Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
Loras College
1
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
The questionable necessity of deception in research
A dominant debate in the area of psychology is the use of deception in research. It is a
major concerned for the institution and for the public. The overuse of deception in published
research, direct or indirect had created a public backlash. We have decreased the use of
deception in the past few decades but the topic is still debated. The long-standing defense of
deception no longer warrants its prevalence in the institution. Deception jeopardizes the
reputation of the institution and the validity of research more often than it benefits research.
Maybe, the psychological institutional should consider more restrictions and more alternatives in
the near future.
Deception can be described as the intentional misrepresentation or exclusion of
information. Researchers implement deceptive strategies when they mislead the participants
about the true purpose of the study or omit details of the study. The research may include a
confederate, an actor that may pretend to be another participant or a role unrelated to the study.
Intentional deception about the purpose of the research or identity of the researcher is generally
viewed more negatively than the omission of information. This division of deception is based on
whether the method used is direct or indirect. (Ralph Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008)
Direct deception is the intentional misrepresentation of the purpose of the study or role of
the researchers participating in the study. Indirect deception is when participants are not given
full disclosure or details of the experiment before participation. Intentional misstatement of facts
is unanimously considered a form of deception while omission is not always considered
2
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
deception, even when there was an intentional attempt to conceal the truth. (Boynton, Portnoy, &
Johnson, 2013)
Default assumption of the participants is that participants assume the research starts when
an experimenter indicates that the research begins and not any time before (R. Hertwig &
Ortmann, 2008). Is taking advantage of this assumption a form of deception? Furthermore, a
research is in a position of knowledge and power over the participant; is it ethically advisable to
take advantage of the participants’ presumptions?
Deception in experimental psychology is generally accepted by professionals and future
graduates in the field as an unfortunate necessity. Past research that used deception had been
normalized as part of the psychology curriculum. Also part of the curriculum is the APA Code of
Ethics and Conduct. The restrictions of deception in research make it seem as if the institution
had already considered all possibilities and took great steps in reevaluating the ethical violations
of past studies. However, it is a mistake for a learning individual to assume all contributions to
the standard and practice of their future field had already been explored.
The information printed in a textbook has a powerful lasting power. The act of printing
and distributing information gives it a sense of permanence that mere speculation and debate in
the classroom does not convey. However, each printed word in the code of Ethics and each
chapter in our textbook were mere speculation at a time. The Ethical Principles of Psychologists
and Code of Conduct is a work of progress. At best it is a guideline not a strict rule. The ethical
duty of the reader is not to find loopholes within the guideline to justify using deception, as some
researchers are likely to do in order to pass ethical standards. To use the guidelines as an
3
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
argument for ethical practices, it is necessary to understand and reflect on the purpose and intent
of each guideline.
Deception in social psychology research has a long history dating back to 1920s. In early
research, deception was seen as a necessity to eliminate bias in the participants. The popularity
of using deception rose to its peak around 1970. More recent studies in between the 1980s and
1990s show that an estimated 50% of research published in the social sciences involved
deception (Blatchley & O’Brien, 2007). At its time, deception was viewed as a necessary
consequence to advance the understanding of social science. If the potential benefits of deception
could outweigh the risk of individual participants, then deception could be considered reasonably
justified. With strict code of ethics that require informed consent and debriefing for the
participants in research, the risks were often considered short-term.
Baumrid (1964) expressed a concern that deceptive practices violate the trust between
researcher and participant. The Milgrim obedience study that asked participants to administer
what they were led to believe were painful electric shocks to actors taking part in the research
was an example of a study that violated this trust. The researchers created situations that placed
participants under considerable duress that violated the implicit social contract between
participants and researchers (Blatchley & O’Brien, 2007). Research is reliant on the trust
participants have in the researcher. Baumrid and others in 1960 predicted that this trend in
research will result in a backlash against the psychological community. Psychologist, even
outside the field of research, have garnered the reputation as a group, as deceitful. By developing
a deceitful reputation, the psychology field is dissuading participation when we should instead
encourage participation in social studies and development.
