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. (shrink)

The Internet offers many new opportunities for behavioral researchers to conduct quantitative and qualitative research. Although the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association generalize, in part, to research conducted through the Internet, several matters related to Internet research require further analysis. This article reviews several fundamental ethical issues related to Internet research, namely the preservation of privacy, the issuance of informed consent, the use of deception and false feedback, and research methods. In essence, the Internet offers unique challenges to (...) behavioral researchers. Among these are the need to better define the distinction between private and public behavior performed through the Internet, ensure mechanisms for obtaining valid informed consent from participants and performing debriefing exercises, and verify the validity of data collected through the Internet. (shrink)

The primary purpose of this article is to explore the limits that an agent, such as the government or the American Psychological Association, may place on one's right to pursue a program of research or to share the findings of a research project. The primary argument that evolves here is that researchers' rights to pursue an interesting hypothesis, and their freedom of expression, are conditional. The author examines the potential pragmatic and epistemological barriers to a program of research and the (...) responsibilities that researchers bear to address epistemological and nonepistemological matters while reviewing the implications of their work. (shrink)

Although many researchers may perceive empirical hypothesis testing using inferential statistics to be a value free process, I argue that any conclusion based on inferential statistics contains an important and intractable value judgment. Consequently, I conclude that researchers should use the same rationale for examining the ethical ramifications of committing errors in statistical inference that they use to examine the ethical parameters of a proposed research design.

This article discusses the ethical responsibilities that psychology faculty have when psychological information is seriously misrepresented or psychological techniques are misued by nonpsychology faculty. General values derived from the American Psychological Association's (APA) ethical principles are identified and reviewed. The APA ethical code recommends that psychologists limit the misrepresentation of psychological information and protect students from the misuse of psychological techniques. Examples from my experience are presented to illustrate these ethical principles and responsibilities.