Running head: THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH 1

The Use of Deception in Psychological Research

Kaitlyn Kulas

Loras College
THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Kulas 2

The Use of Deception in Psychological Research

Deception has been utilized in psychological research with the first pivotal studies dating

back decades and playing an important role in forming a foundation for research in the field of

psychology. Although it is a source of contention for many, its importance cannot be discounted.

Deception functions as a control for experiments and allows researchers to delve into the

participants natural behaviors without confounding variables arising due to knowledge of the

methodology. Although its ethics are often up for debate, the benefits the field of psychology has

gained from the use of deception cannot be overlooked, and thus, the use of deception, in the

correct situations, should be continued in psychological research today.

When employed correctly, deception functions as a mechanism to control for a

participants natural bias. Thus, whatever predispositions the participants enter the experiment

with will not influence the data. This also eliminates the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy:

a thought or expectation that manifests in a persons life because it has been thought (Self-

Fulfilling Prophecy, 2015). This way, participants will not try to perform for the benefit of the

researcher or subconsciously try to fill the role that they were assigned for the benefit of the

experiment. This allows for participants to behave as naturally as possible in an experimental

setting, and enables researchers to collect more accurate data. However, when employed

incorrectly, deception can function as an impetus for research. It is a common source of

contention and many people feel as though it is used without absolute necessity; the main issues

in this inconclusive debate being the potential harm to the participants and the proper balance

between this danger and the possible value of the scientific findings obtained through the use of

deceit (Stricker, Messick, Jackson, 1968). Although both benefits and drawbacks to deception
THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Kulas 3

exist its contribution to the field cannot be ignored and thus, its imperative to advancement in

the field.

With the exception of observational studies it can be difficult for researchers to study

naturally occurring behavior, especially when it involves manipulating behavior of the

participants. Although it is difficult to induce situations in a lab where participants feel able to

act naturally, deception creates an environment where this is possible. While some participants

may always act different when they feel they are being observed, deception prevents them from

knowing what behavior is being studied. This means that while they may manipulate some

aspect of their behavior, if they are deceived to believe something else is being studied they may

not be manipulating the behavior being studied by the researchers. Thus, with the use of

deception, the researchers are able to study naturally occurring behavior, or come as close to it as

possible.

An experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram, a professor at Yale, in 1963, is possibly

the most influential behavioral study of all time that also raised concerns with ethics due to its

use of deception. His experiment was designed to look at behavior and its relationship to

authority. He attached electrodes to a confederate who was taken into another room while the

participant was told to administer a shock every time the confederate made a mistake (although

the learner did not know that the other individual was a confederate and that the shocks were not

real). He concluded that people would follow orders if they were coming from someone who

appeared to have authority due to the way in which culture promotes the obedience to authority

figures. This appeared to be the case even if the act is morally and ethically unsound, as it was in

the experiment.
THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Kulas 4

Later remarks on the research concluded, As we continue to carry out research of this

kind our potential subjects become increasingly distrustful of us, and our future relations with

them are likely to be undermined. Thus, we are confronted with the anomalous circumstance that

the more research we do, the more difficult and questionable it becomes (Hertwig & Ortmann,

2016). This remark following the study is important as it highlights some of the misconceptions

researchers held prior to the debate around deception and also notes the areas in which the field

needed vast improvement.

Another such study highlights needs for improvement was the Stanford Prison

Experiment, which highlighted the dangers of deception when employed erroneously. Philip

Zimbardo, then a professor at Stanford University, conducted an experiment in which he

replicated a prison scenario, assigning the roles of various prison positions (inmates and prison

guards) to participants who volunteered for the study. Soon after the study began a degeneration

ensued as morals were discarded and chaos broke out in the mock prison. The prison guards

enforced punishments on the prisoners without instruction form the researchers which eventually

escalated to the prisoners being stripped of basic human rights, such as the ability to use the

restroom when they pleased. The experiment showed the effects of unrestrained authority and

denial of human rights, leaving much of the blame to land on the use of deception (Shuttleworth,

2008). It also showed that this particular field of research has room for growth both with the

review process and the way in which methods are create for the experiments.