4
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
The Milgrim study provided us with an insight into obedience behavior. If a ban were
placed on deception in research at the time, the Milgrim study and the information we learned
from the study would have been lost. Ironically, this was also the same study that raised concern
about the ethical ramifications of deception in research (Cook & Yamagishi, 2008). That we
have collected valuable information from a controversial and unethical research is not the best
defense for continued research. A harsh truth in the history of science is that some of our most
valuable discoveries in human history, especially in the medical and social sciences, were at a
cost to human rights. Learning from experiments that violated human rights is all we can do
presently.
The reputation of deception in psychology research did not just stay within the science
community. Research had developed this reputation of being deceptive; creating a spillover
effect. Participants in deceptive research and those who have not participated in deceptive
research remained neutral to deception. The factors that contributed to the participants neutral
and positive view of deception in research was that the research did not cause harm and the
perceived benefit of the results of deceptive research. Participants’ opinion of research was not
affected by past experience, as long as the method was humane and beneficial (Blatchley &
O’Brien, 2007). However, participants of this survey were still less likely to participate in future
research if they had past experience with deceptive research. Public trust in psychology and the
willingness to participate in research have decreased.
One survey assessed participant opinion of research in relation to their past experience as
a participant in deceptive research. Participants in the study were all female; 300 college students,
faculty, and staff who volunteered to take the survey. The results suggested that the experience
5
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
of deceptive research is negatively related to willingness to participate in future research.
(Blatchley & O’Brien, 2007)
In related research participants were observed to show a stronger psychological reaction
to deception and a stronger behavior reaction to honestly. Other behavior research had shown
that people use more effort to avoid negative stimulus than to approach positive stimulus.
Economic and Psychological Research had also shown a preference for punishing deception over
rewarding honesty (Wang, Galinsky, & Murnighan, 2009). Resentment of participants who have
been deceived is a complex issue. Post-study surveys have supported that participants show
minimal resentment; the surveys support that participants support the use of deception if they
view it as necessary and beneficial. However, experience with deception in research decreases
the likelihood of future participation (Blatchley & O’Brien, 2007). Participant experience with
deception also increases the likelihood of contamination of the participant pool due to increased
participant suspicion.
Although, participants may not express a conscious negative view of deception after
being deceived, the decreased willingness to participate in future studies does have a negative
impact on the institution. Willing participation is important in research and in the field of
psychology.
The ubiquity argument is a counter that asserts that deception in research is not only
acceptable but ethical considering the abundance of deception in society. As proponents of this
argument argue, deception in the laboratory is only one of many kinds of deception people
encounter on a daily basis (Benham, 2008). The argument seems to arise from the reasonable
6
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
claim that deception is a natural occurrence in society. Being a social science, deception may be
unavoidable.
However, Korn would argue that as an institution of education, we have a moral
obligation to not contribute more confusion to society. The individual person may encounter
deceit, and the individual person will contribute and expect other individuals in society to
deceive (Benham, 2008). An institution stands for an ideal. Researchers are not representative of
themselves while conducting experiments; they are representative of the institution. For
Psychology to be perceived as reliable and trustworthy, the representatives of psychology have to
also strive for that standard when conducting services for the institution.
The individual case of one researcher deceiving one participant is not between two
individuals. It is between an institution and an individual. We provide services in the pursuit of
truth and knowledge to better understand the human condition, but at the same time mislead
participants. Research creates a double bind dilemma with two contradictory messages. How can
we ask participants to trust in a field that uses deception in the pursuit of truth? Deception is one
of the most frequently mentioned reasons for participants withdrawing from a study. Participants’
results are then withdrawn from the study and useless to the researcher.
Deceit is a method used to make participants act against their will (Kimmel, Smith, &
Klein, 2011). Once deceit is used in research, it cannot be retracted. Deception is not considerate
of a participant’s personal values or ethics. The person’s sense of autonomy is jeopardized if they
are forced to act in a way that is not contingent with their values. Unlike other hard sciences that
measure results in beakers and specimen cultures, the social sciences have subjects with a life
7
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
outside the lab. Although it would be simpler to manipulate subjects without the consequences of
the individual, we cannot be inconsiderate of the participation during and after the experiment.
