Debates on the Use of Deception in Psychology Research

Year 2023, , 367 - 392, 25.12.2023

Ayşe Tuna

https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2021-985973

Abstract

Deception is often used in scientific research as it is thought to contribute to the research process. Deception basically occurs when participants are given false or incomplete information about the purpose, content, or processes of a study. The most common types of deception involve giving false feedback about performance, including a participant in a study without their knowledge, not providing information or giving false information about the measurement tools being used, and giving false information about the roles of other people in a study. Deception is frequently used in psychology studies, especially in social psychology. Researchers use deception in subjects such as prosocial behaviors, conformity, and social dilemmas to determine participants’ instant reactions removed from social desirability and to measure behaviors in their form closest to social reality. However, deception raises questions about ethics, methodology, scientific and professional repute, and trust in researchers. The most critical ethical concern is that a researcher may cause physiological or psychological harm to participants, even if said researcher has no such intention. Discussions on methodology have focused on the ability of the use of deception to harm the participant pool and of deception to affect a participant’s future responses and reactions and on how studies that use deception are less reproducible. These debates are not only based on ethics and methodology. Deception is also thought to be able to damage trust in scientists and psychologists. Hence, researchers are recommended to use deception only as a last resort. The essential purpose of this article is to draw attention to the risks of deception and what precautions can be taken against these risks. Deception is currently considered an indispensable part of scientific research processes. Indeed, for some studies to not use deception is practically impossible based on the subject and content. In such a context, if a study that is to be conducted plans to use deception, benefit would be had in thinking about the risks of deception and in planning what can be done to eliminate risks so as to prevent any possible negative consequences.

Keywords

deception, deception and ethics, deception and methodology, consequences of deception

Psikoloji Araştırmalarında Aldatma Kullanımı Üzerine Tartışmalar

Abstract

Araştırma süreçlerine katkı sağlayacağı düşünülerek bilimsel araştırmalarda sıklıkla aldatma kullanılır. Aldatma en temelde katılımcılara çalışmanın amacı, içeriği veya süreçleri ile ilgili yanlış veya eksik bilgi verilmesi şeklinde gerçekleşir. En sık kullanılan türleri, performans hakkında sahte geri bildirim verme, katılımcıyı bilgisi olmadan çalışmaya dahil etme, kullanılan ölçüm araçları hakkında bilgi vermeme veya sahte bilgi verme ve çalışmadaki diğer kişilerin rolleri hakkında sahte bilgi vermedir. Sosyal psikoloji alt alanı başta olmak üzere, psikoloji çalışmalarında da aldatma yönteminden faydalanılır. Katılımcıların sosyal istenirlikten uzak, anlık tepkilerinin belirlenebilmesi ve davranışın sosyal gerçekliğe en yakın şekli ile ölçülebilmesi amacıyla araştırmacılar olumlu sosyal davranışlar, uyma, sosyal ikilemler gibi konularda aldatma kullanır. Bununla birlikte aldatma etik, yöntemsel, bilimin/mesleğin itibarı ve araştırmacılara güven konusunda bazı soru işaretlerini barındırır. Araştırmacının böyle bir amacı olmasa da katılımcılara fizyolojik veya psikolojik zarar vermesi en mühim etik endişedir. Yöntem üzerine yürütülen tartışmalarda, aldatma kullanımının katılımcı havuzuna zarar vereceği, aldatmanın katılımcının gelecekteki yanıtlarını/tepkilerini etkileyeceği ve aldatma kullanılan çalışmaların daha az tekrarlanabilir olması üzerine odaklanılmıştır. Tartışmalar yalnızca etik ve yöntem temelli değildir. Aldatma kullanımının aynı zamanda bilim insanlarına, psikologlara yönelik güveni de zedeleyeceği düşünülmektedir. Bu nedenle araştırmacıların “son çare” olarak aldatma kullanmaları önerilmektedir. Bu makalenin en temel amacı aldatmanın barındırabileceği riskler ve bu risklere karşı hangi önlemlerin alınabileceği konusuna dikkat çekmektir. Günümüzde aldatma, bilimsel araştırma süreçlerinin olmazsa olmaz bir parçası olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Nitekim bazı çalışmalarda konu ve içeriğe bağlı olarak aldatma kullanmamak neredeyse imkansızdır. Böyle bir bağlamda, yürütülecek bir çalışmada aldatma kullanılması planlanıyorsa aldatmanın riskleri üzerine düşünmek, riskleri ortadan kaldırabilmek için neler yapılabileceğini planlamak, olası olumsuz sonuçların önüne geçmek için faydalı olacaktır.

