“The repeated assumption of the unacceptability of deception seems to be due to the fact that deception has been evaluated only from the viewpoint of moral philosophizing.” According to Dr. Larry Christensen, a scholar in psychology this has led to the repeated conclusion that deception is reprehensible and seems to have created a perceptual set to view deception immediately as aversive. Over the past hundreds of years, psychology has conducted multiple experiments adding to the knowledge of science today. In 1932, a Public Health Service group in Tuskegee was experimenting with a study in order to document syphilis in African Americans in hopes of possible treatments (“Tuskegee Study – Timeline – CDC – NCHHSTP”).
In addition, in 1963, Stanley Milgram a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment to test obedience. Stanley Milgram wished to observe whether people were notably obedient to authority figures (McLeod, Saul). Moreover, in 1973 Phillip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment placed normal people in roles of “guards” and “inmates” in order to test the brutality of the guards depending on their personality or environment (McLeod, Saul). These three experimental studies have impacted the way psychologists use deception in present studies. Nevertheless, these studies seem like ordinary research studies simply for the purpose of science, yet deception was used in these experiments. Put in common terms, deception is the act of making someone believe false information in order to deceive them. In the research studies mentioned, deception was used in a harmful manner which affected the participants. For example, in the Tuskegee study African American men were unknowingly getting injected with the syphilis virus. In the Stanley Milgram experiment, deception was used to make the test subjects believe they were harming another person by giving them high dosages of electric shocks if they got an answer wrong when asked a question.
Lastly, in the Stanford Prison study participants were placed into either the “inmates” or the “guards’ condition in order to test the effects of authority and power. This experiment got to the point where the “guards” were actually treating the “inmates” with malicious intent. Situations like these beg the question, is deception unethical or is it acceptable when necessary to achieve the results intended? Majority of the time deception can be used for all the wrong reasons; however, in psychology it may be essential for the right reasons. Over the years, the word deception has brought upon bad prominence to any profession; however, “deception” may not always be what it seems such as in the field of psychology where deception may not be unethical to a certain extent.
Psychology is the field of study where the mind is explored for the wonders it has to offer. In order to get into the deep wonders of the mind one must study it without a third factor. Typically, in psychology, the mind, behaviors, emotions, and much more is studied. However, there could be multiple factors that can play a part in the study that can alter the results intended. This is where deception comes into play. Deception may seem like it’s all bad considering the past experiments that used deception, but without it valuable research may not exist. The article “Research involving Deception” by Oregon State University expresses that in certain circumstances a study may require deception to achieve vital results. Deception is necessary to get what is desired without the useless parts. For instance, in the Stanford Prison experiment, without deception psychologists would have never seen true human behavior assigned a specific role. Thus, furthering scientific knowledge for future purposes.
Furthermore, in “Exploring the Ethics and Psychological Impact of Deception in Psychological Research” Marcella H. Boynton, et al. expand on the idea of ethical violation by deception. Supporting Oregon State research, Boynton et al. state that often deception can even be beneficial to the participants themselves. It benefits them because they can learn a feature they never knew. However, the deception must be minimal to the participant if not, this begs the question of how far is too far when it comes to deception? If deception is taken to the extent where it is potentially harmful, can a debriefing help the situation? A debriefing is a document which explains the study and its purpose. The debriefing is typically presented after the study is completed. In addition, to help support Boynton et al’s statement, they conduct a study to see if the right use of deception actually harms the participants and if it is considered unethical. During the study participants knew that the study was going to use deception, but the participants still agreed to participate. After the study, Boynton and colleagues found that there was little to no harm if the right use of deception was involved.
To clarify, the deception must not harm the participants emotionally, physically, mentally and behavior wise. Marcella H. Boynton also found that if a debriefing was included in the study then it can help to make it less unethical and more up to standards. This adds to Oregon State University’s research which demonstrates it is appropriate to provide a simple debriefing to the participant to minimize risks. Overall, this brings up more thoughts to think about when it comes to deception. Deception does not seem so bad when considering its contributions to science and the populations of interest. Therefore, deception cannot be completely classified as a bad act but can be used as a potential tool to achieve new results.
Building off from the previous paragraph, the word deception is initially perceived as bad however, the two articles presented tell otherwise. They both demonstrate that there is more to deception than originally understood. Nonetheless, supporting the articles in the idea that there’s not a single definition for deception but multiple. In the article “Judgements of Acceptability of Deception in Psychological Research,” James H. Korn, a Professor in Psychology also builds on the ideas presented in the previous two articles about how deception in research is not all that it plays out to be. In Boynton et. al’s article, she comments that participants actually engage in deception. Nonetheless, James H. Korn expands on Boynton’s idea of the participants knowledge of deception in the experiment. If this is the case, then are certain experiments really unethical? Thus, James H. Korn’s experiment wanted to understand why people engage in deceptive research.
More specifically, how people feel about deception because people will define deception depending on the results they are given from the study. James H. Korn’s results from the study found that some people believe that deception is wrong, some believe it is adequate and some are unsure of their feelings towards deception based off of the results they were given after the study. What does all this mean in terms of deception? First and foremost, this strongly alternates the definition of deception and second, it contradicts the idea that all deception is unethical and just plain wrong. The article, “Reading the Ethics more deeply” by Dr. Stephen Behnke expresses that usually psychologists will not conduct a study if deception will cause harm in any way. Dr. Behnke also mentions that if the participants wish to withdraw from the experiment then they may do so at any time.
For instance, in the Stanley Milgram experiment the participants could have withdrawn from the experiment at any time they wanted to. For that reason, if deception did have one definition then all the participants would have agreed that deception was wrong from the start and could have withdrawn. However, each individual got different results which altered their feelings about how they feel. Likewise, if the participants had mixed and adequate feelings about the use of deception than technically it is not really an ethic’s violation of their human rights. Therefore, the word deception cannot be narrowed down to one definition nor can it be characterized as unethical if withdrawal was option.
