David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Behavior 11 (2):115 – 130 (2001)
A lively exchange sparked by Ortmann and Hertwig's (1997) call to outlaw deception in psychological research was intensified by underlying differences in the meaning of deception. The conception held by Broder (1998), who defended deception, would restrict research more than Ortmann and Hertwig's (1997, 1998) conception. Historically, a similar difference in conceptions has been embedded in the controversy over deception in research. The distinction between informational and relational views of deception elucidates this difference. In an informational view, giving false information, allowing false assumptions, and withholding information are deceptive. In a relational view these failures to inform are not necessarily deceptive. Rather, relational criteria, including denial of right to the truth, betrayal of trust, and impairment of commerce with reality finally determine what is deceptive. Analyses reveal that fewer research procedures are deceptive on a relational view than on an informational view. Surveys of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology correspondingly show that a lower percentage of studies are deceptive on the relational view applied in this analysis than on the informational view applied by Sieber, Iannuzzo, and Rodriguez (1995). If restrictions on deception keep increasing, more studies will be vetoed on the currently salient informational view than would be vetoed on a relational view.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Alan Soble (1978). Deception in Social Science Research: Is Informed Consent Possible? Hastings Center Report 8 (5):40-46.
Roderick M. Chisholm & Thomas D. Feehan (1977). The Intent to Deceive. Journal of Philosophy 74 (3):143-159.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1955). Ethics. London, Scm Press.
Stanley Milgram (1977). Subject Reaction: The Neglected Factor in the Ethics of Experimentation. Hastings Center Report 7 (5):19-23.
Citations of this work BETA
Nir Eyal (2014). Using Informed Consent to Save Trust. Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (7):437-444.
Similar books and articles
Deni Elliott & Charles Culver (1992). Defining and Analyzing Journalistic Deception. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 7 (2):69 – 84.
Robert Audi (1997). Self-Deception Vs. Self-Caused Deception: A Comment on Professor Mele. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):104-104.
Robert F. Bornstein (1997). Varieties of Self-Deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):108-109.
Annette Barnes (1997). Seeing Through Self-Deception. New York: Cambridge University Press.
David J. Weiss (2001). Deception by Researchers is Necessary and Not Necessarily Evil. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):431-432.
David J. Pittenger (2002). Deception in Research: Distinctions and Solutions From the Perspective of Utilitarianism. Ethics and Behavior 12 (2):117 – 142.
Alfred R. Mele (1997). Understanding and Explaining Real Self-Deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):127-134.
Joan E. Sieber, Rebecca Iannuzzo & Beverly Rodriguez (1995). Deception Methods in Psychology: Have They Changed in 23 Years? Ethics and Behavior 5 (1):67 – 85.
Ingrid Smithey Fulmer, Bruce Barry & D. Adam Long (2009). Lying and Smiling: Informational and Emotional Deception in Negotiation. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 88 (4):691 - 709.
Thomas Sturm (2007). Self-Deception, Rationality, and the Self. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 26 (3):73-95.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #243,637 of 1,940,985 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #272,533 of 1,940,985 )
How can I increase my downloads?