Using deception ethically: Practical research guidelines for researchers and reviewers

Canadian Psychology

Volumn 51, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 241-248

  Pascual Leone, Antonio ^a   Singh, Terence ^a   Scoboria, Alan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

Author keywords

Deception; Ethics; Instruments; Review; Teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 78651309098     PISSN: 07085591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0021119     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. American Psychological Association. (2001). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: Draft for comment. Monitor on Psychology, 32, 76-89.
2. Benham, B. (2008). The ubiquity of deception and the ethics of deceptive research, Bioethics, 22, 147-156.
3. Bortolotti, L., & Mameli, M. (2006). Deception in psychology: Moral costs and benefits of unsought self-knowledge. Accountability in Research, 13, 259-275.
4. Canadian Psychological Association. (2000). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (3rd ed.). Ottawa, ON: Author.
5. Ceci, S. J., & Brück, M. (2009). Do IRBs pass the minimal harm test? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 28-29.
6. Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subject reviews, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40, 994-1002.
7. Clarke, D. M. (1999). Sex, honesty and the supervisory relationship: A response to Ryan. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 33, 339-343.
8. Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. Diener, E., & Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in social and behavioral research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
10. Fisher, C. B., Fried, A. L., & Feldman, L. G. (2009). Graduate socialization in the responsible conduct of research: A national survey on the research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students. Ethics & Behavior, 19, 496-518.
11. Fiske, S. T. (2009). Institutional review boards: From bane to benefit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 30-31.
12. Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior, 18, 59-92.
13. Holms, D. S., & Bennett, D. H. (1974). Experiments to answer questions raised by the use of deception in psychological research: I. Role playing as an alternative to deception; II. Effectiveness of debriefing after deception; III. Effect of informed consent on deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 385-367.
14. Hymen, D. (2006). Institutional review boards: Is this the least worst we can do? Northeastern Law Review, 101, 749-774.
15. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. (1998). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.
16. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. (2009, December). Revised Draft 2nd Edition. Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans (TCPS).Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/revised-revisee/ Default/
17. Laney, C., Kaasa, S. O., Morris, E. K., Berkowitz, S. R., Bernstein, D. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2008). The red herring technique: A methodological response to the problem of demand characteristics. Psychological Research, 72, 362-375.
18. Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111-194). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19. Martin, M. (1990). On the induction of mood. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 669-697.
20. Masling, I. (1966). Role-related behavior of the subject and psychologist and its effects upon psychological data. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 14, 67-103.
21. Miller, A. G. (2009). Reflections on "replicating Milgram." American Psychologist, 64, 20-27.
22. Oczak, M., & Niedzwienska, A. (2007). Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2, 49-59.
23. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776-783.
24. Pittenger, D. (2002). Deception in research: Distinctions and solutions from the perspectives of utilitarianism. Ethics & Behaviour, 12, 117-142.
25. Roberts, L. W., Geppert, C. M. A., & Brody, J. L. (2001). A framework for considering the ethical aspects of psychiatric research protocols. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 42, 351-363.
26. Rosenberg, M. J. (1965). When dissonance fails: On eliminating evaluation apprehension from attitude measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, I, 28-42.
27. Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481-486.
28. Sullivan, D. S., & Deiter, T. E. (1973). Subject-experimenter perceptions of ethical issues in human research. American Psychologist, 28, 587-591.
29. Weber, S. J., & Cook, T. D. (1972). Subject effects in laboratory research: An examination of subject roles, demand characteristics, and valid inference. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 273-295.