From artifacts to ethics: The delicate balance between methodological and moral concerns in behavioral research

Advances in Social and Organizational Psychology: A Tribute to Ralph Rosnow

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 113-140

  Kimmel, Allan J ^a  

^a ESMT European School of Management and Technology   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 46149096391     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410617446     Document Type: Chapter

References (109)

1. Adair, J. G., Dushenko, T.W., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1985). Ethical regulations and their impact on research practice. American Psychologist, 40, 59-72.
2. Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. (2001). Empirical assessment of the ethics of the bogus pipeline. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 352-375.
3. Allen, D. F. (1983). Follow-up analysis of use of forewarning and deception in psychology experiments. Psychological Reports, 52, 899-906.
4. Allen, V. (1966). Effect of knowledge of deception on conformity. Journal of Social Psychology, 69, 101-106.
5. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
6. Aronson, E. (1966). Avoidance of inter-subject communication. Psychological Reports, 19, 238.
7. Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindsay & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1-79). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8. Azar, B. (2002). Ethics at the cost of research? Monitor on Psychology, 33, 38-40.
9. Bardsley, N. (2000). Control without deception (Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper). Rotterdam: University of Amsterdam.
10. Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40, 165-174.
11. Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York, NY: Basic Books.
12. Bonetti, S. (1998). Experimental economics and deception. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 377-395.
13. Brock, T.C., & Becker, L.A. (1966). Debriefing and susceptibility to subsequent experimental manipulations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 314-323.
14. Broder, A. (1998). Deception can be acceptable. American Psychologist, 53, 85-86.
15. Christensen, L. (1988). Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 664-675.
16. Clark, R.D., & Word, L. E. (1974). Where is the apathetic bystander? Situational characteristics of the emergency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 279-287.
17. Collins, F. L., Jr., Kuhn, I. F., Jr., & King, G. D. (1979). Variables affecting subjects' ethical ratings of proposed experiments. Psychological Reports, 44, 155-164.
18. Colombo, J. (1995). Cost, utility, and judgments of institutional review boards. Psychological Science, 6, 318-319.
19. Cook, T. D., Bean, J. R., Calder, B. J., Frey, R., Krovetz, M. L., & Reisman, S. R. (1970). Demand characteristics and three conceptions of the frequently deceived subject. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 185-194.
20. Cook, T. D., & Perrin, B. F. (1971). The effects of suspiciousness of deception and the perceived legitimacy of deception on task performance in an attitude change experiment. Journal of Personality, 39, 204-224.
21. Diener, E. (2001). Over-concern with research ethics. Dialogue, 16, 2.
22. Diener, E., & Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in social and behavioral research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
23. Diener, E., Matthews, R., & Smith, R. (1972). Leakage of experimental information to potential future subjects by debriefed subjects. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 264-267.
24. Epstein, Y.M., Suedfeld, P., & Silverstein, S. J. (1973). The experimental contract: Subjects' expectations of and reactions to some behaviors of experimenters. American Psychologist, 28, 212-221.
25. Farr, J. L., & Seaver, W. B. (1975). Stress and discomfort in psychological research: Subjects' perception of experimental procedures. American Psychologist, 30, 770-773.
26. Fillenbaum, R. S. (1966). Prior deception and subsequent experimental performance:The faithful subject. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 532-537.
27. Finney, P. D. (1987). When consent information refers to risk and deception: Implications for social research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 37-48.
28. Gallo, P. S., Smith, S., & Mumford, S. (1973). Effects of deceiving subjects upon experimental results. Journal of Social Psychology, 89, 99-107.
29. Geller, D. M. (1982). Alternatives to deception: Why, what, and how? In J. E. Sieber (Ed.), The ethics of social research: Surveys and experiments (pp. 39-55). New York:Springer-Verlag.
30. Gerdes, E. P. (1979). College students' reactions to social psychological experiments involving deception. Journal of Social Psychology, 107, 99-110.
31. Glinski, R. J., Glinski, B. C., & Slatin, P.T. (1970). Nonnaivety contamination in conformity experiments: Sources, effects, and implications for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 478-485.
32. Golding, S. L., & Lichtenstein, E. (1970). Confession of awareness and prior knowledge of deceptions as a function of interview set and approval motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 213-223.
33. Greenberg, M. (1967). Role playing: An alternative to deception? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 152-157.
34. Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-96.
