Timothy McCall
General Psychology I – H111
Instructor: Peter Boyle
September 18th, 2007
Fall 2007 Semester
Assignment:
Read Class Handout “Ethics in Psychology – Research Through Deception” and write 2 to 3 pages referencing “The role of deception in research”.
Q: Could these studies have been done without deception?
Q: What was the role/value (or is there a value?) of deception in this research?
Essay: “Commentary on the use of Deception in Psychological Research”
The article/class handout, “Research Though Deception” by Morton Hunt provides a
variety of information, perspectives, insights, specific case studies and citations
regarding the use of deception in psychological studies conducted prior to the
implementation of Federal Regulations imposing specific constraints on these types of
studies and the long-term effects these regulations have had in shaping the future
directions of psychological research studies since their imposition.
The specific Federal Regulations pertaining to psychological studies of this type
(which were not specified in the handout) are the Code of Federal Regulations TITLE 45,
PUBLIC WELFARE. Department of Health and Human Services, PART 46,
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS[1]. The most pertinent section of this code as it
relates to studies attempting to utilize deception in psychological research would be, Part
46, Paragraph 116(a)1, “General requirements for informed consent[2].” “(1) A statement
that the study involves research, an explanation of the purposes of the research[3] and
the expected duration of the subject's participation, a description of the procedures to be
followed, and identification of any procedures which are experimental;”
An initial and cursory review of the language utilized in crafting the Federal
Regulations would seem to effectively preclude the initiation and utilization of deceptive
psychological studies on “uninformed” study participants. However, given the litigious
nature of American society and the progressive divergence of “moral” versus “ethical”
values in recent years. I would proffer the following questions:
1.) How far can these mandated regulations be “pushed” and how far have they been
“pushed”?
2.) What would be the “upside and downside potentials” of Social Psychology
Researchers “pushing the envelope” as it would relate to their ability to publish research
papers entailing the utilization of methods and practices in areas previously unexplored?
3.) If the research subjects are informed that the study in which they are participating
COULD potentially contain aspects of deception would that notification constitute
“informed consent”?
During our previous weeks class lecture, Instructor Boyle related an
experience he had while attending
effectiveness relieving pain associated with tooth extraction was being studied. After
Instructor Boyle endured what would seem to me to be a substantial amount of pain for
an extended and inordinate period of time, I couldn’t help but wondering, when does the
experiment end and the ineffective medication or placebo get replaced by something to
alleviate the inflicted pain? If the researchers already know that the standard pain
medication works in 15 minutes, is it ethical to wait 90 minutes to see if the new drug
will work? Obviously it is not as effective as the standard pain medication after 20
minutes. Should the double-blind study participants be subjected to enduring pain for 6
times the interval of the standard pain medication? To me it seems obviously both
immoral and unethical. As a researcher defining the parameters of a study, I would say
that the studies author failed to adhere to the sprit and intent of the medical dictum “do
no harm” as well as the defined parameters of the pertinent Federal Regulations outlining
acceptable practices while conducting medically beneficial studies.
In response to the first question posed by Instructor Boyle regarding this essay,
“Could these studies have been done without deception?” I believe I would have to
respond in the negative. Deception played a central and significant role in the
composition of these studies and the “targeted” behaviors they hoped to stimulate in a
controlled environment while yielding scientifically valid tests results in support of the
studies basic premise and hypotheses.
In response to the second question posed by Instructor Boyle, “What was the
role/value (or is there a value?) of deception in this research?” I would have a strong
tendency to believe there was substantial value added to the study by integrating
deception as a component in structuring these psychological studies. As detailed in our
textbook. “Psychology, by David G. Meyers” on page 29, regarding “Naturalistic
Observations” – “it does not explain behavior, it describes it.” In order to effectively
evaluate, record and document associated reactive behaviors, they must be described. If
an experiment cannot be conducted in a “natural” setting, researchers must apply
additional efforts to produce valid, observable and reproducible behaviors within the
context of a controlled environment. In addition, as we all live our lives, we are
continuously subjected to a bewildering variety of deceptive situations and messages
every day. Studies in Social Psychology are being significantly degrading by legislating
defined study parameters which effectively ban research in an area comprising a large,
ongoing segment of human social activity and psychology.
Another issue raised within the handout refers to “forceful polemicist” against deceptive
investigative and research methodologies, Diana Baumrind of the University of
With one broad brushstroke of criticism she effectively denigrates a whole area of
research regardless of the control mechanism’s carefully crafted by Social Psychology
Researchers. One of the techniques utilized in the research study citing Professor
Zimbardo was a “restorative debriefing”, which provided a decompression mechanism
for research subjects to process their experiences. Prior to the commencement of the
deceptive research study, participants completed a “Paranoia” test to provide a baseline
for use in post-study comparative analysis. A statistically negligible negative after-effect
has been reproduced in a number of studies. I would interpret these findings as
supporting the contention that carefully constructed and monitored research
methodologies utilizing deception can safely and effectively be utilized without exposing
research study participants to unacceptable and unethical levels of “inflicted insight”
causing long-term, negative psychological effects.
No comments:
Post a Comment