Deception methods in psychology: have they changed in 23 years?

Suspicion About Suspicion Probes: Ways Forward

Suspicion probes are the traditional tool employed to assess the extent to which participants suspect intentional misdirection or deception within the research context. A primary reason psychologists use deception in research settings is to prevent participants from altering their behavior in light of knowing what is being studied, which could undermine internal validity as well as threaten the generalizability of findings to the real world (i.e., external validity). The present article elucidates a number of challenges with suspicion probes. A definition and framework for conceptualizing the construct of suspicion in research settings are proposed. Following a literature review, an analysis of existing evidence, and new data on the prevalence of using and reporting suspicion probes, we conclude that suspicion is a likely problem in research practice. We provide a decision guide to help researchers navigate the numerous choices involved in addressing potential suspicion and call for a combination of (a) renewed research leading to empirically supported tools and best practices and (b) systemic changes to editorial policies, funding practices, professional standards, and research training that would increase rigor and focus on this aspect of research methodology.

Informed Consent and Debriefing When Deceiving Participants: A Systematic Review of Research Ethics Guidelines

Informed consent and debriefing of research participants in studies that use deception are ethical safeguards for which existing scholarly work on their implementation remains variable and insufficiently clear. A systematic review of research ethics guidelines was conducted to sketch a picture of whether, why and how informed consent and debriefing are recommended when using deception. Documents roughly agreed on several general principles, but varied significantly in the specifics of why and whether these safeguards are necessary, in which conditions and how they should be implemented. Various aspects that appear in the literature could not be found in the guidelines. In our review, guidance was integrated and showed a variation of implementation strategies that could help in contextualizing these safeguards.

Assessing the acceptability of individual studies that use deception: A systematic review of normative guidance documents

Research participants are often deceived for methodological reasons. However, assessing the ethical acceptability of an individual study that uses deception is not straightforward. The academic literature is scattered on the subject and several aspects of the acceptability assessment are only scarcely addressed, which parallels reports of inconsistent ethics review. Therefore, we aimed to investigate where normative guidance documents agree and disagree about this assessment. A PRISMA-Ethics-guided systematic review of normative guidance documents that discuss deception of research participants was conducted. Our search strategy resulted in 55 documents that were subsequently analyzed through abductive thematic analysis. While guidance documents mention little about specific risks and opportunities of deception, our analysis describes a rich picture of the thresholds for acceptability of the risks and benefits of deception and their integration, the comparison with the risk-benefit analysis of alternative non-deceptive methods, and the bodies of people who are positioned to do the review. Our review reveals an agreement on the general process of assessing the acceptability of studies that use deception, although significant variability remains in the details and several topics are largely or completely unaddressed in guidance documents.

Deception about study purpose does not affect participant behavior

The use of deception in research is divisive along disciplinary lines. Whereas psychologists argue that deception may be necessary to obtain unbiased measures, economists hold that deception can generate suspicion of researchers, invalidating measures and 'poisoning' the participant pool for others. However, experimental studies on the effects of deception, notably false-purpose deception-the most common form of experimental deception-are scarce. Challenges with participant attrition and avoiding confounds with a form of deception in which two related studies are presented as unrelated likely explain this scarcity. Here, we avoid these issues, testing within an experiment to what extent false-purpose deception affects honesty. We deploy two commonly used incentivized measures of honesty and unethical behavior: coin-flip and die-roll tasks. Across two pre-registered studies with over 2000 crowdsourced participants, we found that false-purpose deception did not affect honesty in either task, even when we deliberately provoked suspicion of deception. Past experience of deception also had no bearing on honesty. However, incentivized measures of norms indicated that many participants had reservations about researcher use of false-purpose deception in general-often considered the least concerning form of deception. Together, these findings suggest that while false-purpose deception is not fundamentally problematic in the context of measuring honesty, it should only be used as a method of last resort. Our results motivate further experimental research to study the causal effects of other forms of deception, and other potential spillovers.

Deceiving Research Participants: Is It Inconsistent With Valid Consent?

