David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Behavior 12 (2):117 – 142 (2002)
The use of deception in psychological research continues to be a controversial topic. Using Rawls's explication of utilitarianism, I attempt to demonstrate how professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, can provide more specific standards that determine the permissibility of deception in research. Specifically, I argue that researchers should examine the costs and benefits of creating and applying specific rules governing deception. To that end, I offer 3 recommendations. First, that researchers who use deception provide detailed accounts of the procedures they used to minimize the harm created by deception in their research reports. Second, that the American Psychological Association offer a definition of deception that describes techniques commonly used in research. Finally, I recommend that the informed consent procedure be revised to indicate that the researcher may use deception as a part of the study.
|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
J. Rawls (1995). Political Liberalism. Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 57 (3):596-598.
Immanuel Kant (1785/2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Oxford University Press.
John Rawls (1955). Two Concepts of Rules. Philosophical Review 64 (1):3-32.
C. R. Palmer (1993). Ethics and Statistical Methodology in Clinical Trials. Journal of Medical Ethics 19 (4):219-222.
Citations of this work BETA
David J. Pittenger (2003). Internet Research: An Opportunity to Revisit Classic Ethical Problems in Behavioral Research. Ethics and Behavior 13 (1):45 – 60.
Daniel M. Eveleth & Arun Pillutla (2003). Task Demands, Task Interest, and Task Performance: Implications for Human Subjects Research and Practicing What We Preach. Ethics and Behavior 13 (2):153 – 172.
David J. Pittenger (2003). Intellectual Freedom and Editorial Responsibilities Within the Context of Controversial Research. Ethics and Behavior 13 (2):105 – 125.
Similar books and articles
Allan J. Kimmel (2001). Ethical Trends in Marketing and Psychological Research. Ethics and Behavior 11 (2):131 – 149.
Allan J. Kimmel, N. Craig Smith & Jill Gabrielle Klein (2011). Ethical Decision Making and Research Deception in the Behavioral Sciences: An Application of Social Contract Theory. Ethics and Behavior 21 (3):222 - 251.
Lisa Bortolotti & Matteo Mameli (2006). Deception in Psychology : Moral Costs and Benefits of Unsought Self-Knowledge. Accountability in Research 13:259-275.
Franklin G. Miller John P. Gluck David Wendler Jr (2008). Debriefing and Accountability in Deceptive Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (3):pp. 235-251.
Thomas Sturm (2007). Self-Deception, Rationality, and the Self. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 26 (3):73-95.
David J. Weiss (2001). Deception by Researchers is Necessary and Not Necessarily Evil. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):431-432.
Neil Van Leeuwen (2009). Self-Deception Won't Make You Happy. Social Theory and Practice 35 (1):107-132.
Clancy W. Martin (ed.) (2009). The Philosophy of Deception. Oxford University Press.
Alfred R. Mele (1997). Understanding and Explaining Real Self-Deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):127-134.
Robert Audi (1997). Self-Deception Vs. Self-Caused Deception: A Comment on Professor Mele. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):104-104.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #91,821 of 1,724,748 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,121 of 1,724,748 )
How can I increase my downloads?