Keywords

Aldatma, aldatma ve etik, aldatma ve yöntem, aldatmanın sonuçları

References

• Adair, J. G., Lindsay, R. C. L. ve Carlopio, J. (1983). Social artifact research and ethical regulations: Their impact on the teaching of experimental methods. Teaching of Psychology, 10(3), 159-162. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1003_10. google scholar
• Allen, D. F. (1983). Follow-up analysis of use of forewarning and deception in psychological experiments. Psychological Reports, 52(3), 899-906. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1983.52.3.899. google scholar
• American Psychological Association- APA (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and codeof conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060-1073. google scholar
• Barrera, D. ve Simpson, B. (2012). Much ado about deception: Consequences of deceiving research participants in the social sciences. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(3), 383-413. https://doi. org/10.1177%2F0049124112452526. google scholar
• Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral study of obedience.”. American Psychologist, 19(6), 421-423. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040128. google scholar
• Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40(2), 165. https://doi/10.1037/0003-066X.40.2.165. google scholar
• Blount, S., 1995. When social outcomes aren’t fair: the effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63, 131-144. google scholar
• Bonetti, S. (1998). Experimental economics and deception. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(3), 377-395. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(98)00012-9. google scholar
• Boynton, M. H., Portnoy, D. B. ve Johnson, B. T. (2013). Exploring the ethics and psychological impact of deception in psychological research. IRB, 35(2), 7-13. google scholar
• Colson, G., Corrigan, J. R., Grebitus, C., Loureiro, M. L. ve Rousu, M. C. (2015). Which deceptive practices, if any, should be allowed in experimental economics research? Results from surveys of applied experimental economists and students. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 98(2), 610-621. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aav067. google scholar
• Cook, K. S. ve Yamagishi, T. (2008). A defense of deception on scientific grounds. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(3), 215-221. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F019027250807100303. google scholar
• Darley, J. M. ve Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0025589. google scholar
• Davis, D. D. ve Holt, C.A. (1992). Experimental economics. Princeton University Press. google scholar
• Diamond, S. S. ve Morton, D. R. (1978). Empirical landmarks in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 217-221. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014616727800400208. google scholar
• Epley, N. ve Huff, C. (1998). Suspicion, affective response, and educational benefit as a result of deception in psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(7), 759-768. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167298247008. google scholar
• Galang, A. J. R. (2018). Experimental deception: Science, performance, and reproducibility. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/93p45. google scholar
• Geller, D. M. (1982). Alternatives to deception: Why, what, and how?. J. Sieber (Ed.) The ethics of social research içinde (ss. 39-55). Springer. google scholar
• Gerlach, P., Teodorescu, K. ve Hertwig, R. (2019). The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 145, 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000174. google scholar
• Gibbons, R. ve Van Boven, L. (2001). Contingent social utility in the prisoners’ dilemma. google scholar
• Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 45, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00170-0. google scholar
• Gilder, T. S. ve Heerey, E. A. (2018). The role of experimenter belief in social priming. Psychological Science, 29(3), 403-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617737128. google scholar
• Graham, P., Jordan, A. ve Lamb, B. (1990). An equal chance or no chance?: A study of discrimination against disabled people in the labour market. Spastics Society. google scholar
• Gross, A. E. ve Fleming, I. (1982). Twenty years of deception in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(3), 402-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167282083003. google scholar
• Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A. ve Afifi, W. A. (2017). Close encounters: Communication in relationships. Sage Publications. google scholar
• Hertwig, R. ve Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in social psychological experiments: Two misconceptions and a research agenda. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(3), 222-227. https:// doi/10.1177/019027250807100304. google scholar
• Hey, J. D. (1991). Experiments in Economics. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. google scholar
• Hey, J. D. (1998). Experimental economics and deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(3), 397-401. https://doi/10.1016/S0167-4870(98)00013-0. google scholar
• Hilbig, B. E., Thielmann, I. ve Böhm, R. (2021). Bending our ethics code: Avoidable deception and its justification in psychological research. European Psychologist. 27(1), 62-70. https://doi. org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000431. google scholar
• Jamison, J., Karlan, D. ve Schechter, L. (2008). To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3-4), 477-488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.09.002. google scholar
• Jones, J. (1981). Bad blood: The Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Free Press. google scholar
• Kelman, H. C. (1967). Human use ofhuman subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024072. google scholar
• Kimmel, A. J. (2004). Ethical issues in social psychology research. C. Sansone, C. C. Morf ve A. T. Panter (Eds.), The Sage handbook of methods in social psychology içinde (ss. 45-70). Sage Publications, Inc. google scholar Kimmel, A. J. (2011). Deception in psychological research—A necessary evil?. The Psychologist. 24, 580-585. google scholar
