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.
AllenD. 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
2.
BarreraD.SimpsonB. (2012). Much ado about deception: Consequences of deceiving research participants in the social sciences. Sociological Methods & Research,41(3), 383–413. https://doi.org/310.1177/0049124112452526
3.
BarugahareJ. (2019). Bioethical reflexivity and requirements of valid consent: conceptual tools. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0385-7
4.
BenhamB. (2008). Moral accountability and debriefing. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(3), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0197
5.
BerkovichI. (2018). Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: The positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer. Quality & Quantity, 52(5), 2063–2077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0607-3
6.
BirchleyG.IvesJ. (2022). Fallacious, misleading and unhelpful: The case for removing ‘systematic review’ from bioethics nomenclature. Bioethics, 36(6), 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13024
BoothA. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews,5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
9.
BortolottiL.MameliM. (2006). Deception in psychology: Moral costs and benefits of unsought self-knowledge. Accountability in Research, 13(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620600848561
10.
BrodyJ. L.GluckJ. P.AragonA. S. (2000). Participants’ understanding of the process of psychological research: Debriefing. Ethics & Behavior, 10(1), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1001_2
CarlsonR. (1971). Where is the person in personality research?Psychological Bulletin, 75(3), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030469
14.
CarsonT. L. (2022). Lying, deception, and related concepts: A conceptual map for ethics. In From lying to perjury: Linguistic and legal perspectives on lies and other falsehoods (vol. 3, p. 15). De Gruyter.
15.
CeciS. J.PetersD.PlotkinJ. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40(9), 994–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.9.994
CunliffeA. L.AlcadipaniR. (2016). The politics of access in fieldwork. Organizational Research Methods, 19(4), 535–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116639134
18.
DickertN. W.EyalN.GoldkindS. F.GradyC.JoffeS.LoB.,. . .KimS. Y. H. (2017). Reframing consent for clinical research: A function-based approach. The American Journal of Bioethics, 17(12), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1388448
19.
DouglasB. D.McGorrayE. L.EwellP. J. (2021). Some researchers wear yellow pants, but even fewer participants read consent forms: Exploring and improving consent form reading in human subjects research. Psychological Methods, 26(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000267
20.
DowrickC. F.HughesJ. G.HiscockJ. J.WigglesworthM.WalleyT. J. (2007). Considering the case for an antidepressant drug trial involving temporary deception: A qualitative enquiry of potential participants. BMC Health Services Research, 7(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-7-64
21.
EdlundJ. E.SagarinB. J.SkowronskiJ. J.JohnsonS. J.KutterJ. (2009). Whatever happens in the laboratory stays in the laboratory: The prevalence and prevention of participant crosstalk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(5), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331255
22.
EgréP.IcardB. (2018). Lying and vagueness. In The Oxford handbook of lying (pp. 354–369). Oxford University Press.
23.
El-DinR.SugiuraL. (2013). To deceive or not to deceive! legal implications of phishing covert research. Int. J. of Intellectual Property Management, 6(4), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIPM.2013.057635
24.
FinneyP. D. (1987). When consent information refers to risk and deception: Implications for social research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2(1), 37. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1292291652
25.
FlemmingK.NoyesJ. (2021). Qualitative evidence synthesis: Where are we at?International Journal of Qualitative Methods,20(1), 160940692199327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993276
26.
GerlachP.TeodorescuK.HertwigR. (2019). The truth about lies: A meta-analysis on dishonest behavior. Psychological Bulletin,145(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000174
27.
GogtayN.KuyareM. S.PaiN.MehtaL.RajapureP.ThatteU. M. (2020). A randomized, controlled, equivalence study of authorized versus non-authorized deception in a model of pain following third molar extraction. Clinical Ethics, 15(2), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477750920903456
28.
GreeneC. M.de Saint LaurentC.MurphyG.PrikeT.HegartyK.EckerU. K. H. (2022). Best practices for ethical conduct of misinformation research: A scoping review and critical commentary. European Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000491
29.
GreeneC. M.MurphyG. (2023). Debriefing works: Successful retraction of misinformation following a fake news study. PLOS ONE,18(1), e0280295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280295
30.
GreenspanR. L.LoftusE. F. (2021). What happens after debriefing? The effectiveness and benefits of postexperimental debriefing. Memory & Cognition, 50(4), 696–709. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01223-9
31.
