In our previous article, Categorical Imperatives and the Case for Deception: Part I, we examined categorical imperatives (commands or moral laws all persons must follow, regardless of their desires or extenuating circumstances) and explored why adhering to the universality principle (if you do an action, then everyone else should also be able to do it) is not always attainable. We also considered how under the universality principle, people can not lie to protect their friends, as the use of deception is self-serving. While the universality principle is strongly debated, understanding when and how deception is used in research can help us understand why a one-size-fits-all approach to view may not always work as, in some research designs, the use of deception is unavoidable. In these cases, the IRB steps in to determine the ethicality of a design.
Research Designs with Deception
When working with human participants, deception in research is usually sent to the IRB full board for review. This is because while deception is typically regarded as unethical, in some research designs the benefits outweigh the risks making it justifiable. Since we don’t live in a Kantian universe where every action is generalizable, the IRB decides on a case-by-case basis if, and when, deception is appropriate.
One of the most famous examples of deception in research dates back to 1961 with the Milgram experiment. Stanley Milgram, a professor at Yale, conducted an experiment on authority and obedience involving a high degree of deception, including the use of a confederate (individuals who seem to be participants but are actually part of the research team). During the Milgram experiment, volunteers agreed to administer shocks to a confederate when the conferderate gave a wrong answer to a memorization test. The shocks increased in severity, and the confederate feigned pain and eventually, unconsciousness. A researcher (an authority figure) was in the room with the volunteers and gave them verbal prompts to continue if they showed signs of withdrawing.
Milgram wanted to see how long participants would continue to administer shocks when prompted to do so by an authority figure, even if the other person seemed to be in serious medical trouble. Over two-thirds of the participants continued to the end of the experiment, proving Milgram’s theory that people would defer to authority when the authority figure took responsibility for their actions, even if this meant hurting another individual. However, many participants exhibited physical symptoms of high distress including trembling, sweating, and nervous laughter as they listened to the confederate's cries for help. If Milgram had introduced this study today, many researchers believe it would not have passed an ethics board due to the high levels of deception and stress participants encountered. Milgram's work set a precedent for future scrutinization of deception in research and furthered our conceptualization of how deception can harm participants.
Deception in research can also be harmful to the overall reputation of the scientific community. The professional relationship between researchers and participants is built on trust, which deception inherently breaches. If participants in a study feel that they are not respected as persons and that researchers are not reliable, the deception impacts not only the current study but also the willingness of the public to continue participating in future research.
On the other hand, there are instances where the benefits of a study outweigh the risks of deception. Consider drug trials involving the use of double-blind study designs and placebos. In a double-blind study, both researchers and participants do not know who is receiving the placebo or medication. Participants are aware that the drug they are receiving may be a placebo, however, the lack of information is still considered deception. In order for a drug to be considered effective, it must significantly impact participants when compared to a placebo. Without placebos and the inherent use of deception, many of our most commonly used pharmaceuticals would not have been developed. With their ease of use and fidelity, placebos are considered a standard practice in medical research. In this case, deception is a requirement in order to retrieve a wellness baseline from a control sample.
Considering Deception in Your Research
So when might deception in research be justified? As mentioned earlier, deception in research has many different forms, from incomplete disclosure to active deception and much of the justification will be derived from a risk-benefit assessment. In designing your study, carefully consider the extent of the deception and why that deception is necessary. Is it because giving the participant the full picture would cause them to change their interaction with the study materials? For example, if you are measuring explicit racist behaviors, it would not be wise to give participants the full picture of the study as they may change their behaviors to not be seen as “racist.” This type of deception may be justified, so long as you are able to show that the benefits outweigh the risks.
If you are considering using deception in your study, think through the following questions:
- What harm may come to participants by the use of deception in my study? In Milgram’s case, his participants suffered extreme psychological and physical distress, often believing that they had killed someone. This kind of harm is no longer acceptable within modern ethical standards of practice.
- Can my study exist without the use of deception? Say you are studying gambling behaviors in the presence of high-stakes and low-stakes gamblers. Could you observe all of the behaviors you wish to measure with just the participants? Or would the study design be more sound if you used confederates (individuals who seem to be participants but are actually part of the research team)?
- How will the use of deception in this study affect the general public’s perception of research? In some cases, deceiving participants may hurt the public’s view of the reputation and safety of engaging in research, leading to lower rates of participation in future studies.
In most cases, the use of deception in research rests on the researcher’s justification and reasoning. Whatever research design you choose to use, you must be able to explain any possible risk to participants and how you plan to mitigate that risk. An IRB protocol with deception will always undergo a full-board review. Click here to learn more about the different review categories.
Resources
For more resources on the ethics of deception in research, please see the following articles:
- APA Ethics Code: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/04/ethics
- Kantian Morals: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
- Justification for Deception in Social Science Research: Clarke, S. (1999). Justifying Deception in Social Science Research. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 16(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00117
- The use of deception in psychological research: Boynton, M. H., Portnoy, D. B., & Johnson, B. T. (2013). Exploring the ethics and psychological impact of deception in psychological research. IRB, 35(2), 7–13. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4502434/
- Deception and the Placebo Effect: Miller, F. G., Wendler, D., & Swartzman, L. C. (2005). Deception in research on the placebo effect. PLoS medicine, 2(9), e262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020262