• Kimmel, A. J. (2012). Deception in research. S. J. Knapp, M. C. Gottlieb, M. M. Handelsman ve L. D. VandeCreek (Eds.), APA handbook of ethics in psychology, Vol. 2. Practice, teaching, and research içinde (ss. 401-421). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13272-019. google scholar
• Kimmel, A. J., Smith, N. C. ve Klein, J. G. (2011). Ethical decision making and research deception in the behavioral sciences: An application of social contract theory. Ethics & Behavior, 21(3), 222251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.570166. google scholar
• Kitchener, K. S. ve R. F. Kitchener (2009). Social science research ethics: Historical and philosophical issues. The Handbook of Social Research Ethics, 10 (9781483348971): 1-22. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781483348971.n1 google scholar
• Korn, J. H. (1984). Coverage ofresearch ethics in introductory and social psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 11(3),46-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/009862838401100305. google scholar
• Korn, J. H. (1997). Illusions of reality: A history of deception in social psychology. Suny Press. google scholar
• Krasnow, M. M., Howard, R. M. ve Eisenbruch, A. B. (2020). The importance of being honest? Evidence that deception may not pollute social science subject pools after all. Behavior Research Methods, 52(3), 1175-1188. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01309-y. google scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W. (1975). The human subject in the psychology experiment: Fact and artifact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 101-147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60249-X. google scholar
• Lindsay, R. C. ve Holden, R. R. (1987). The introductory psychology subject pool in Canadian universities. Canadian Psychology 28(1), 45. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0079868. google scholar
• MacCoun, R. J. ve Kerr, N. L. (1987). Suspicion in the psychological laboratory: Kelman’s prophecy revisited. American Psychologist, 42(2), 199. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.42.2.199.a. google scholar
• Menges, R. J. (1973). Openness and honesty versus coercion and deception in psychological research. American Psychologist, 28(12), 1030. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0036040. google scholar
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. Harper & Row. google scholar
• Miller, F. G. ve Kaptchuk, T. J. (2008). Deception of subjects in neuroscience: An ethical analysis. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(19), 4841-4843. google scholar
• Miller, F. G. ve Rosenstein, D. L. (2002). Reporting of ethical issues in publications of medical research. The Lancet, 360(9342), 1326-1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11346-8. google scholar
• Nichols, A. L. ve Edlund, J. E. (2015). Practicing what we preach (and sometimes study): Methodological issues in experimental laboratory research. Review of General Psychology, 19(2), 191-202. https:// doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000027. google scholar
• Nicks, S. D., Korn, J. H. ve Mainieri, T. (1997). The rise and fall of deception in social psychology and personality research, 1921 to 1994. Ethics & Behavior, 7(1), 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327019eb0701_6. google scholar
• Oczak, M. ve Niedzwienska, A. (2007). Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 49-59. google scholar
• Oktay, B. (2022). Deneysel psikolojide çevrimiçi veri toplama: Avantajları, dezavantajları, etik konular ve uygulamaları. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(01), 65-76. google scholar
• Olson, J. A. ve Raz, A. (2021). Applying insights from magic to improve deception in research: The Swiss cheese model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 92, 104053. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104053. google scholar
• Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0043424. google scholar
• Ortmann, A. ve Hertwig, R. (2002). The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology. Experimental Economics, 5(2), 111-131. google scholar
• Pittenger, D. J. (2002). Deception in research: Distinctions and solutions from the perspective of utilitarianism. Ethics & Behavior, 12(2), 117-142. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1202_1. google scholar
• Rahwan, Z., Fasolo, B. ve Hauser, O. P. (2022). Deception about study purpose does not affect participant behavior. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1-7. google scholar
• Riach, P. A. ve Rich, J. (2004). Deceptive field experiments of discrimination: Are they ethical?. Kyklos, 57(3), 457-470. google scholar
• Schuler, H. (1982). Ethical problems in psychological research.Academic Press. google scholar
• Seeman, J. (1969). Deception in psychological research. American Psychologist, 24, 1025-1028. google scholar
• Sieber, J. E., Iannuzzo, R. ve Rodriguez, B. (1995). Deception methods in psychology: Have they changed in 23 years?. Ethics & Behavior, 5(1), 67-85. google scholar
• Toy, D., Olsen, J., & Wright, L. (1989). Effects of debriefing in marketing research involving “mild” deceptions. Psychology & Marketing, 6(1), 69-85. google scholar
• Türk Psikologlar Derneği (2018). Türk psikologlar derneği etik yönetmeliği. Erişim: 15 Şubat 2021, https://psikolog.org.tr/belgeler/etik-yonetmeligi-qbf8w.pdf google scholar
• Vitelli, R. (1988). The crisis issue assessed: An empirical analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 301-309. google scholar
• Weber, S. J. ve Cook, T. D. (1972). Subject effects in laboratory research: An examination of subject roles, demand characteristics, and valid inference. Psychological Bulletin, 77(4), 273. google scholar
• Weimann, J. (1994). Individual behavior in a free riding experiment. Journal of Public Economics 54, 185-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727%2894%2990059-0. google scholar
• Wendler, D. ve Miller, F. G. (2004). Deception in the pursuit of science. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164(6), 597-600. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.164.6.597. google scholar
• Wiener, R. L. ve Erker, P. V. (1986). The effects of prebriefing misinformed research participants on their attributions of responsibility. The Journal of Psychology, 120(4), 397-410 google scholar