HammettD.JacksonL.BramleyR. (2022). Beyond ‘do no harm’? On the need for a dynamic approach to research ethics. Area, 54(4), 582–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12795
32.
HarrisB. (1988). Key words: A history of debriefing in social psychology. In MorawskiJ. (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 188–212). Yale University Press.
33.
HendersonG. E.CorneliA. L.MahoneyD. B.NelsonD. K.MwansamboC. (2007). Applying research ethics guidelines: The view from a sub-saharan research ethics committee. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(2), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2007.2.2.41
34.
HertwigR.OrtmannA. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics & Behavior,18(1), 59–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701712990
35.
HodsonG. (2022). Reconsidering reconsent: Threats to internal and external validity when participants reconsent after debriefing. British Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 853–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12561
36.
HolmesD. S. (1976). Debriefing after psychological experiments: I. Effectiveness of postdeception dehoaxing. American Psychologist, 31(12), 858–876. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.31.12.858
37.
HolmesD. S.BennettD. H. (1974). Experiments to answer questions raised by the use of deception in psychological research: I. Role playing as an alternative to deception; II. Effectiveness of debriefing after a deception; III. Effect of informed consent on deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035911
38.
JamisonJ.KarlanD.SchechterL. (2008). To deceive or not to deceive: The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,68(3), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2008.09.002
39.
JohansenM. B.FrederiksenJ. T. (2021). Ethically important moments – a pragmatic-dualist research ethics. Journal of Academic Ethics, 19(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09377-y
40.
KahrassH.BorryP.GastmansC.IvesJ.van der GraafR.StrechD.MertzM. (2021). PRISMA-Ethics–reporting guideline for systematic reviews on ethics literature: Development, explanations and examples.
41.
KimmelA. J.SmithN. C.KleinJ. G. (2011). Ethical decision making and research deception in the behavioral sciences: An application of social contract theory. Ethics & Behavior, 21(3), 222–251. https://doi.org/210.1080/10508422.10502011.10570166
42.
KleinJ.SmithN. (2004). Forewarning & debriefing as remedies to deception in consumer research: An empirical study. NA – Advances in Consumer Research, 31, 759–765https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/9009.
43.
KlinglerC.MertzM. (2021). REIGN framework – Use of research evidence to inform guidance regarding normative-ethical topics.
44.
KrasnowM. M.HowardR. M.EisenbruchA. 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/1110.3758/s13428-13019-01309-y
45.
KrawczykM. (2015). “Trust me, I am an economist.” A note on suspiciousness in laboratory experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics,55(1), 103–107https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2014.12.003
46.
KrawczykM. (2019). What should be regarded as deception in experimental economics? Evidence from a survey of researchers and subjects. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 79(1), 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.01.008
47.
LawsonE. (2001). Informational and relational meanings of deception: Implications for deception methods in research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/110.1207/S15327019EB15321102_15327011
48.
MamotteN.WassenaarD. (2015). Measuring voluntariness of consent to research: An instrument review. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615571552
49.
MartinA. L.KatzJ. (2010). Inclusion of authorized deception in the informed consent process does not affect the magnitude of the placebo effect for experimentally induced pain. PAIN, 149(2), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2009.12.004
50.
MarzanoM. (2021). Covert Research Ethics. In Ethical Issues in Covert, Security and Surveillance Research (pp. 41–53). Emerald Publishing Limited.
51.
McCambridgeJ.KypriK.WilsonA. (2012). How should debriefing be undertaken in web-based studies? Findings from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(6), e157. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2186
52.
McFarlandC.CheamA.BuehlerR. (2007). The perseverance effect in the debriefing paradigm: Replication and extension. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.010
53.
McShaneK. E.DaveyC. J.RouseJ.UsherA. M.SullivanS. (2015). Beyond ethical obligation to research dissemination: Conceptualizing debriefing as a form of knowledge transfer. Canadian Psychology, 56(1), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035473
54.
MikettaS.FrieseM. (2019). Debriefed but still troubled? About the (in)effectiveness of postexperimental debriefings after ego threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 282–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000155
55.
MillerF. G.GluckJ. P.Jr.WendlerD. (2008). Debriefing and accountability in deceptive research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18(3), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.0.0196
56.
MillumJ.BromwichD. (2020). Respect for persons. In IltisA. S.MacKayD. (Eds.), Research Ethics. Oxford University Press.