It is widely assumed that the use of deception in research is always inconsistent with obtaining valid consent. In addition, guidelines and regulations permit research without valid consent only when it poses no greater than minimal risk. Current practice thus prohibits studies that use deception and pose greater than minimal risk, including studies that rely on deceptive methods to evaluate experimental treatments. To assess whether these prohibitions are justified, the present paper evaluates five arguments that might be thought to support the assumption that deception is always inconsistent with valid consent. Analysis of these arguments reveals that deception is frequently, but not always, inconsistent with obtaining valid consent for research. This conclusion suggests that, in order to avoid unnecessarily blocking valuable research, current policies and practice should be revised to recognize the conditions under which the use of deception can be consistent with obtaining research participants' valid consent.

Heterogeneity in banker culture and its influence on dishonesty

The social sciences are going through what has been described as a 'reproducibility crisis'^1,2. Highly influential findings derived from accessible populations, such as laboratories and crowd-sourced worker platforms, are not always replicated. Less attention has been given to replicating findings that are derived from inaccessible populations, and recent high-profile replication attempts explicitly excluded such populations³. Pioneering experimental work⁴ offered a rare glimpse into banker culture and found that bankers, in contrast to other professionals, are more dishonest when they think about their job. Given the importance of the banking sector, and before academics or policy-makers rely on these findings as an accurate diagnosis of banking culture, an exploration of their generalizability is warranted. Here we conduct the same incentivized task with bankers and non-bankers from five different populations across three continents (n = 1,282 participants). In our banker studies in the Middle East and Asia Pacific (n = 148 and n = 620, respectively), we observe some dishonesty, although-in contrast to the original study⁴-this was not significantly increased among bankers primed to think about their work compared to bankers who were not primed. We also find that inducing non-banking professionals to think about their job does not have a significant effect on honesty. We explore sampling and methodological differences to explain the variation in findings in relation to bankers and identify two key points. First, the expectations of the general population regarding banker behaviour vary across jurisdictions, suggesting that banking culture in the jurisdiction of the original study⁴ may not be consistent worldwide. Second, having approached 27 financial institutions, many of which expressed concerns of adverse findings, we expect that only banks with a sound culture participated in our study. The latter introduces possible selection bias that may undermine the generalizability of any similar field study. More broadly, our study highlights the complexity of undertaking a high-fidelity replication of sensitive, highly publicized fieldwork with largely inaccessible populations resulting from institutional and geographical barriers. For policy-makers, this work suggests that caution should be exercised in generalizing the findings of the original study⁴ to other populations.

Anthropological Research in Light of Research-Ethics Review: Canadian Master's Theses, 1995–2004

Despite claims that research-ethics review is changing or discouraging social research, there are no studies that have tested this assumption. Examining Canadian Master's theses in anthropology between 1995 and 2004, this paper explores the extent to which the theses represent a change in number, topic, or methodology in relation to formal ethics-review guidelines that came into force in Canada in 2001. ProQuest Digital Dissertations reveals that the number of theses has increased, and that there has not been a noticeable shift from research involving humans to research based on archival data, or theoretical or review theses. However, there has been a very significant increase in research that is called ethnography, but that relies exclusively on interviews. Possible reasons for the halving of percent of ethnographic or participant-observation research are explored.

Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study

This paper presents findings from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) prison study - an experimental case study that examined the consequences of randomly dividing men into groups of prisoners and guards within a specially constructed institution over a period of 8 days. Unlike the prisoners, the guards failed to identify with their role. This made the guards reluctant to impose their authority and they were eventually overcome by the prisoners. Participants then established an egalitarian social system. When this proved unsustainable, moves to impose a tyrannical regime met with weakening resistance. Empirical and theoretical analysis addresses the conditions under which people identify with the groups to which they are assigned and the social, organizational, and clinical consequences of either doing so or failing to do so. On the basis of these findings, a new framework for understanding tyranny is outlined. This suggests that it is powerlessness and the failure of groups that makes tyranny psychologically acceptable.

