they enacted their role-related
behaviours reduced many of the concerns and negative feelings that these confederates shared.
Other issues were unique to the particular role enacted by a confederate and, as a result, the
confederates developed their own personalized way of reducing these negative feelings.
Sarah Smith described finding excuses to reduce her negative feelings about the effects
of her role-related behaviour on the research participants:
Confederates’ Experiences 44
...[staring at the participant] would cause the person anxiety. It’s just with me
always being the person it just kept it consistent, because if you had two really
high anxious people, they’d both be laughing or whatever. Um, so yeah, I
found excuses why not to feel bad.
Excuses helped Sarah Smith feel better about increasing anxiety levels in already socially
anxious participants. Her excuses included recalling that participants entered the laboratory
with preexisting anxiety. This helped her feel less responsible for their anxiety, resulting in
less negative feelings for her. She explained this saying, “They’re naturally anxious people.
We knew that with them coming in, uh, so that would help, kind of taking the blame off of me
and put it on the situation.”
Pants had been involved in negotiating with participants. Her role required her to
respond either happily or angrily towards participants’ offers during negotiations. Pants
described how she deliberately ignored the participants’ reactions because their reactions
made it difficult for her to perform her role:
…sometimes during the study [participants would] be like, ‘okay, relax, like,
it’s just an experiment. And then you’d be like ‘whatever!’ or ‘you suck’
[sarcastically] or whatever. I’d have to kind of brush it off and still not laugh at
myself because it was absurd what I was doing.
Sometimes Pants felt that her responses were unjustified given the offers participants were
giving during negotiations. This led to Pants’ need to ignore participants’ reactions while
trying to enact her role.
Jake talked about a poor initial experience that made him decide to meet with
participants:
I felt really bad about that first experience. So, needless to say, for the next
little while, I was very, um, very nervous about doing the study. Um, I didn’t
really want to do it, but I knew I had to be very careful. And I decided then,
Confederates’ Experiences 45
that I would come back in afterwards. I would stick around and make sure that
participants were okay after because I felt it was important that I make sure that
what I did to them didn’t affect them badly, in any sort of psychological way.
Jake actively made the decision to meet with participants at the conclusion of the experiment.
This served to further the debriefing of the participant by appeasing and assuring them that he
was enacting a role and the discriminatory remarks he had made were untrue. Jake’s concerns
for the participants were also addressed through this reconciliation.
Such personalized strategies helped reduced the unique role-related difficulties these
confederates encountered and thereby reduced the overall negativity of their experiences as a
research confederate.
Learning Experience
The confederates did not describe being a research confederate in solely negative
terms. To the contrary, they also described being a confederate as a positive learning
experience. Some described gaining valuable research experience and learning about research
methods, while others spoke of the lessons they learned from the topic of the research.
Sarah described the research experience she gained from her involvement:
...at the time I was considering doing a double major in anthropology and
psychology and that kind of pushed me towards doing the psych aspect because
it was like a hands-on experience and you got to learn more about how it
actually worked rather than always just the theory.
Although Sarah was only in her first year of university when she was confederate, she had
already learned about the research process and different psychological theories in her classes.
Being a research confederate, however, provided her with a more practical and experiential
basis for her knowledge of psychology.
Confederates’ Experiences 46
Kuzco described how being a confederate provided her with access to an insider’s
rather than outsider’s perspective regarding experimental research methods, knowledge that
would be useful to her in her future studies.
I figured, hey, it's good experience if I'm gonna do an honours thesis at some
point. So I, you know, I can kind of see how some of how the experiment
works from a different point of view, as opposed to being just a participant. It
was just kind of like, ‘Oh, so this is the way you can do experiments.’
Interestingly, Kuzco’s revelation about research methods was due to her experience of being
deceived by the researcher. She described her reactions when she learned that the researcher
had kept her “blind” to the true purpose of the study saying:
I guess there was more to it, but I didn't know that until the end… it turns out
that the participants would be assigned to act introverted or extraverted and I
didn't know that so sometimes I'd, you know, I'd be like “why is this person
being so shy or why are they, like, really happy and extraverted?”
