(Ethics in Researchs) Honestly Describing the Nature and Use of the Research
Perhaps the most widespread ethical concern to the participants in behavioral research is the extent to which researchers employ deception. Deception occurs whenever research participants are not completely and fully informed about the nature of the research project before participating in it. Deception may occur in an active way, such as when the researcher tells the participants that he or she is studying learning when in fact the experiment really concerns obedience to authority. In other cases the deception is more passive, such as when participants are not told about the hypothesis being studied or the potential use of the data being collected. For instance, a researcher studying eyewitness testimony might create a fake crime scene and then later test the participants on their memory of it.
Both active and passive deception can be problematic. For instance, an experiment in which individuals participated in a study about interviewing without first being told that the results of the research were going to be used to develop interrogation procedures for prisoners of war would be highly unethical, even though the deception was passive in nature, because participants might have decided not to participate in the research had they been fully informed.
When Deception Is Necessary
The argument against the use of deception in behavioral research is straightforward. The relationship between the researcher and the participant is based on mutual trust and cooperation. If deception is involved, this trust may be broken. Although some have argued that deception of any sort should never be used in any research (Baumrind, 1985), there are also persuasive arguments supporting its use. Social psychologists defend the use of deception on the grounds that it is needed to get participants to act naturally and to enable the study of social phenomena. They argue that it would be impossible to study such phenomena as altruism, aggression, and stereotyping without using deception because if participants were informed ahead of time what the study involved, this knowledge would certainly change their behavior. Furthermore, social psychologists argue that to study some phenomena, such as stress, it is more ethical to deceive the participants into thinking that they are going to participate in a stressful situation than to actually expose them to the stress itself.
One review found that 58 percent of social psychological experiments used some form of deception (Adair, Dushenko, & Lindsay, 1985). The need to employ deception in order to conduct certain types of research has been recognized by scientists, and the code of ethics of the APA allows deception (including concealed observation) when necessary. However, given the potential dangers of deception, the APA code also requires researchers to explicitly consider how their research might be conducted without the use of deception. (Other scientifi c organizations also have codes of ethics regarding the treatment of research participants.)
Simulation Studies: An Alternative to Deception
One technique for avoiding deception in some cases is the use of simulation studies (Rubin, 1973). In a simulation study, participants are fully informed about the nature of the research and asked to behave “as if” they were in a social setting of interest. A situation is set up that is similar to that in the real world in terms of important elements. For instance, people might be asked to imagine that they are a manager of a large corporation and to make decisions the way they think a manager would, or they might be asked to imagine a situation in which they might or might not help another person. Unfortunately, as we have seen in Chapter 1, asking people what they think they would do often does not refl ect what they actually do. In fact, the power of much behavioral research is the demonstration that people cannot predict what they, or others, would do in a given setting.
Despite these problems, some simulation studies have been very effective in providing insights into human behavior. One well-known example is the “Stanford Prison Study” (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). In this study, college students were randomly assigned to play the role of either prisoners or prison guards in a mock prison. Those assigned to be prisoners were “arrested,” issued prison numbers, and put in cells. The participants who became “guards” were given uniforms and nightsticks. This simulation was so successful in the sense of participants taking it seriously that on the first day the “guards” began to create demeaning experiences for “prisoners” who banded together in a hunger strike. The study had to be canceled after only a few days because of the potential for psychological stress to the “inmates.”
The Consequences of Deception
As with any ethical decision, there are differences of opinion about the appropriateness of using deception. Some scientists believe that deception should never be used in any research (Ortmann & Hertwig, 1997), whereas others believe that deception is a normal and useful part of psychological research (Kimmel, 1998). Although it is always preferable, when possible, to avoid the use of deception (and in fact many experiments are entirely “honest”), research investigating the effects of deception on participants in behavioral research suggests that its use does not normally produce any long-lasting psychological harm. In fact, students who have participated in experiments in which they have been deceived report enjoying them more and receiving more educational benefi ts from them than have those who participated in nondeceptive research (Smith & Richardson, 1983). It is ironic, in fact, that the use of deception may be more harmful to the ability of the researchers to continue their research than it is to the research participants. Because the use of deception is so widespread, participants may arrive at studies expecting to be deceived. As a result, the deception used in the research is not likely to be effective in accomplishing the goals for which it was designed. Thus, the most powerful argument against the use of deception is that its continued use may defeat the goals of behavioral science research itself!
