Skip to main content

Misleading research participants: moral aspects of deception in psychological research

Samenvatting

In psychological research with human subjects, it is not uncommon practice to use deceptive techniques. Deception is considered necessary when accurately informing participants about the goal of the research could bias their responses, thereby impairing the validity of the resulting data. Thus, the practice of deception can be situated in the area of tension between on the one hand the duty of researchers and the research community to treat research participants with respect, and on the other hand scientific and methodological standards which are decisive for the scientific value of the research.

In this paper, firstly different forms and topics of deception are described. Then the morally problematic character of deception is assessed and two different ethical approaches to the practice of deception are distinguished. In the final part of the paper an ethically justifiable way of dealing with deception in psychological research is proposed. (Netherlands Journal of Psychology, 63, 14-20.)

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Beauchamp, T.L., & Childress, J.F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. Fifth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J.W., Appelbaum, P.S., Lidz, C.W., & Parker, L.S. (2001). Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bersoff, D.N. (2003). Ethical conflicts in psychology. Third edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world. The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok, S. (1992). Informed consent in tests of patient reliability. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 1118-1119.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, S. (1995). Shading the truth in seeking informed consent for research purposes. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 5, 1-17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cave, E., & Holm, S. (2003). Milgram and Tuskegee – Paradigm research projects in bioethics. Health Care Analysis, 11, 27-40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Childress, J.F., Meslin, E.M., & Shapiro, H.T. (Eds.) (2005). Belmont revisited. Ethical principles for research with human subjects. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S. (1999). Justifying deception in social science research. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 16, 151-166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faden, R.R., & Beauchamp, T.L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1986). The moral limits of the criminal law. Vol. III: Harm to self. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, M.W. (2000). Informed consent. In B.D. Sales & S. Folkman (Eds.), Ethics in research with human participants. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 35-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, C. (2001). The ethics of medical research on humans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, C.D. (1999). Research ethics at the empirical side. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 20, 191-200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, C.D. (2001). Ethics, deception, and ‘those Milgram experiments’. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18, 245-256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1982). Die Metaphysik der Sitten. Werkausgabe Band VIII. Herausgegeben von Wilhelm Weischedel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft (urspr. 1797).

  • Kimmel, A.J. (1998). In defense of deception. American Psychologist, 53, 803-804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korn, J.H. (1998). The reality of deception. American Psychologist, 53, 805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, R.J., Carpenter, W.T., & Appelbaum, P.S. (2003). Clarifying standards for using placebos. Science, 200, 1659-1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F.G. (2004). Painful deception. Science, 304, 1109-1110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F.G., Wendler, D., & Swartzman, L.C. (2005). Deception in research on the placebo effect. PLos Med 2 (9): e262.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (2003). Some limits of informed consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 4-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann, A., & Hertwig, R. (1997). Is deception acceptable? American Psychologist, 52, 746-747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann, A., & Hertwig, R. (1998). The question remains: Is deception acceptable? American Psychologist, 53, 806-807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ost, D.E. (1984). The ‘right’ not to know. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 9, 301-312.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Penslar, R.L. (Ed.) (1995). Research ethics. Cases and materials. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (1991). Consequentialism. In P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell pp. 230-240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigden, C.R., & G.R. Gillet (1996). Milgram, method and morality. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 13, 233-250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, J.E., Iannuzzo, R., & Rodriguez, B. (1995). Deception methods in psychology: have they changed in 23 years? Ethics & Behavior, 5, 67-85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welie, S.P.K., & Berghmans, R.L.P. (2006). Inclusion of patients with severe mental illness in clinical trials: Issues and recommendations surrounding informed consent. CNS Drugs, 20, 67-83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wendler, D. (1996). Deception in medical and behavioral research: is it ever acceptable? Milbank Quarterly, 74, 87-114.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wendler, D., & Miller, F.G. (2004). Deception in the pursuit of science. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164, 597-600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Ethics and Philosophy, Maastricht University

Correspondence to: Ron L.P. Berghmans, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Department of Health Ethics and Philosophy, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, NL 6200 MD Maastricht. E-mail: r.berghmans@zw.unimaas.nl

Submitted 10 April 2006; revision accepted 8 January 2007.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berghmans, R.L.P. Misleading research participants: moral aspects of deception in psychological research. NEJP 63, 12–17 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03061057

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03061057