57.
MillumJ.BromwichD. (2021). Informed consent: What must be disclosed and what must be understood?The American Journal of Bioethics, 21(5), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2020.1863511
MurphyG.MaherJ.BallantyneL.BarrettE.CowmanC. S.DawsonC. A.,. . .GreeneC. M. (2023). How do participants feel about the ethics of rich false memory studies?Memory (Hove, England), (4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2023.2170417
61.
NeatonK. (2015). Debriefing in Psychology Research: Evidence of a Malleable Ethics Principle. (Master). Wesleyan University.
62.
O’NeilC. C.MillerF. G. (2009). When scientists deceive: Applying the federal regulations. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 37(2), 344–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00377.x
63.
OczakM.NiedzwienskaA. (2007). Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(3), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2007.2.3.49
64.
OlsonJ. D.McAllisterC.GrinnellL. D.WaltersK. G.AppunnF. (2016). Applying constant comparative method with multiple investigators and inter-coder reliability. The Qualitative Report,21(1), 26https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2447.
65.
ParderM.-L.JuurikM.Lilles-HeinsarL.VelbaumK.LõukK.SutropM. (2019). Reporting on existing Codes and Guidelines.
66.
Pascual-LeoneA.SinghT.ScoboriaA. (2010). Using deception ethically: Practical research guidelines for researchers and reviewers. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 51(4), 241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021119
67.
PatryP. (2001). Informed consent and deception in psychological research. Kriterion: Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/krt-2001-011406
68.
PittengerD. 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
69.
RahwanZ.FasoloB.HauserO. P. (2022). Deception about study purpose does not affect participant behavior. Scientific Reports,12(1), 19302. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21972-0
70.
ResnikD. (2018). Informed consent. In WeisstubD. N.CooleyD. R. (Eds.), The ethics of research with human subjects: Protecting people, advancing science, promoting trust (pp. 113–148). Springer.
RouletT. J.GillM. J.StengerS.GillD. J. (2017). Reconsidering the value of covert research: The role of ambiguous consent in participant observation. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 487–517. https://doi.org/410.1177/1094428117698745
73.
SieberJ. E. (1982). Deception in social research I: Kinds of deception and the wrongs they may involve. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 4(9), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/3564511
SobleA. (1978). Deception in social science research: Is informed consent possible?Hastings Center Report, 8(5), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/3561449
76.
SommersR.MillerF. G. (2013). Forgoing debriefing in deceptive research: Is it ever ethical?Ethics & Behavior, 23(2), 98–116. https://doi.org/110.1080/10508422.10502012.10732505
TaiM. C.-T. (2012). Deception and informed consent in social, behavioral, and educational research (SBER). Tzu Chi Medical Journal, 24(4), 218–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcmj.2012.05.003
79.
TakeuchiM.TakeuchiA.GrayL. N. (2013). Deception or no deception as a methodological strategy in experiments: a discipline specific analysis in sociological social psychology. Paper presented at the The 108th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York.
80.
TeschF. E. (1977). Debriefing research participants: Though this be method there is madness to it. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.217
ToyD.OlsenJ.WrightL. (1989). Effects of debriefing in marketing research involving “mild” deceptions. Psychology & Marketing, 6(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220060105
83.
TraianouA. (2019). Phrónēsis and the ethical regulation of ethnographic research. In Implementing ethics in educational ethnography (pp. 19–31). Routledge.
84.
VerbekeK.KrawczykT.BaeyensD.PiaseckiJ.BorryP. (2022). Assessing the acceptability of individual studies that use deception: A systematic review of normative guidance documents. Accountability in Research, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2153675
85.
VerhaegheP.-P. (2022). Correspondence studies. In Handbook of labor, human resources and population economics (pp. 1–19). Springer.
86.
WendlerD. (2022). Deceiving research participants: Is it inconsistent with valid consent?The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine,47(4), 558–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhac014
WendlerD.MillerF. G. (2008). Deception in clinical research. In Oxford Textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 315–324). Oxford University Press.
89.
WienerR. L.ErkerP. V. (1986). The effects of prebriefing misinformed research participants on their attributions of responsibility. The Journal of Psychology, 120(4), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1986.9712638
90.
WilsonA. T. (2015). Counterfactual consent and the use of deception in research. Bioethics, 29(7), 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12142
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