Inclusion of authorized deception in the informed consent process does not affect the magnitude of the placebo effect for experimentally induced pain

The ethics of placebo research have been of paramount concern since the discovery of the phenomenon. To address these ethical concerns, Miller and colleagues (PLoS Med 2005 Sep;2(9):e262, 0853-0859) propose an alternate approach to placebo research, called "authorized deception", in which participants are alerted of the use of deception in the research prior to study enrollment and thus knowingly permit its use if they decide to participate. The present study sought to investigate the authorized deception methodology in experimentally induced placebo analgesia. The participants were randomly assigned to an authorized deception or non-authorized deception group. A commonly used protocol was employed wherein heat pain stimulation was surreptitiously lowered following the application of a placebo cream during a series of conditioning trials and the magnitude of the placebo effect was subsequently assessed in test trials for which the stimulus intensity was the same for both the placebo and control creams. Authorized deception did not have any negative impact on the magnitude of the placebo effect, recruitment and retention of participants, nor did it result in any significant psychological harm. The majority of participants who received this form of consent preferred it to the traditional approach in which the participants are not alerted to the presence of deception. These findings suggest that the use of authorized deception is a viable and ethically preferable alternative consent process for laboratory-based studies on placebo analgesia. Further studies are needed to examine the effect of authorized deception in clinical trials and other placebo research within a clinical setting.

Deception in research on the placebo effect

A common feature of research investigating the placebo effect is deception of research participants about the nature of the research. Miller and colleagues examine the ethical issues surrounding such deception.

Deception Research Involving Children: Ethical Practices and Paradoxes

This commentary draws on the thoughtful contemplation and innovative procedures described in the special section articles as well as current professional codes and federal regulations to highlight ethical practices and paradoxes of deception research involving children. The discussion is organized around 4 key decision points for the conduct of responsible deception research involving children: (a) evaluating the scientific validity and social value of deception research within the context of alternative methodologies, (b) avoiding and minimizing experimental risk, (c) the use of child assent procedures as questionable ethical safeguards, and (d) debriefing as both remedy and risk.

Deception in research: distinctions and solutions from the perspective of utilitarianism

The use of deception in psychological research continues to be a controversial topic. Using Rawls's explication of utilitarianism, I attempt to demonstrate how professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, can provide more specific standards that determine the permissibility of deception in research. Specifically, I argue that researchers should examine the costs and benefits of creating and applying specific rules governing deception. To that end, I offer 3 recommendations. First, that researchers who use deception provide detailed accounts of the procedures they used to minimize the harm created by deception in their research reports. Second, that the American Psychological Association offer a definition of deception that describes techniques commonly used in research. Finally, I recommend that the informed consent procedure be revised to indicate that the researcher may use deception as part of the study.

Task Demands, Task Interest, and Task Performance: Implications for Human Subjects Research and Practicing What We Preach

Through the continuous investigation of humans in organizations, we have learned much about motivation, attitudes, and performance. For example, Yukl and others have helped increase our understanding of influence tactics and the effect they have on the performance of subordinates, supervisors, and peers. Some tactics (and combinations of tactics) lead to resistance, some lead to compliance, and some lead to commitment. In this study, we raise the question of whether or not we incorporate our knowledge of these research findings into the design, implementation, and interpretation of our own research studies that require the participation of human subjects. In a survey of 134 subjects from a previous social science study, we found that performance varied across the sample, consistent with the concepts of resistance, compliance, and commitment. In addition, the variance in performance could be explained, in part, by task interest and perceived task demands. Implications are discussed.

Preserving the ethical propriety of statistical devices

C. D. Herrera (1996) introduced an innovative argument against the use of deception in psychological research. In essence, Herrera contended that because of the presumed problems with null hypothesis statistical testing, researchers could not justify their continued use of deception in research. Although this is an interesting argument, there are several alternative perspectives that must be considered. In examining these alternatives, the author concluded that psychologists may continue to use deception under certain circumstances outlined in the American Psychological Association's ethical code of conduct.