She had noticed participants were acting suspiciously introverted or extraverted, and only
learned at the conclusion of her involvement that they had been asked to act introverted or
extraverted. Being a confederate taught her about the utility of research personnel who are
“blind” to the purpose and full procedure of experiments.
In addition to learning about the research methods used in psychology, these
confederates also described learning about the psychological topic of the study they were
involved with and how this knowledge was useful for them. For example, Pants said:
It let me kind of learn a little bit more about negotiation and how to get what I
want from people, just because this was what the study was based on. I had
done a little bit of literature review before I came to kind of know a little more
about the study. So now I know how to win an argument [laughter].
Confederates’ Experiences 47
Similarly, Sarah Smith described immediately applying what she learned about rumination in
the course of being a research confederate. In particular, she described learning that she
should not ruminate about the anxiety she felt as a result of her role-required behaviour, which
involved making the research participants feel anxious. As she put it, “our research was on
rumination and stuff like that, so I knew not to ruminate on how I feel.”
Hence being a research confederate was described as beneficial in that it increased
participants’ knowledge regarding the practical details of psychological research methods and
the psychological phenomenon under investigation in personally useful ways.
Negative Case
These confederates described their experiences as having both positive and negative
aspects and, overall, the participants had slightly positive feelings about their experience
unless their role required them acting in a way that distressed the research participants, in
which case they had ambiguous attitudes about being a research confederate. Sarah’s
experience as a research confederate was largely, but not completely, consistent with these
findings. Sarah described her experience as a research confederate as “really good,
considering that I was manipulating people. [laughs] Um, yeah, no, it was an enjoyable
learning experience.” As a confederate, Sarah was required to be supportive or unsupportive
to female participants who had faced sexual discrimination. Sarah was the only confederate in
the present research who reported being able to empathize with the participants and their
reactions. As she explained, this probably occurred because of the sexual discrimination she
had encountered in her own life:
You know, I’ve been confronted with situations that are kind of like, “wow”
and you know an hour later you think of this really good comeback. But, like,
Confederates’ Experiences 48
in that case you’re struck with silence. It was interesting to actually see that
happen with other people and to relate to it, I guess.
Sarah also indicated that being involved in the study provided her with a learning
experience. As she explained, her involvement “kind of made me think, you know, if I am
confronted with this, maybe that’s something that should be confronted by myself, not lying
down and taking it.” Although Sarah was concerned about the distressing effect that her rolerelated behaviour had on the research participants, she regarded her experience as a research
confederate as positive because being a confederate taught her an important life lesson,
namely that she ought to confront instances of sexual discrimination. Moreover, despite the
distress that participants endured during the study, Sarah believed that the experiment was
beneficial to the participants because it provided them with the same useful learning
experience:
Well it definitely is a learning experience, not only for myself, but also for the
other person who’s coming in. To know that you should be able to say
something and you should speak up for yourself whether … what they say is
correct or not.
Although believing that the experiment provided participants with a useful learning
experience may have been a way of defensively discounting the distress that participants
experienced as a result of her role-related behaviour, this belief allowed Sarah to feel positive
about what she did as a research confederate.
Confederates’ Experiences 49
Discussion
The present research is the first to offer systematic, grounded insight into the nature of
people’s experiences being research confederates. As research confederates, the participants
in this study had enacted a number of roles, ranging from engaging in conversation with
participants to deliberately inducing anxiety in participants. All of the participants, regardless
of their role, experienced at least some distress in the course of enacting their role. Initially,
this distress stemmed from their concerns about their ability to adequately enact their role, a
concern also noted in Oliansky’s (1991) autobiographical account. Fortunately, this concern
was addressed by improvements in role performance that came with practice, as well by the
desensitization or habituation associated with having enacted the role on countless occasions.
Consistent with the variability in their roles, these confederates also described
qualitatively different experiences as research confederates. Those whose role did not require
