When we look at psychology and attempt to decide whether or not deception is related in some psychological research the results seem obvious. In a psychological journal known as the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in 1979, 58.5% of the studies involved some sort of deception (Epley). One of the most commonly used substitutes in all of psychological research is the placebo. The most common form of a placebo is a pill that actually has nochemical effects on the person taking it. It is most commonly a sugar pill, used in experiments to ensure that the results obtained are actually resulting from the real pill and not a mental change from the patient due to the thought that they are taking the real pills; when in reality they are taking the sugar pills. When you do such an experiment and the results you get show that a percent of your independent variables were affected by the sugar pill, the effect is known as the ‘Placebo Effect’. The placebo seems to be and is a perfectly harmless tool used to judge the outcome of an experiment, however, it is still a major form of deception.
I used the placebo effect as an example of a justifiable method of using a tool in a psychological experiment to retrieve acceptable data because it is harmless. So what types of deception cross the line and break ethical boundaries? The example of the shock therapy teaching we talked about in class is a perfect situation where deception is crossing the line. In this experiment, the teacher was the participant and was thought to be teaching a person hooked up to a shock device. The person in the device was actually an actor who was told to shake violently simulating a shock when the teacher ‘disciplined him’ for getting an incorrect answer. The experiment went as far as the participant believing they may have even killed the student. The scary thing is, when prompted by the person conducting the experiment, most participants would continue to shock the student, regardless of the student’s ability to respond, or even have consciousness. This type of experience could have life-altering effects and potentially cause the need for personal therapy. In my opinion, this is going way too far. This amount of deception is not necessary and is why these type of experiments are no longer conducted. Who knows what kind of effects those participants will be under for the rest of their lives. Even though you haven’t actually done anyone any harm, your mind and body could certainly be under the interpretation that you have.
Even though we have some extreme cases of deception like the example I spoke of above, participants who experience deception in an experiment generally have a positive outlook on deception afterwards, commonly claiming that it was ‘fun'(Eply). There is however a growing problem with the use of deception in psychology, as theorized by a man named Herbert Kelman. In 1967, Herbert Kelman theorized that the common use of deception in psychology would eventually lead to a giant pool of suspicious participants. He figured after some amount of time, anyone who would volunteer for a psychological study would be pre-disposed to the idea of deception in the experiment, thus altering the results significantly. The evidence to prove this
theory through experiments since then has been inconclusive (Eply). I would think that over a long enough period of time, people would obviously start to figure out that something is going on while participating in an experiment. I know this because I am undergoing this same effect while sitting in class. I am certainly biased when my professor goes to show us an example of something, or give us some test. I know that there is potential for some form of deception, and I immediately ready myself for it. I have no idea why this same concept would not reach out to an entire population.
“Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work. Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior, and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm. Psychologists consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and institutions to the extent needed to serve the best interests of those with whom they work. They are concerned about the ethical compliance of their colleagues’ scientific and professional conduct. Psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage (APA)”.
Using this direct quote from the APA and what I have read in Nicholas Epley’s Journal Article, I believe that there is a very fine line to where deception in psychology becomes un- ethical. In my opinion, deception should certainly be used in psychological testing in which it is harmless and is necessary for a better result. As I previously stated, the use of a placebo is harmless and a great way to find out whether something is actually working or not. On the other hand, deception should not be used to gain personal information out of participants, exploit them in any way or harm them in any manner.
I guess all in all, it really just comes down to the individual experiment you are doing and how fierce the amount of deception you are applying to your experiment is. I find it nearly impossible that anybody could tell me that all form of deception is completely un-ethical and should be excluded from experiments. Take a look around. Every single day we have tests at college where some of the answers on a multiple choice question are deceptive. They do that to test us to see if we really know the subject material. Deception is used by the media, governments, families and lots more. So what would make using deception in a psychological experiment to attempt to help someone and solve a problem so wrong?
In conclusion, I believe that deception is completely acceptable as long as it does not cause any long-lasting or devastating physical or mental harm or exploit the participants out of personal information. Harmless deception used in an experiment to help a population is worth it.