Frankly, deception cannot be narrowed down to the common definition, unless deception is used in an extremely harmful way. The question of ethical violation does tend to come up. To further analyze the idea of ethical violation of deception, the article, “Informational and Relational Meanings of Deception: Implications for Deception Methods in Research,” by Eleanor Lawson a Professor from Charles Sturt University argues the meaning of deception. To demonstrate this argument, Eleanor Lawson uses informational and relational deception. Informational deception is where all information is kept away from the participant. In relational deception, it’s more of a trust between people. In the article, Eleanor Lawson uses an example of a surprise birthday party. At first, a surprise birthday party is considered informational deception because information is kept. On the other hand, if the person who threw the surprise party is relatively close to the person whom the party was intended for then its relational deception because it’s not considered deception due to the people knowing each other.
Moreover, Eleanor Lawson finds that relational deception is a disadvantage to ethics because it allows it to be volatile. For instance, if there is that bond or trust between the participant and researcher then there’s a chance of a confounding variable that leads to undesirable results. In addition, Eleanor Lawson points out that it all comes down to how people want to analyze the use of deception. This strengthens James H. Korn idea that people have different feelings on how they feel about deception. Moreover, this article also supports that there are different types of deception, specifically the minimal to extreme deception. In article one, a debriefing document was recommending afterwards when a study was complete, this was to minimize the ethical violations. Hence, why deception cannot be one definition and why to some people it is not unethical.
Given these points, in the final article, “The Rise and Fall of Deception in Social Psychology and Personality Research, 1921 to 1994,” by Sandra D. Nicks, et al, a Psychology Professor from Christian Brothers University, analyzes the past and the present studies of deception. This article consolidates all evidence from the prior three articles to heighten the overall point of deception not always being what it turns out to be. Sandra D. Nicks goes back as far as 1921 in Social Psychology to investigate deception used before compared to more modern times. Sandra Nicks finds that deception is different now in comparison to past studies. This article begs the question if participants are more willing to be in a study with the use of deception, thus, they are not really considering it deception. Moreover, this article supports that there might be trust between the researcher and the participant. Furthermore, Sandra Nicks also finds it hard to narrow deception down into one definition.
With this in mind, in “Deception in Research Guidance” by Health Sciences Institutional Review Boards adds to Sandra Nicks conflict of narrowing deception down to one definition. In the article, it mentions all the different types of deception, for example, active deception, passive deception, disclosed concealment, and incomplete disclosure. To support this, Sandra Nicks mentions the guidelines that must be followed when deception is involved in order for it to be considered ethical. For example, if a study was conducted and deception was needed to achieve certain results than in order for deception to be used the guidelines must be followed. However, the study can be trying to pinpoint a health issue of a person to help the individual themselves. This type of deception cannot be labeled as bad if they are helping the participant. Overall, all of the articles supported that deception is not what seems. For that reason, deception cannot be defined as bad when they are guidelines to follow.
All in all, when people hear deception in psychology, immediately people jump to conclusions about past deception and the common word of deception, as well they think about how unethical it is to even use deception. However, deception can have multiple meanings, it can be for the good of the people and to expand research in psychology. All the articles presented argued that the common definition of deception as well it showed that people actually know about the deception beforehand. In that case, it cannot be unethical if they participants know about the deception. Overall, when it comes to psychology, deception must be handled with caution as one can see it as bad, however, with the right tools and correct procedures, deception cannot be as bad as people think.
Works Cited
- Boynton, Marcella H., et al. “Exploring the Ethics and Psychological Impact of Deception in Psychological Research.” IRB: Ethics & Human Research, vol. 35, no. 2, Mar. 2013, pp. 7–13. EBSCOhost, reedleycollege.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=86637337&site=ehost-live.
- “Deception.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deception.
- Dr. Stephen Behnke. “Reading the Ethics Code More Deeply.” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, 2009, www.apa.org/monitor/2009/04/ethics.aspx.
- “Health Sciences IRBs KnowledgeBase.” Basic Computer Hardware Guide, University of Wisconsin Knowledge Base, kb.wisc.edu/hsirbs/page.php?id=68286.
- Korn, James H. “Judgments of Acceptability of Deception in Psychological Research.” Journal of General Psychology, vol. 114, no. 3, July 1987, p. 205. EBSCOhost, reedleycollege.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5017356&site=ehost-live.
- Larry Christensen. “Deception in Psychological Research.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, SAGE Journals, journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167288144002.
- Lawson, Eleanor. “Informational and Relational Meanings of Deception: Implications for Deception Methods in Research.” Ethics & Behavior, vol. 11, no. 2, Apr. 2001, pp. 115–130. EBSCOhost, reedleycollege.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4792760&site=ehost-live.
- McLeod, Saul. “Stanford Prison Experiment | Simply Psychology.” Simply Psychology, Simply Psychology, 1 Jan. 1970, www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html.
- Mcleod, Saul. “The Milgram Experiment.” Simply Psychology, Simply Psychology, 5 Feb. 2017, www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html.
- Nicks, Sandra D., et al. “The Rise and Fall of Deception in Social Psychology and Personality Research, 1921 to 1994.” Ethics & Behavior, vol. 7, no. 1, Mar. 1997, p. 69. EBSCOhost, reedleycollege.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7313610&site=ehost-live.
- “Research Involving Deception.” Research Office, Oregon State University, 6 July 2017, research.oregonstate.edu/irb/policies-and-guidance/guidance/research-involving-deception.
- “Tuskegee Study – Timeline – CDC – NCHHSTP.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 22 Dec. 2015, www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm.