them to act in ways that had the potential to distress or harm research participants generally
described their experiences as being slightly positive, largely because they regarded it as a
learning experience. In particular, confederates said they learned about both how to conduct
psychological research and the subject matter of the research.
In contrast, confederates whose roles required them to act in ways that could distress
or harm the participants described their experiences as having both positive and negative
elements and, as a result, were ambiguous about having been a research confederate. The
positivity of their experiences stemmed from what they learned in the course of being a
research confederate while the negativity of their experiences arose from the various
challenges they faced, particularly those associated with acting negatively toward research
participants within the context of their role. A number of beliefs helped confederates
Confederates’ Experiences 50
overcome the negative feelings associated with their role related behaviour. These beliefs
included their belief that the methods used to conduct the experiment were necessary to study
the phenomenon in question, that the ends justify the means, and their faith in the scientific
process. Finally, these confederates dealt with any remaining negative affect by developing
their own, personalized coping strategies.
Interestingly, participants’ discussions of their beliefs suggest that, contrary to
Kelman’s (1967) concern that deception “is used without question” (p. 3), confederates are
aware of and think about the ethical issues associated with the use of deception. Nevertheless,
by having faith in the scientific process, which included faith in the appraisal of the Ethics
Review Board, faith in the competence of the researcher and the experimenter, and faith in the
ability of the debriefing to sooth participants’ distress, these confederates were able to shift the
responsibility for any negative effects associated with their role-related behaviour from
themselves to others. In this sense, it does appear that research confederates engage in the
role-required behaviours researchers ask of them in much the same way as the participants in
Milgram’s study followed the experimenter’s instructions to punish and thereby distress the
supposed “learner.”
On the surface, the experiences of the confederates in the current study appear to be
inconsistent Oliansky (1991), who noted that “[e]veryone who was involved in the experiment
was, and continues to be, doubtful and guilty about their part in the study” (p. 256). This
inconsistency, however, is more apparent than real in view of the fact that Oliansky did not
share the beliefs that allowed the current participants to offset their negative feelings. For
example, in regard to the belief that the ends justify the means, Oliansky (1991) wrote, “in the
context of psychological experimentation, however, the concept of a cost-benefit ratio is
Confederates’ Experiences 51
ridiculous, because harm to the subjects cannot be balanced against benefit to the science” (p.
257). Given this, the negativity of Oliansky’s (1991) experience is consistent with the
additive model proposed here, whereby a person’s experience as a research confederate is a
function of the sum of both the positive and negative aspects of those experiences and
experience-relevant beliefs.
Laurens and Moscovici’s (2005) “self-conversion” research in which confederates
altered their colour perceptions in ways consistent with the position they were required to
argue as part of their role has potentially serious implications if the findings generalize to the
other types of role-required behaviours. For example, the self-conversion effect suggests that,
to reduce the cognitive dissonance stemming from their role-related behaviour, Jake might
come to believe the sexist comments he made to female participants, Alice might ultimately
regard the female participants as being the “insult to women” that she accused them of being,
and Pants might end up believing that she really was angry or happy about a participant’s
offers during the negotiation. The extent to which the self-conversion process generalizes to
confederates’ behaviour more generally, then, clearly merits investigation.
Relatedly, one might also wonder how research confederates are affected by their
deceptive behaviour toward research participants. In this regard Pants recalled her partner’s
concern, saying:
I was talking to [my partner] and she was saying because this study had
deception and the study that I’m doing now has deception like, ‘Now you’re
going to be like this great liar, and I don’t know, like, I’m never gonna know
when you’re telling the truth or not.’ She goes, ‘You think you’re gonna start
lying all the time now? Like because you lie so much, it’s gonna make it seem
like it’s an okay behaviour.’ Which is a weird thing to say, like, it never
occurred to me that would happen, but it’s an interesting observation.
Confederates’ Experiences 52
The possibility that the self-conversion observed by Laurens and Moscovici (2005) may
extend lying as part of a confederate’s role seems all the more likely in view of confederates
accounts of how habituation made the deception easier for them to perform.