The ethics regarding the Stanford Prison Experiment have been questioned since the

termination of the study. Psychological harm became an imminent threat to the participants

ultimately leading to the early release of one. Thus, questions are raised with the possibility of
THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Kulas 5

individuals with predispositions to mental illness or emotional imbalances unknowingly being at

a greater risk for psychological harm due to the use of deception. As far as ethics were

concerned, Zimbardo did not fully understand the implications at the time. Looking back, with

hindsight, there was not enough information given to prisoners and guards beforehand, and

reasonable consent was not possible (Shuttleworth, 2008). Informed consent is one of the APA

and IRB guidelines necessary for the participants to enroll in the research experiment, and

without such participants run the risk of unknowingly participating in an experiment they may be

averse to.

Although the ethics of the Stanford Prison Experiment are often called into question,

there are many lessons that can be deduced. In his book discussing the experiment Thomas Blass

wrote, the value of the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) resides in demonstrating the evil that

good people can be readily induced into doing to other good people within the context of socially

approved roles, rules, and norms, a legitimizing ideology, and institutional support that

transcends individual agency (Blass, 2000). This points towards the great effect that this

research had on the psychological field even though the deception was use erroneously. Thus,

with the new insight that researchers have due to experiments such as the Stanford Prison

Experiment they are better able to mold their consent process and decide if the use of deception

is imperative to their research. The experiment also functions as a cornerstone from which the

field of psychology has much to learn. With this also comes the IRB and APA who ensure that

situations such as this do not occur as repeat events and provide the foundational framework for

research being conducted today.

With ethics in the spotlight following the Stanford Prison Experiment, the Institutional

Review Board (IRB) also comes into question as its role in research is to ensure participant

safety during participation in research experiments. The methodology the IRB has created for

participant safety includes debriefing, ensuring minimal risk to the participants, informed

consent, a promise to make significant contributions to the field of research, and the opportunity

for participants to opt out of the research, as the policy was adapted and approved in September

of 2011 (Boyton, Portnoy, Johnson, 2013). With this, participants are ensured that they will not

be put in any immediate harm, and if they feel subjected to any research they are not comfortable

with they know beforehand that they are allowed to opt out of the experiment at any time without

facing a penalty.

Along the lines of feelings of the participants Boyton concludes, psychological

discomfort resulting from deception is viewed as a regrettable but defensible cost given the

knowledge that will be gained by both the researcher and participantsIndeed, evidence

suggests that most participants are not at all bothered by deception and may even be more likely

to enjoy and learn from their experience participating in a study using this methodology.

(Boyton et. al., 2013). Thus, in this scenario, as is often the case with research, the end justifies

the means and with the use of debriefing participants can feel as though the deception was

necessary and justifiable. This also enables participants to feel as though they were a part of

ethical research.

There are times when the IRB exercises its power in a way that leaves research

participants in the dark. On occasion, under certain conditions, IRBs may waive written

documentation of informed consent or particular elements of the consent document, and can also
THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Kulas 7

approve studies that use deception, or approve the use of financial incentives for participation, as

illustrated in published psychological studies (The Institutional Review, 2016). This is not to

say that consent is not present, however, if there is no record of written consent provided to the

participants they run the risk of participants not being fully aware of their role in the study as

aspects of the study may have been overlooked or missed when it was verbally confirmed. There

is also the risk of participants not fully understanding any possible harm that could come to them

from participating in the experiment if there is no written consent form for them to read prior to

participating in the experiment (Eissenberg, Panicker, Berenbaum, Epley, Fendrich, Kelso,

Simmerling, 2002).

However, it is important to understand the fundamental role of the IRB; in essence,

IRBs are obligated to interpret regulations in a manner consistent with the local environment,

understanding that local environments differ substantially from each other and even differ across

time Protection of human participants is of the utmost importance for practical and ethical

reasons (The Institutional Review, 2016). Although the role of the IRB is to protect the

participants, it sometimes waves the need for the protection protocol when it sees fit. Cases such

are this occur when there is a very low chance of psychological or physical harm to the

participant and the study demonstrates promise of adding substantial knowledge to the field. For

this reason, non-scientist members bring an important perspective to the IRB review process, as

they may advocate the views of potential research participants more effectively than may

scientist members (The Institutional Review, 2016). This allows for people removed from that

particular field of research to give an unbiased opinion on the methodology of the research with
THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Kulas 8

the participants safety in mind. They are also able to separate the potential benefits (to science,

society and the participants) of the research from the situation (Baumrind, 1985).

While there is always the possibility of psychological harm in an experiment, deception

creates an environment where many are concerned about the possibility of it occurring more than

when deception is not present. Many presume that if a participant is aware of the researchers

goals that he or she can elect to leave the experiment before any psychological harm is caused.