35. Hey, J. D. (1998). Experimental economics and deception. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 397-401.
36. Holmes, D. (1973). Effectiveness of debriefing after a stress producing deception. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 127-138.
37. Holmes, D. (1976). Debriefing after psychological experiments. American Psychologist, 31, 858-867.
38. Holmes, D., & Bennett, D. (1974). Experiments to answer questions raised by the use of deception in psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 358-367.
39. Horowitz, I. L. (1967). The rise and fall of Project Camelot. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
40. Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade. Chicago: Aldine.
41. Jones, J.H. (1993). Bad blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment (Rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.
42. Jones, S. E. (2001). Ethics code draft published for comment. Monitor on Psychology, 32, 76.
43. Jourard, S.M. (1967). Experimenter-subject dialogue:Aparadigm for a humanistic science of psychology. In J. F. T. Bugental (Ed.), Challenges of humanistic psychology (pp. 109-116). New York: McGraw-Hill.
44. Kelman, H. C. (1967). Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 1-11.
45. Kelman, H. C. (1996). Foreword. In A. J. Kimmel, Ethical issues in behavioral research: A survey (pp. xiii-xv). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
46. Kifner, J. (2001, September 10). Arecipe for distress. The International Herald Tribune, p. 3.
47. Kimmel, A. J. (1988). Ethics and values in applied social research. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
48. Kimmel, A. J. (1996). Ethical issues in behavioral research: A survey. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.
49. Kimmel, A. J. (2001). Ethical trends in marketing and psychological research. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 131-149.
50. Kimmel, A. J. (2003). Ethical issues in social psychology research. In C. Sansone, C.C. Morf, & A. T. Panter (Eds.), Handbook of methods in social psychology (pp. 45-70). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51. Kimmel, A. J. (2004, August). Ethical trends in psychology and marketing research: An update. Paper presented at the 112th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
52. Kimmel, A. J., & Smith, N. C. (2001). Deception in marketing research: Ethical, methodological, and disciplinary implications. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 663-689.
53. Lawson, C. (1995). Research participation as a contract. Ethics & Behavior, 5, 205-215.
54. Leach, M. M., & Harbin, J. J. (1997). Psychological ethics codes: A comparison of twenty-four countries. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 181-192.
55. Levy, L. H. (1967). Awareness, learning, and the beneficent subject as expert witness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 365-370.
56. Lichtenstein, E. (1970). Please don't talk to anyone about this experiment: Disclosure of deception by debriefed subjects. Psychological Reports, 26, 485-486.
57. Lipton, J. P., & Garza, R.T. (1978). Further evidence for subject pool contamination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 363-370.
58. McDaniel, T., & Starmer, C. (1998). Experimental economics and deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 403-409.
59. McNamara, J. R., & Woods, K. M. (1977). Ethical considerations in psychological research:A comparative review. Behavior Therapy, 8, 703-708.
60. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
61. Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience:Areply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 67, 371-378.
62. Mills, J. (1976). Aprocedure for explaining experiments involving deception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 3-13.
63. Misra, S. (1992). Is conventional debriefing adequate? An ethical issue in consumer research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, 269-273.
64. Mueller, J. (2003). Overkill by IRBs. APS Observer, 16(10), 3.
65. Mueller, J. H., & Furedy, J. J. (2001). Reviewing for risk: What's the evidence that it works? APS Observer, 14(7), 1, 26-28.
66. Newberry, B. H. (1973). Truth-telling in subjects with information about experiments:Who is being deceived? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 369-374.
67. Nicks, S. D., Korn, J. H., & Mainieri, T. (1997). The rise and fall of deception in social psychology and personality research, 1921 to 1994. Ethics & Behavior, 7, 69-77.
68. Ortmann, A., & Hertwig, R. (1997). Is deception acceptable? American Psychologist, 52, 746-747.
69. Page, M. M. (1973). On detecting demand awareness by postexperimental questionnaire. Journal of Social Psychology, 91, 305-323.
70. Pihl, R. O., Zacchia, C., & Zeichner, A. (1981). Follow-up analysis of the use of deception and aversive contingencies in psychological experiments. Psychological Reports, 48, 927-930.
71. Resnick, J. H., & Schwartz, T. (1973). Ethical standards as an independent variable in psychological research. American Psychologist, 28, 134-139.
72. Ring, K., Wallston, K., & Corey, M. (1970). Mode of debriefing as a factor affecting subjective reaction to a Milgram-type obedience experiment: An ethical inquiry. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1, 67-88.
73. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1969). Artifact in behavioral research. New York: Academic Press.
74. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
75. Rosenzweig, S. (1933). The experimental situation as a psychological problem. Psychological Review, 40, 337-354.
76. Rosnow, R. L. (1981). Paradigms in transition: The methodology of social inquiry. NewYork:Oxford University Press.
77. Rosnow, R. L. (1997). Hedgehogs, foxes, and the evolving social contract in psychological science: Ethical challenges and methodological opportunities. Psychological Methods, 2, 345-356.
78. Rosnow, R. L. (2002, October 18). The nature and role of demand characteristics in scientific inquiry. Prevention & Treatment, Vol. 5 (Article pre0050037c). Available:http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050037c.html
79. Rosnow, R. L., Strohmetz, D. B., & Aditya, R. N. (2000). Artifact in research. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 242-245). New York: Oxford University Press & American Psychological Association.
80. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880-892.
81. Rugg, E. A. (1975). Ethical judgments of social research involving experimental deception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, TN.
82. Schuler, H. (1982). Ethical problems in psychological research. NewYork:Academic Press.
83. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
84. Sharpe, D., Adair, J.G., & Roese, N. J. (1992). Twenty years of deception research:Adecline in subjects' trust? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 585-590.
85. Sieber, J. E., Iannuzzo, R., & Rodriguez, B. (1995). Deception methods in psychology:Have they changed in 23 years? Ethics & Behavior, 5, 67-85.
86. Silverman, I., Shulman, A. D., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1970). Effects of deceiving and debriefing psychological subjects on performance in later experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 203-212.
87. Singer, E. (1984). Public reactions to some ethical issues of social research: Attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 501-509.
88. Smith, C. P. (1981). How (un)acceptable is research involving deception? IRB:AReview of Human Subjects Research, 3, 1-4.
89. Smith, N. C., Klein, J. G., & Kimmel, A. J. (2002). The ethics of deception in consumer research. Unpublished manuscript, London Business School.
90. 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, 1075-1082.
91. Spielberger, C.D. (1962). The role of awareness in verbal conditioning. Journal of Personality, 30, 73-101.
92. Spoiling the broth. (2001, September 11). The New York Times, p. 3.
93. Stang, D. J. (1976). Ineffective deception in conformity research: Some causes and consequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 353-367.
94. Stricker, L. J. (1967). The true deceiver. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 13-20.
95. Stricker, L. J., Messick, S., & Jackson, D. N. (1967). Suspicion of deception: Implications for conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 379-389.
96. Strohmetz, D.G., & Rosnow, R. L. (1994). Amediational model of research artifacts. In J. Brzezinski (Ed.), Probability in theory building (pp. 177-196). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi.
97. Sullivan, D. S., & Deiker, T. E. (1973). Subject-experimenter perceptions of ethical issues in human research. American Psychologist, 28, 587-591.
98. Suls, J., & Rosnow, R. L. (1988). Concerns about artifacts in psychological experiments. In J. G. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 163-187). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
99. Taylor, K.M., & Shepperd, J. A. (1996). Probling suspicion among participants in deception research. American Psychologist, 51, 886-887.
100. Toy, D., Olson, J., & Wright, L. (1989). Effects of debriefing in marketing research involving "mild" deceptions. Psychology and Marketing, 6, 69-85.
101. Toy, D., Wright, L., & Olson, J. (2001). A conceptual framework for analyzing deception and debriefing effects in marketing research. Psychology and Marketing, 18, 663-689.
102. Turner, C.W., & Simons, L. S. (1974). Effects of subject sophistication and evaluation apprehension on aggressive responses to weapons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 341-348.
103. Valins, S. (1974). Persistent effects of information about reactions: Ineffectiveness of debriefing. In H. London & R. Nisbett (Eds.), Thought and feeling (pp. 116-124). Chicago:Aldine.
104. Vitelli, R. (1988). The crisis issue assessed: An empirical analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 301-309.
105. Walsh, W. B., & Stillman, S. M. (1974). Disclosure of deception by debriefed subjects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 315-319.
106. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., Abrahams, D., & Aronson, V. (1967). Effectiveness of debriefing following deception experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 371-380.
107. Wegner, D., Coulton, G., & Wenzlaff, R. (1985). The transparency of denial: Briefing in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 338-346.
108. Wiener, R. L., & Erker, P.V. (1986). The effects of prebriefing misinformed research participants on their attributions of responsibility. Journal of Psychology, 120, 397-410.
109. Willis, R. H., & Willis, Y. A. (1970). Role playing versus deception: An experimental comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 472-477.