As noted earlier, a number of confederates used their own, personalized strategies to
cope with the negative aspects of their experiences, particularly aspects associated to their
deceptive roles. Of note is that some of the participants, specifically some of those who had
the time, described using Milgram’s (1963) “a friendly reconciliation” (p. 374) procedure.
Because little if any research has assessed the extent to which such reconciliations are actually
beneficial to research confederates and participants, research in this area is warranted.
The current findings have a number of implications for research confederates,
researchers and professional bodies overseeing psychological research. Given that research
confederates appear to offset any negative feelings stemming from their role-related behaviour
by having faith in the scientific process, research confederates might endeavour to ensure that
their faith is not misplaced by ensuring that the research they are involved with has received
the approval of an Ethics Review Board, that the experimenter has been trained adequately,
and that debriefing procedures are thorough and effective. The current findings also suggest
the need for researchers to forewarn potential confederates of the negative feelings they may
encounter as a result of their role-related behaviour, that they provide sufficient training to
offset research confederates’ performance-related anxieties, and that they monitor
confederates’ experiences and affect throughout the research process in ways that ensure their
well-being. In addition, these findings suggest that professional bodies overseeing
psychological research, such as the American Psychological Association and the Interagency
Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (within Canada) might usefully develop ethical guidelines
Confederates’ Experiences 53
for research confederates and incorporate safeguards for research confederates’ well-being
into any revisions of existing ethical guidelines.
Like all research, the current research has a number of strengths and weaknesses that
qualify any conclusions. As a novice researcher, I faced a number of methodological
challenges in the course of conducting this research. One of these challenges was
interviewing. For example, along the way I learned not to do any interviews after having
spent a day at work and being too tired to attend to and pursue what participants said.
Although a novice, I am pleased to report that when I asked the participants how they found
the interview, how I had done, and whether I had concentrated too much on a particular topic,
all of them felt positively and did not offer any criticism.
Due to time constraints and the uncooperativeness of researchers who would not allow
me access to their research confederates, theoretical saturation was not achieved for all of the
potential categories that emerged. However, very few new categories emerged during the
final interviews and only those categories that were fully developed were used to construct the
model outline in this research. Categories that still required elaboration were that of
confederates’ helpful previous experiences, confederates’ requirement for closure, and
confederates’ beliefs in participants’ responsibility to take care of themselves. Conceivably,
these could be described as Personalized Coping Strategies.
Other limits stemmed from the fact that I did all of the interviewing, transcription,
coding, and analysis. As a result, this research was based on only my perspective, without
potential benefits of depth and breadth afforded by additional perspectives. In an attempt to
address this limitation, after coding all the interviews, I spent some time away from the data.
When I returned, I recoded all of the interviews to capture the essence of each interview in the
Confederates’ Experiences 54
most comprehensive manner. This process made it easier for me to engage in the method of
constant comparisons (Glaser, 1965). After developing a thorough understanding of each
interview, I then returned to the interviews and, with my knowledge of the other interviews, I
was better able to identify and develop relevant codes and categories. This iterative process, I
believe, contributed to a more thorough analysis and trustworthy findings that are well
grounded in the reality of the participants’ experiences.
Confederates’ Experiences 55
References
Adair, J.G., Dushenko, T.W., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (1985). Ethical regulations and their impact
on research practice. American Psychologist, 40(1), 59-72.
American Psychological Association (1982). Ethical principles in the conduct of research with
human participants. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/code1992.aspx
American Psychological Association (2000). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. In B.D. Sales & S. Folkman (Eds.) Ethics in research with human
participants (pp. 129-160). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct. Retrieved August 11, 2009, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx#
Anderson, C.A., Lepper, M.R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of
explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39(6), 1037-1049.Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P.C., Carlsmith, J.M., &