The ethical question to consider is whether participants made a completely informed
consent before the study. Even after the study, IRB certified studies have forgone debriefing;
Section 8.08 on Deception in the APA Code of Ethics states:
c) When psychologists become aware that research procedures have harmed a
participant, they take reasonable steps to minimize the harm. (American Psychological
Association, 2002)
The IRB allows certain studies to not include debriefing if the effects of the debriefing
could potentially cause harm. A recent example is of a study of technology’s effect on cheating.
The experimenters decided to forego disclosure because of the potentially damage to the students’
self-esteem and reputation who were observed cheating in the study.
The use of deception is usually justified because the participants are debriefed. However,
debriefing is sometimes excluded in studies in order to preserve the ethics of the profession by
causing no harm to the participants (Sommers & Miller, 2013). The paradox – in order to avoid
violating one ethical code, it is necessary to violate another ethical code. The participant is then
unable give informed consent that is promised in the code of ethics. The question is not an easy
one to answer. Both choices have consequences and a strong argument could be made for either
case. An argument that deception is beneficial to participants could be defended; however, by
taking this defense the researcher violates the social contract between researcher and participant.
Deception increases suspicion in psychology research and contaminates the participant
pool. Participants who have experience with deception in research suspect additional deception,
8
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
but they may also comply with research anyway. Naïve participants are less likely to suspect
deception in research, but they are more likely to resent the deception. Instead of recreating a
natural social setting, deception in research had conditioned participants to second-guess their
initial response and to modify their behavior to confirm to social expectations (Ralph Hertwig &
Ortmann, 2008).
An example of participant suspicion was observed during one mock jury study when a
juror experienced a genuine epileptic seizure. The subjects witnessing the event were hesitant to
take action as they were suspicious of the authenticity of the attacks. The three out of the five
students that reported suspicion had previous knowledge of a psychological study with similar
circumstances from other coursework. The one person who immediately acted to aid the juror
had no prior psychological coursework. If the behavior of these participants were to be
interpreted outside the context of research suspicion, this situation could have been misevaluated
as evidence to support the “bystander effect.” (R. Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008)
The last leg proponents have to stand on is the defense of the pragmatic value of
deception in research. The Milgrim study provided us with an insight into obedience behavior. If
a ban were placed on deception in research at the time, the Milgrim study and the information we
learned from the study would have been lost. Ironically, this was also the same study that raised
concern about the ethical ramifications of deception in research. That we have collected valuable
information from a controversial and unethical research is not the best defense for continued
research. A harsh truth in the history of science is that some of our most valuable discoveries in
human history, especially in the medical and social sciences were at a cost to human rights.
Learning from experiments that violated human rights is all we can do presently. Striving for a
higher standard of ethics is what we can plan to do for the future.
9
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
Deception is not a necessity in related areas of research. Economic experiments have
banned the use of deception in research as unethical. Proponents of deception in social research
defend the necessity of deception in research and argue that deception is restricted in the code of
ethics as a last resort. Critical analyses of published research articles contradict this statement
Hertwig and Ortmann (2008) analyzed the frequency of deception in the Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology (JESP) in 2002. In that year, JESP published 27 articles and 32 reports
encompassing a total of 117 studies. Of these, 63 (53%) used deception.
A defense of the use of deception its necessity in research to recreate emergency
situations that happen infrequently. Studies that observe the bystander effect is an example of a
study that cannot be replicated intentionally without falsifying information. However, the
assumption of the need for deception is ignores that access we have to vast amounts of
information collected from recorded cameras. With the vast amounts of information and data
collected from natural observations on a daily basis, it is not as easy to justify deception to study
a general behavior like bystander effect. A situation would need to be extensively specific and/or
extraordinary for a research not to be able to find that behavior recorded or observed in public
domain before. Even if the situation was that specific or that bizarre to warrant a controlled
deceptive experiment, could the validity of that research be applicable or useful enough to justify
deception?
