Introduction to Deception Debate

he debate that follows is part of an ongo-ing discussion about the meaning andimportance of deception in research.While the authors emphasize experimentalresearch, deception is an issue in all social-science methodologies. Such debates areimportant signals that our field considers howchanging technology, research questions, andrelationships reflect on and potentially modifyour understanding of what is critical for bothresearch and ethics. From the sociology of sci-ence, we know that such debates must beencouraged as they are critical for preventingflawed reasoning and stalled analysis.Definitions of deception stress the inten-tional misrepresentation of the study to theparticipants. Obviously researchers rarelyfully explain the purpose and hypotheses ofthe study; incomplete explanations are notdeceptions. But deception can take differentforms in different methods. In fieldwork, theactual identity and purpose of the researchermay be OhiddenO and result in deception (fordiscussions, see Allen 1997; Ellis 1995;Mitchell 1990). In experiments, false informa-tion may be presented as true. Consequently,one way to think about deception is related toviolation of informed consent. If the study isnot fully represented to the participant, he orshe is prevented from providing a consent thatis truly informed.The lack of informed consent helps clari-fy both the ethical and the research impor-tance issues. In many ways, the social contractbetween the educator, clinician, or researcherand the participant is a trust relationship, andit can be argued that this relationship is violat-ed by deception if the costs outweigh the ben-efits. When Institutional Review Boards(IRBs) consider this issue, both short-termand long-term costs and benefits are consid-ered, although the emphasis is usually onimmediate calculation about participation in astudy. (Hegtvedt 2007 offers a thorough dis-cussion of IRB concerns.) In such initial cal-culations, the costs most often involve time,privacy, or potential psychic or physical harm.The benefits are also heavily weighted onimmediate benefits; these could be monetary,or potential physical or psychic well-being.Future experience and outcome are also con-sidered in the cost/benefit analysis. This con-sideration provides the basis for two quite dif-ferent views represented in this debate. Forboth views, another aspect of the social con-tract, the research field itself, becomes impor-tant.One view, expressed by Hertwig andOrtmann and most experimental economists(for example, Holt 2007), posits that if sub-jects have been deceived, it is reasonable forthem to expect to be deceived in other studies.If participants expect to be deceived and con-sequently do not believe the manipulations,then the very strength of the experiment, con-trol, is destroyed. Thus, it can be argued thatdeception in one experiment can contaminatethe participant pool for future experiments. Ifthis is the case, then there should be a prohibi-tion of most deception. Such a prohibition isnot based principally on the ethical relation-ship to the participant but on the ethical rela-tionship to the research field. (It should benoted that one purely practical solution mightbe to screen for those who have been in suchstudies)Another view, favoring at least limited useof deception, addresses the ethical and re-search importance issues from a different per-spective. The ethical issue in deception relatesto how the participants are treated after thestudy is completed and relates to the obliga-tion for careful, respectful, and thorough