Gonzales, M.H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology (2nd ed.). Toronto:
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of
judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.) Groups, leadership and men: Research in human
relations (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
Baron, R.A. (1981). The 'costs of deception' revisited: An openly optimistic rejoinder. IRB:
Ethics and Human Research, 3(1), 8-10.
Confederates’ Experiences 56
Bartlett, M.Y., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behaviour: Helping when it
costs you. Psychological Science, 17(4), 319-325.
Batson, C.D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behaviour. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 282-316). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram's
“Behavioral study of obedience.” American Psychologist, 19(6), 421-423.
Baumrind, D. (1979). IRBs and social science research: The costs of deception. IRB: Ethics
and Human Research, 1(6), 1-4.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (1998 with
2000, 2002, and 2005 amendments). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for
research involving humans. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/policypolitique/tcps-eptc/docs/TCPS%20October%202005_E.pdf
Geller, D.M. (1978). Involvement in role-playing situations: A demonstration with studies on
obedience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(3), 219-235.
Glaser, B.G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social
Problems, 12(4), 436-445.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company.
Guéguen, N. (2007). The effect of modeling on tipping behavior. Studia Psychologica,49(3),
275-282.
Confederates’ Experiences 57
Hoffman, M.L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implicatons for caring and justice.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kelman, H.C. (1967). Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social
psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67(1), 1-11.
Laurens, S., & Moscovici S. (2005). The confederate’s and others’ self-conversion: A
neglected phenomenon. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(2), 191-207.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London: Tavistock
Publications Ltd.
Miller, A.G. (1972). Role playing: An alternative to deception? A review of the evidence.
American Psychologist, 27(7), 623-636.
Oczak, M., & Niedźwienska, A. (2007). Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new
procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 49-59.
Oliansky, A. (1991). A confederate’s perspective on deception. Ethics & Behavior, 1(4), 253258.
Ponterotto, J.G., & Grieger, I. (2007). Effectively communicating qualitative research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 35(3), 404-430.
Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sieber, J.E. (1983). Deception in social research III: The nature and limits of debriefing. IRB:
Ethics and Human Research, 5(3), 1-4.
Confederates’ Experiences 58
Smith, S.S. & Richardson, D. (1983). Amelioration of deception and harm in psychological
research: The important role of debriefing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44(5), 1075-1082.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Tangney, J. (2000). Training. In B.D. Sales & S. Folkman (Eds.), Ethics in research with
human participants (pp. 97-105). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Vinacke, W.E. (1954). Deceiving experimental subjects. American Psychologist, 9(4), 155.
Willis, R.H., & Willis, Y.A. (1970). Role playing versus deception: An experimental
comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 472-477.
Confederates’ Experiences 59
Appendix A. Email to Psychology Department Chair for Faculty Members and Graduate
Students
Dear Faculty Member/Graduate Student Researcher;
My name is Elliott Lee. I am an undergraduate student in the Psychology Department
at [name of university]. For my B.A. thesis research, I am conducting 45 minute interviews
with people who have been research confederates in psychological research that involved any
form of deception (i.e., where the question regarding the use of deception on the ethics
application was answered ‘yes’). I am interested in confederates’ experiences in such
research, how they felt about being a confederate in research that used deception (be it
positive, negative or neutral), and the basis of their feelings.
In order to obtain participants, I would be grateful if you would forward the e-mail
message that appears on the next page to your former and current research confederates.
Alternatively, you are welcome to send me the names and e-mail addresses of your former and
current confederates so that I can e-mail them myself [email address].
Note that, to facilitate the anonymity of everyone involved in the research, the names
of any individuals mentioned by the participants, the name of the university where the
research was conducted, and any identifying details regarding the particular research project
will not be provided in any written or verbal presentations of the findings. In addition, all
identifying information will be deleted from the typed transcript of the audio recordings, the
audio recordings and any other data will be stored in a locked filing cabinet which only the