While the participants have the same ability to elect to leave an experiment, when deception is

used they are not fully aware of the aim of the experiment and may not be able to elect to leave

in time. The use of deception has been used in many historically prevalent research studies which

have proven pivotal to advancements in psychological research.

Without the use of deception, psychological research faces many potential cofounding

variables. The occurrence of self-fulfilling prophecies and participant bias was addressed above,

however deception can also introduce variables that work against and confound the research.

One such instance is false feedback; one deceptive element commonly cited as potentially

harmful is false feedback ostensibly derived from an evaluative task or test. Some have

suggested that participants may feel demeaned or have decreased self-esteem if they believe this

feedback (Boyton, et. al., 2013). The possibility of false feedback influencing the research when

deception is employed is high due to its nature in creating an environment where psychological

harm can occur. Thus, if a participant feels as though they are not worthy, due to a decrease in

self-esteem from the false feedback, it could have lasting negative effects on the individual.
THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Kulas 9

There is also the possibility of deception influencing the data that is being collected.

Boyton wrote, Deception may result in more suspicious or contaminated pools of research

participants. Participants may be aware of deception but not say so because they are embarrassed

or trying to be compliant (Boyton, et. al., 2013). Thus, if the participants are aware that

deception is being employed or are suspicious of it, the behavior observed by the researchers will

not be genuine and will influence the data being collected and potentially the conclusions that are

drawn from the research. It will also not accurately represent the situation they are aiming to

study. It is also important to consider that the risk of psychological harm exists every time

deception is employed. While the researcher always aims to minimize harm to the participant it

cannot be eradicated; There are psychological risks to consider, in addition to social risks and

more. The potential risk factor can vary in seriousness from one project to the next, but there is

no getting around the fact that the risk potential exists in virtually all psychological research

projects (11 Pros, 2015). Thus, there is the worry that deception creates too high a risk of

psychological harm to the participant and is never justifiable.

When both sides of the deception argument are weighed against one another it is clear to

see why the topic has become a source of contention. Although advancements in the field of

psychology are imperative for the well-being of humanity and its mental health, it is also

important to be conscious of the unintentional effects the research has on its participants. While

it may have been misused in the landmark studies such as the Milgram behavioral study and the

Stanford Prison Experiment, the Institutional Review Board and the American Psychological

Association have taken measures to ensure history does not repeat itself. With a clear

methodology for review of procedures before any research is conducted participant harm is
THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Kulas 10

minimized. Although it is regrettable, the times when psychological harm can occur measures

are taken to ensure that it is as minimal as possible and that it is imperative to the nature of the

research as well as making substantial contributions to the field. Thus, considering the

advancements it has aided in the field the use of deception in psychological research should be

continued.
THE USE OF DECEPTION IN PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Kulas 11

References

Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American

Psychologist, 40(2), 165-174. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.40.2.165

Blass, T. (2000). Obedience to Authority: current perspectives on the Milgram paradigm.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boyton, M. H., Portnoy, D. B., & Johnson, B. T. (2013). Exploring the Ethics and Psychological

Impact of Deception in Psychological Research. IRB, 35(2), 713.

Eissenberg, T., Panicker, S., Berenbaum, S., Epley, N., Fendrich, M., Kelso, R., . . . Simmerling,

M. (2002). IRBs and Psychological Science: Ensuring a Collaborative Relationship.

Retrieved October 30, 2017, from http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/irbs-psych-

science.aspx

Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2016). Http://ljournal.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/d-2016-

154.pdf. Ethics and Behavior, 18(1), 59-92. doi:10.18411/d-2016-154

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. (2015, August 24). Retrieved October 30, 2017, from

https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/self-fulfilling-prophecy

Shuttleworth, M. (2008). Deception and Research. Retrieved October 29, 2017, from

https://explorable.com/deception-and-research

Stricker, L. J., Messick, S., & Jackson, D. N. (1968). Evaluating deception in psychological

research. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 343-351. doi:10.1037/h0027232

The Institutional Review Board (IRB): A college planning guide. (2016). Retrieved October 26,

2017, from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/ptacc/irb-college-guide.pdf

11 Pros and Cons of Deception in Psychological Research. (2015, August 26). Retrieved October

30, 2017, from https://healthresearchfunding.org/11-pros-and-cons-of-deception-in-

psychological-research/