Another defense of deception is that certain socially undesirable behavior can only be
observed when people are not on guard. Because people conform to society standards, they tend
to modify their behavior when they are aware that they are potentially being observed for
socially undesirable behavior like prejudice and racism. However, the consequence is that
participants are suspicious and on guard in research. With the suspicion of potentially being
10
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
deceived, participants have a more aroused state of social awareness and conformity than they
normally would outside of experiments. The behavior and results from this type of research had
also been affected by social conformity by simply priming the participants to associate research
with deception.
Alternative research methods to deception have not been thoroughly explored. The
statement that deception is necessary in this type of research should be supported by attempts to
explore other options. The process of research is to develop a hypothesis, create an experiment to
test that hypothesis, gather data, and use that data to reject the null hypothesis before claiming
support for your claim. Researchers that defend this claim are familiar with this process.
However, the same researchers claim that deception is the only method without exploring the
effectiveness of alternative methods.
The usefulness of deceptive studies is questionable. Despite the continued use of
deception in social science, little information had been applied from what we observed in social
conformity studies to other areas of psychology. Little is known about the effects of deception on
participant resentment, outside of short-term surveys. Little is known about the effectiveness of
alternative research designs, such as virtual simulation. Deceptive research has little value in
applied psychology. The allowance for deception in the APA code of ethics stresses a necessity
and justification for deception if the benefits outweigh the potential risks. A majority of research
articles I found while searching through Psych Info are theoretical. The benefits of these articles
compared to the cost to deceiving participants are not clearly defined by the results. (Kimmėl,
2011)
11
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
When confronted with ethical dilemmas, the proponents of deceptive research assure that
deception is a last resort. Proponents also defend the use of deception as beneficial. Deception
had been defended as necessary in order to reduce participation bias and error in research.
However, these statements have little support. A critical reevaluation of deceptive research
reveals contradictory facts.
The statement that deception is a last resort is not supported by the 53% (over half) of
published journal articles that use deceit in their research. The majority of the research published
is focused on theory rather than application (R. Hertwig & Ortmann, 2008). The benefits of this
research, if mentioned at all, is not clearly defined or shown to be applied in other areas of
psychology for the benefit of the practice.
The pragmatic use of deception is questionable, as the spillover effect and participant
suspicion contaminate the participation pool. In an attempt to control the participant bias effect
in experiments, the use of deception caused more problems. Deception is still considered a
necessary last resort in research, but its necessity had been overstated and overvalued. It is time
to critically evaluate the consequences of deceit and to explore ethical alternatives.
12
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
References
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.
American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060
Benham, B. (2008). The ubiquity of deception and the ethics of deceptive research. Bioethics, 22(3),
147–156. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00619.x
Blatchley, B., & O’Brien, K. R. (2007). Deceiving the participant: Are we creating the reputational
spillover effect? North American Journal of Psychology, 9(3), 519–534.
Boynton, M. H., Portnoy, D. B., & Johnson, B. T. (2013). Exploring the ethics and psychological impact of
deception in psychological research. IRB, 35(2), 7–13.
Cook, K. S., & Yamagishi, T. (2008). A Defense of Deception on Scientific Grounds. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 71(3), 215–221. doi:10.1177/019027250807100303
Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense.
Ethics & Behavior, 18(1), 59–92.
Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in Social Psychological Experiments: Two Misconceptions
and a Research Agenda. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(3), 222–227.
doi:10.1177/019027250807100304
Kimmėl, A. J. (2011). Deception in psychological research—A necessary evil? The Psychologist, 24(8),
580–585.
Kimmel, A. J., Smith, N. C., & Klein, J. G. (2011). Ethical Decision Making and Research Deception in the
Behavioral Sciences: An Application of Social Contract Theory. Ethics & Behavior, 21(3), 222–251.
doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.570166
Sommers, R., & Miller, F. G. (2013). Forgoing Debriefing in Deceptive Research: Is It Ever Ethical? Ethics
& Behavior, 23(2), 98–116. doi:10.1080/10508422.2012.732505
13
Running Head: The Questionable Necessity of Deception in Research
Tiffany Plagman
Wang, C. S., Galinsky, A. D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2009). Bad Drives Psychological Reactions, but Good
Propels Behavior: Responses to Honesty and Deception. Psychological Science, 20(5), 634–644.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02344.x
14