researchers associated with the project have access to, and the audio recordings will be
destroyed upon completion of the study. You might also note that this study has been
Confederates’ Experiences 60
reviewed and approved by the [name of university] Research Ethics Committee for
Psychological Research.
The email distributed to former and current research confederates read:
My name is Elliott Lee and I have asked ___(name of researcher)___ to forward this
message to the people who have acted as confederates in his/her research. I am currently
doing my honours BA thesis research on the experiences of people who have been research
confederates in psychological research that involved any form of deception (i.e., where the
question regarding the use of deception on the ethics application was answered ‘yes’). I am
interested in confederates’ experiences in such research, how they felt about being a
confederate in research that used deception (be it positive, negative or neutral), and the basis
of their feelings. Given this, I am interested in learning about your experiences as a research
confederate and, in return for participating in a 45 minute interview about your experiences,
you will be given $15.00. You should note, however, that answering questions about
experiences as a research confederate in a study that used deception may be distressing for
some participants.
If you want to learn more about the study or you want to participate, please contact
me, Elliott, at [telephone number] or [email address]. Your help will be very much
appreciated.
Thanks for your time, Elliott Lee
Confederates’ Experiences 61
Appendix B. Informed Consent
This study has been reviewed and approved by the Carleton University
Research Ethics Committee for Psychological Research
Informed Consent: Study of Research Confederates’ Experiences
The purpose of this consent from is to ensure that you understand the purpose of this study
and the nature of your involvement. This consent form must provide you with sufficient
information so as to allow you to determine whether you wish to participate. Please ask the
researcher to clarify any questions you may have.
This is study is being conducted by Elliott Lee under the supervision of Dr. Connie M.
Kristiansen, both from the Department of Psychology at Carleton University. This study is
investigating the experiences of people who have acted as research confederates. To gain
insight into your experience as a research confederate you will be asked to participate in a
tape-recorded 45 to 60 minute interview during which you will be asked to describe the
research you were involved with, your role in this research, how the research appeared to
affect the participants, how being a confederate affected you and how you dealt with these
feelings. As a way of reimbursing you for your time and effort, you will be given $15.00.
Some people may experience some distress in response to questions asking about what
they did as a research confederate, especially when this involved deception and/or the
mistreatment of research participants. It is therefore important that you understand that you
can refuse to answer any question and may stop your participation in the study at any time, for
any reason, without explanation and without penalty.
All of the information you provide will be stored in a locked cabinet separate from any
documents containing your name and only researchers associated with this project will have
access to this information. In addition, your identity will not be revealed in any written or
verbal presentations of the findings and a pseudonym will used to further conceal your
identify. In addition, the tape recording of the interview will be destroyed upon completion of
the study. As a result, the data you provide will ultimately be anonymous.
Confederates’ Experiences 62
If you have any concerns about the study or would like to make an inquiry, feel
welcome to contact Elliott Lee at elee8@connect.carleton.ca or Dr. Connie M. Kristiansen at
ckristia@connect.carleton.ca. For any ethical concerns about this research, please contact
Monique Sénéchal (Ethics Chair, Carleton University Research Ethics Committee for
Psychological Research) at monique_sénéchal@carleton.ca or 613-520-2600 ext.1155. For
any other concerns or comments you are welcome to contact Janet Mantler (Chair of the
Department of Psychology, Carleton University) at psychchair@carleton.ca or 613-520-2600
ext. 4173.
My signature below indicates I have read the above information and consent to participating
in this study.
_________________
Participant’s Name
__________________
Witness’ Name
_______________________
Participant’s Signature
_______________________
Witness’ Signature
________________
Date
________________
Date
Consent to Audiotape
I hereby consent to the audio tape recording of this interview. I understand that it is being
audiotaped for accuracy purposes only and that the tape will be destroyed upon completion of
the study.
__________________
_______________________
________________
Participant’s Name
Participant’s Signature
Date
__________________
________________________
________________
Witness’ Name
Witness’ Signature
Date
Confederates’ Experiences 63
Appendix C. Interview Schedule
Interview Schedule: Experiences as a Research Confederate Study
Go Through Consent Procedure
Warming Up

