I need help

[Eager Student]

Hi to everyone!

When psychologist do reasearch with human( or animals) participants, they follow certian ethical guidelines in order to protect the participants from harm.On the other hand, to get a genuine response from people, it is sometimes necessary to hide the true purpose of the study. This is called deception.

Can anyone briefly describe the general ethichal guidelines and discuss the use of deception, explaining why it is sometimes necessary, and why it may be problematic.Lastly, can you say what researchers specifically must do to minimise the possible harm caused by deception.

I will be grateful if anyone can attempt the above question so that I may share what I think about this important discussion.

Eager Student

[DavidOdden]

Can anyone briefly describe the general ethichal guidelines and discuss the use of deception, explaining why it is sometimes necessary, and why it may be problematic.

To find out what the actual guidelines are, you have to go to the official human subjects committee. This is a group of self-appointed experts in ethics, who are born with a special ethical sense organ that allows them to directly perceive what they think is unethical behavior. This committee is necessary in order to comply with federal guidelines, and so that if the institution is sued, the institution will be held harmless. The problem that arises is that expert-judged ethical behavior is a subset of actual ethical behavior, which often leads to cognitive dissonance (a form of harm, inflicted by the committee).

Lastly, can you say what researchers specifically must do to minimise the possible harm caused by deception.

Nothing, since no harm arises from deception. Harm may arise from some other practice, and the focus should be on the practice and not the deception. Thus, giving subjects poison but calling it candy does cause harm, which comes from the poison and not the lie. Normal people would not agree to eat poison, so the emphasis should be on not poisoning people, not on telling subjects every irrelevant detail. I'm describing the problem of medical ethics, where informed consent is a valid consideration. For psych studies, it's just silliness to pretend that people are harmed by deceptive experiments.

I take it we've just been duped by a psych grad student, who has harmlessly deceived us about some research project of his.

[Bold Standard]

For psych studies, it's just silliness to pretend that people are harmed by deceptive experiments.

Not necessarily (umm, unless you're just trying to be deceptive--but I think maybe you're getting deception confused with irony ; P).. Serious psychological harm can be done to a person by deceptive experiments in psych studies, as evidenced by the subjects of Stanely Milgam's controversial, deceptive obedience experiments (some were traumatized to the point of having seizures), and other similar types of deceptive psychological experiments, of the variety which is now usually considered to be unethical.

[Blinky]

Not necessarily (umm, unless you're just trying to be deceptive--but I think maybe you're getting deception confused with irony ; P).. Serious psychological harm can be done to a person by deceptive experiments in psych studies, as evidenced by the subjects of Stanely Milgam's controversial, deceptive obedience experiments (some were traumatized to the point of having seizures), and other similar types of deceptive psychological experiments, of the variety which is now usually considered to be unethical.

I have read somewhere that subjects of Milgram´s experiments had no problems. They have examined them after experiment and noone had any serious troubles. I guess it would need to have a look in his paper... Anyway I don´t think Milgram harmed them somehow, they had possibility of choice and if anyone had any trouble afterwards it had to be based on his optional behavior and remorses it caused.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Blinky

[Spano]

I take it we've just been duped by a psych grad student, who has harmlessly deceived us about some research project of his.

Sounds to me like somebody is fishing for homework answers.

[DavidOdden]

Serious psychological harm can be done to a person by deceptive experiments in psych studies, as evidenced by the subjects of Stanely Milgam's controversial, deceptive obedience experiments (some were traumatized to the point of having seizures), and other similar types of deceptive psychological experiments, of the variety which is now usually considered to be unethical.

Those were the electrocution studies, right? My point is that the harm came not from the deception itself, but from what he got subjects to do to others.

[Bold Standard]

Those were the electrocution studies, right? My point is that the harm came not from the deception itself, but from what he got subjects to do to others.

Yeah, the electrocution studies.

Well.. How about this.. Suppose someone were going to do a study on the reactions of parents, after they are told that one of their children has been killed. Wouldn't it make an ethical difference whether these people's children had actually died, or whether researchers were making up that they had died, for the sake of studying their reactions?

Well, that might not be a great example, becuase it's not the type of study people could really volunteer for anyway.. But my point is that it is possible to cause real psychological (and even physical, since it is directly tied to the psychological) harm to a person by giving him false information. I think it's unethical to expose subjects of an experiment to harm in that way.

I have read somewhere that subjects of Milgram´s experiments had no problems. They have examined them after experiment and noone had any serious troubles.

I believe your source was mistaken. I'll try and find some better sources when I have a chance..

[Bold Standard]

Anyway I don´t think Milgram harmed them somehow, they had possibility of choice and if anyone had any trouble afterwards it had to be based on his optional behavior and remorses it caused.

I'm not saying that the subjects were innocent in their actions.. But I do think the deception led in a direct way to the traumatic reaction of the subjects.. When the screams stopped, the subjects really thought that the people (who were really experimenters, but who the subjects thought were other subjects) had died, and that they were responsible for their deaths.. I think it's the gravity of that which hit them.. I think somehow they weren't expecting for that to actually happen, since the experimenters in the room with them kept telling them to go on, even though it was labeled as a lethal dose of electricity.

