III. DECEPTION in RESEARCH
Laura Stark (2005, p. 2) recognizes that there has been tension in psychology research between the moral abhorrence associated with deception in research, and the perception of its necessity. According to Stark (p. 3), the federal government realized the necessity of regulation in terms of deception in psychological research. This realization brought about the National Research Act of 1973, according to which certain guidelines and regulations were established to take into account the rights of human subjects in research. In the same year, researchers were also provided with the right to not fully disclose the details of research if this were considered to be necessary.
Stark (p. 10) notes that the main reasons for deception in psychological research during the 1950s and 1960s related to the validity of research in terms of human subjects in a "natural" setting. The setting was considered to be more natural if subjects did not receive full disclosure related to the nature of the study. In such cases, a degree of deception was therefore considered to be acceptable.
A further complication that Stark (p. 15) notes is the fact that there are divergent ideas on what the term deception in fact refers to, and to which degree such practices can be considered acceptable. The Purdue University (2009) for example makes a distinction between deception and concealment. Concealment is defined as non-disclosure of all the details of the research for the purpose of preserving the validity of the results, whereas deception is taken to mean that participants receive information that is deliberately untrue. According to Stark, however, the two terms are merely deception in different degrees.
Stark (2005, p. 19) concludes that the ethics and deception concepts in psychological research are still very much in contention. However, the extreme focus on human rights and autonomy today has evolved greatly since the 1970s, which is the focus of Stark's paper....
Indeed, the moral abhorrence connected with the practice has largely grown to outweigh any perceptions to its necessity. Indeed, Stark also notes that not all psychological professionals feel that deception has significantly contributed to the body of psychological research to the degree that it could be justified.
IV. IMPACT on PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
The body of research in psychology has grown concomitantly with misgivings about the necessity of deception in terms of human subjects. Perhaps the profession has arrived at a time when deception is no longer necessary: human subjects have become much more sophisticated in terms of their rights and knowledge, while psychological research has grown to the extent where sufficient research can be conducted with full disclosure to human subjects.
In terms of human rights today, it is expected that all professions conducting research that might be harmful in any way fully disclose such potential harm to human subjects. It is also expected that human subjects be compensated for their participation either in the form of financial compensation or by some other means.
Both the psychological and other professional persons today recognize the need to conduct research according to a strict set of ethical rules. This is the basis upon which society exists and operates. Ethics is important in maintaining the reputation of the psychological profession, without which it would not reach its full potential in serving humanity.
References
Purdue University (2009). Committee on the Use of Human Research Subjects. http://www.irb.purdue.edu/deception.shtml
Stark, Laura (2005, Jan 18). "Negotiating the Ethics of Deception: Methods, Morality, and Human Subjects in American Psychology, 1966-1973" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Marriott Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA Online . 2009-02-05 at http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p22813_index.html
