Early critical reaction to the practice of deceiving research subjects suggested that its continued use would lead to a negative view of the discipline and distrust by future subjects. In spite of these concerns and the constraints imposed by ethical codes, deception has remained a popular research strategy. The study reported in this article compared data from the Psychological Research Survey (PRS) at the beginning of the academic year in 1970 and the responses of students surveyed at a comparable time in 1989. Scores on the PRS from the recent samples were found to be similar to scores from 20years ago. After participating in a number of experiments, subjects sampled in 1990 were accepting of arguments justifying the use of deception; however, they reported a somewhat more negative attitude toward psychological research than in the 1989 sample, regardless of whether they had been exposed to deception.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramson, P. R. , & Finifter, A. W. (1981). On the meaning of political trust New evidence from items introduced in 1978. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 297-307.
2.
Adair, J. G. , Dushenko, T. W., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1985). Ethical regulations and their impact on research practice. American Psychologist, 40, 59-72.
3.
Adair, J. G. , & Fenton, D. P. (1971). Subject's attitudes toward psychology as a determinant of experimental results. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 3, 268-275.
4.
Adair, J. G. , & Spinner, B. (1983). Task perceptions and behavioural expectations: A process-oriented approach to subject behaviour in experiments. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 15, 131-141.
5.
Aronson, E. (1966). Avoidance of inter-subject communication. Psychological Reports, 19, 238.
6.
Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40, 165-174.
7.
Blass, T. (1991). Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment The role of personality, situations, and their interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 398-413.
8.
Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage Books.
9.
Christensen, L. (1988). Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 664-675.
10.
Diener, E. , & Crandall, R. (1978). Ethics in social and behavioral research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Gerdes, E. P. (1979). College students' reactions to social psychological experiments involving deception. Journal of Social Psychology, 107, 99-110.
12.
Greenberg, J. , & Folger, R. (1988). Controversial issues in social research methods. New York: Springer-Verlag.
13.
Hochreich, D. J. , & Rotter, J. B. (1970). Have college students become less trusting?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 211-214.
14.
Hunt, M. (1982, September 12). Research through deception. New York Times Magazine, pp. 66-67,139-143.
15.
Hunt, R. W. , Kohn, P. M*, & Mallozzi, C. B. (1983). Factor analysis of the Interpersonal Trust Scale with a noncollege population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 507-508.
16.
Kelman, H. C. (1967). Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 1-11.
17.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and ana6sis:A researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18.
Lindsay, RC. L. , & Adair, J. G. (1990). Do ethicaly recommended research procedures influence the perceived ethicality of social psychological research?Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 282-294.
19.
Lindsay, R. C. L. , & Holden, R. R. (1987). The introductory psychology subject pool in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 28, 45-52.
20.
MacCoun, R. J. , & Kerr, N. L. (1987). Suspicion in the psychology laboratory: Kelman's prophecy revisited. American Psychologist, 42, 199.
21.
Newberry, B. H. (1973). Truth telling in subjects with information about experiments: Who is being deceived?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 369-374.
22.
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trustJournal of Personality, 35, 651-665.
23.
Sieber, j. E. , & Saks, M. J. (1989). A census of subject pool characteristics and policies. American Psychologist, 44, 1053-1061.
24.
Smith, M. B. (1976). Some perspectives on ethical/political issues in social science research. Personal1y and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 445-453.
25.
Smith, S. S. , & Richardson, D. (1983). Amelioration of deception and harm in psychological research: The important role of debriefing. Journal of Peronali6t and Social Psychology, 44, 1075-1082.
26.
Tesch, F. E. (1977). Debriefing research participants: Though this be method there is madness to it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 217-224.
27.
Timaeus, E. , Luck, H. E., Klandt, H., & Schanderwitz, U. (1977). Die PRS-Skala von Adair-ein Ansatz zur Kontrolle von Vp-Motivationen. Zdtschnft fur experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 24, 510-518.