Anyway, I don't think Milgram knew how much the experiment would harm the subjects psychologically, but it would be unethical now to repeat such an experiment, since we do know that it can do harm.

[DavidOdden]

Well, that might not be a great example, becuase it's not the type of study people could really volunteer for anyway.. But my point is that it is possible to cause real psychological (and even physical, since it is directly tied to the psychological) harm to a person by giving him false information. I think it's unethical to expose subjects of an experiment to harm in that way.

If you can think of a better example, I'd like to see it. The main point, as I see it, is that experiments can cause harm of be innocuous. If they are innocuous, deception is irrelevant. If they can cause harm, then the subject must be apprised of the risk, so that they can properly consent. In a medical study, I think it's standard that subjects know that there is theoretical risk, and they cannot know whether they are being given the deadly drug or the harmless sugar pill, and they are willing to participate without knowing which. In the proposed child-death experiment, the harm does not come from the fact of lying about the report, it comes from the report. The difference comes from the fact that if a person's child has died, somebody really should report that fact, regardless of the harm. So again, I don't see where deception itself hurts a person. I think it comes down to whether an act harms a person, and whether the person accepts the potential harm.

[SteveCook]

...no harm arises from deception...

I must dissagree with you assertion that deception, in and of itself, does no harm.

If I use the most elementary example. Lets assume I were to ask you a question to which there was a singualr factually true answer, but for which there was no physical consequence to me of your telling me an untruth in response to the question. Lets assume we had a relationship of mutual trust. Thus mutual trust was born of a long series of engagements between us that allowed us to make certain positive asumptions about one another that we would be less likely to make of other individuals. If I were to discover that you had told me an untruth, whilst there were no physical consequences to the untruth, my ability to predict your intentions as regards my well being in any future engagement would be placed in jepordy as a result of my discovery. This would cause a psycholocial dissonance at the very least. Dissonance being defined as having two conflicting beliefs held at the same time. Psychological dissonance, by itself is deemed harmful. Physiologically measurably so in fact (extended periods of psychological dissonance are correlated with eleveated cortisone level, leading to increased risk of heart disease, strokes, cancer etc.). This is not to mention the possible damage to our relationship which might have unforseen physical/economic consequences for each of us.

I am trying to anticipate a possible response to my argument above. a particularlly obvious one might be to say that if I were never to discover the untruth, then no possible harm would ensue (psychological or otherwise). However, that means that your original assertion would need to be modified to something like the following....

No harm will arise from deception so long as the person being decieved is not subject to the following:

1) direct physical harm resulting from the deception itself

2) direct psycholgical harm (dissonance) resulting from knowledge of the deception potentially leading to indirect physical harm

Edited March 5, 2007 by SteveCook

[DavidOdden]

Lets assume I were to ask you a question to which there was a singualr factually true answer, but for which there was no physical consequence to me of your telling me an untruth in response to the question. Lets assume we had a relationship of mutual trust.

Then the people would not be in the experimenter - subject relationship. I suppose if a person weren't aware of that, it could arise, but anybody so clueless shouldn't be allowed to conduct experiments.

[Blinky]

I believe your source was mistaken. I'll try and find some better sources when I have a chance..

Milgram asked sample of his former experimental subjects about their feelings concerning the experience. He wrote that 84% said that they are glad that they took a part in experiment, 15% was neutral and 1% regretted their participation.

(Source: The Story of Psychology by Morton Hunt (great book by the way, I really enjoy it); translation from czech mine)

Edit: It´s different source than the one from which I have heard it or in which I have read it before.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Blinky

[Drew1776]

I'm not saying that the subjects were innocent in their actions.. But I do think the deception led in a direct way to the traumatic reaction of the subjects.. When the screams stopped, the subjects really thought that the people (who were really experimenters, but who the subjects thought were other subjects) had died, and that they were responsible for their deaths.. I think it's the gravity of that which hit them.. I think somehow they weren't expecting for that to actually happen, since the experimenters in the room with them kept telling them to go on, even though it was labeled as a lethal dose of electricity.

It is the subjects who were acting unethically. They were the ones willing to torture someone to death at the request of a researcher. Any "damage" they have stems from their action. I would feel pretty bad too if I realized that I would be willing to electrocute someone to death just for the hell of it (or cuz some random stranger told me to). These subjects were not in any danger, they were not forced to make a life or death decision (regarding their own life) there actions were made free of coercion. The study simply made the subjects conscious of their own depraved selves.

Anyway, I don't think Milgram knew how much the experiment would harm the subjects psychologically, but it would be unethical now to repeat such an experiment, since we do know that it can do harm.

The subjects were harmed psychologically by their own immorality. The researchers didn't do anything to the subjects. They merely allowed the subject to recognize a piece of themselves that was already there.

Now if the subjects were coerced in some way such as through threats etc. that would be a different story.

[DavidOdden]

It is the subjects who were acting unethically.

This is true; and in the perverted, twisted epistemology of modern behavioral research, it has been decided that any research that could tend to reveal character flaws of subjects is 'unethical', since facing reality is apparently evil.