Perhaps the easiest way to start would be by asking where you heard about the study.

And why did you decide to participate?
The Research

As you know, I’m interested in your experiences when you acted as a research
confederate. Perhaps you could start at the beginning by telling me how you came to
be involved in this research? (e.g., volunteer, paid employee)

And what was the study about?

What was your role as a confederate?

Did you receive any training?

Was it easy or hard to do this? How did you feel about doing this? Were you
surprised you felt this way? Did it get easier with time?

How did the research participants react when you did this? [get examples to illustrate
their reactions]

How did the participants’ reactions affect you? [positive/negative; get examples]
How long did these feeling last?
o Why do you think you felt that way
o If negative, how did you cope? Did anyone ever warn you that you might feel like
that?

Did anyone ever warn you about what their reactions might be?

Did anyone ever debrief you or offer to help you with your feelings? Did you talk to
anyone about your feelings?

Did doing these things in the research affect your behaviour outside the lab in any way
(e.g., did it spill over – get examples; any positive effects - examples)

Did anyone ever tell you if the study had been approved by an ethics review board?

Were you offered an incentive for being a confederate?
o What was your incentive for being a confederate? (e.g., get to know a professor,
obligation, payment)
Confederates’ Experiences 64
o Did the incentive help offset any negative feelings?

What are your thoughts on deception?

What are your thoughts on the ethics of the study you partook in?
Closing Down

Is there anything else that you think I should know about the nature of the research that
you were involved with and how it affected you?

Do you have any questions for me?

Pseudonym

You would like to receive a summary of the study?

Request signed permission for future contact for clarification, additional info and/or
feedback interview.

Go through debriefing – written and verbal

Payment
Confederates’ Experiences 65
Appendix D. Face Sheet
Face Sheet
Participant # _____
Participant’s Pseudonym _____________________________
Participant’s Age
______
Participant’s Year and Program of study / Occupation
_____________________________
Would like to receive summary of findings
Y
/
N
If yes, e-mail address: ___________________________
Willing to participate in clarification e-mail or interview?
Y
/
N
Confederates’ Experiences 66
Appendix E. Debriefing
Debriefing: Study of Research Confederates’ Experiences
While informed consent, debriefing procedures, ethics review boards and other
resources focus on research participants’ well-being, surprisingly little attention has been
given to the welfare of research confederates. In particular, the potential for confederates to
experience anxiety, distress or other negative consequences as a result of the demands of their
role has been neglected until now. The present study is therefore being conducted to shed
light on the experiences of people who have been research confederates and, if they had any
troubling experiences, how they dealt with them.
Should you have any further inquiries about this study feel free to contact the research,
Elliott Lee, by email at elee8@connect.carleton.ca or Dr. Connie Kristiansen by email at
ckristia@carleton.ca. If you have any ethical concerns regarding this study, you can contact
Dr. Monique Sénéchal (Chair, Carleton University Research Ethics Committee for
Psychological Research) at monique_sénéchal@carleton.ca or (613) 520-2600, ext. 6026. If
you have any questions or comments about any other aspect of the study, you are welcome to
contact Dr. Janet Mantler (Chair of the Department of Psychology, Carleton University) at
psychchair@carleton.ca or (613) 520-2600, ext. 4173.
Because the study addresses a potentially sensitive topic, some of the questions may be
emotionally challenging or distressing for some people. If you feel the need to talk to
someone regarding any issue that may have arisen from participating in this study, then please
do not hesitate to contact the 24-hour Distress Centre of Ottawa. This service provides
confidential assistance and support by staff trained to deal with sensitive issues, and can be
contacted at 613-238-3311 24-hours a day, 7 days a week. If you are a student at Carleton
University, you may also contact Carleton University’s counselling service at hcs@carleton.ca
or 613-520-6674.
Finally, note that I may be contacting some participants to take part in a follow-up
interview that will last about 30 minutes. During this interview, you may be asked to a)
comment on aspects of your earlier interview that were unclear; b) provide more information
about things you said during the earlier interview; and/or c) provide feedback about the extent
Confederates’ Experiences 67
to which the researcher’s integration and interpretation of the interview data from all of the
participants is consistent with your own experiences.
Thank you so much for your participation and assistance in this research.
Confederates’ Experiences 68
Appendix F. Post Interview Comment Sheet
Mood/Tone of the Interview
Participant’s Emotional Reactions throughout Interview
My Emotional Reactions to the Participant
My Emotional Reactions to what the Participant Said
Strengths of the Interview
Weaknesses of the Interview
Additional Comments/Notable Features of the Interview