Debriefing
Because behavioral science research has the potential for producing longterm changes in the research participants, these participants should be fully debriefed after their participation. The debriefing occurs immediately after the research has ended and is designed to explain the purposes and procedures of the research and remove any harmful aftereffects of participation. Although debriefi ng is an essential part of all behavioral research, it is particularly important in research that involves deception because it can be used both to assess the effectiveness of the deception and to alleviate its potential impact on research participants. Because this portion of the experiment is so important, suffi cient time to do it properly should always be allotted.
Conducting a Postexperimental Interview. In many cases, the debriefing procedure is rather elaborate and is combined with a postexperimental interview in which the participants’ reactions to the research are assessed. The participants may fi rst be asked to verbally express or (if they are run in groups) to write down their thoughts about the research. These reactions may often indicate whether the respondents experienced the research as expected, if they were suspicious, and if they have taken the research seriously.
When deception has been used, the researcher may want to determine if it has been effective through the use of a suspicion check—questioning the participants to determine whether they believed the experimental manipulation or guessed the research hypothesis. One approach, proposed by Mills (1976), is to tell the participants that “there is more to this experiment than I have told you. I’m curious—do you know what it might be?” The idea is that if the participant is suspicious about the deception, he or she will say so (“I knew that there really wasn’t anyone in the other room”), whereas participants who are not suspicious will not know how to answer the question or will answer with something irrelevant.
After this initial part of the debriefi ng is completed, the researcher next fully explains in detail the purposes of the experiment, including the research hypothesis and how it is being tested. The scientist should explain the goals of the research in an accurate and fair manner, and the importance of the research should not be overstated. Thus, the debriefi ng also serves an educational function in which the participants learn something about behavioral science research and how it is conducted. Because the educational value of participation in a research project is one of the benefi ts of behavioral research, the researcher should be sure to design the debriefi ng to maximize this function.
The last goal of the debriefi ng is to try to eliminate long-term consequences of having participated in the research. Any deception that has been used is fully explained to the participants, and its necessity is justified. A thorough debriefing procedure has been shown to be an effective method of reducing the harmful effects of deception (Smith & Richardson, 1983).
Finally, the participants are given ample time to ask questions about the research and may be requested not to discuss the research with others until the end of the semester, or whenever the data collection will have fi nished. The experimenter should be certain to supply his or her name and telephone number to the participants and encourage them to call with any questions or concerns.
Ensuring the Effectiveness of the Debriefing. Debriefing does not solve all the problems of treating participants with respect, nor does it guarantee that the outcomes of unethical procedures can be “taken back” through followup procedures. Ill effects may persist even after debriefing (Ross, Lepper, & Hubbard, 1975), particularly when the participant has been led to engage in embarrassing or stressful behaviors. When this might be the case, the experimenter may conduct a process debriefing—an active attempt to undo any changes that might have occurred. For instance, if the experiment has involved the creation of a negative mood state, a positive mood induction procedure might be given to all participants before they leave. However, despite the use of careful debriefing procedures, it is often almost impossible to entirely undo the effects of experimental manipulations, and a participant who has engaged in behaviors that he or she later regrets may be affected by these behaviors despite a careful debriefing.
In the end, what is most important is that the participants feel that they have been treated fairly in the experiment. Some of the most important characteristics of an ethical research project using human participants are outlined in Table 3.3. The manner in which the debriefi ng is conducted may have a large impact on the participants’ feelings about being deceived and their perceptions of the research. Other experimenter behaviors that can lead to more positive experiences for the participants include showing up on time, acting in a friendly manner, allowing enough time for questions to arise, and offering to send the written results of research projects to participants if they want them (and then actually doing so). Of course, when participants receive course credit for participation, the experimenter is also expected to report their participation in the research to the appropriate people in a timely manner. Because experimenters have higher status than participants, this relationship can easily be abused, and researchers must continually strive to avoid such problems.