On the (Mis)Use of Deception in Web-Based Research

B. Hilbig, Isabel Thielmann
{"title":"On the (Mis)Use of Deception in Web-Based Research","authors":"B. Hilbig, Isabel Thielmann","doi":"10.1027/2151-2604/a000466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. The deception of research participants remains a controversial issue in the behavioral sciences. Current ethics codes consistently limit the use of deception to cases in which non-deceptive alternatives are unfeasible and, crucially, require that participants subjected to deception be debriefed correspondingly along with an option to withdraw their data after learning about the deception. These conditions pose a particular challenge in the context of web-based research because participants can typically discontinue a study unilaterally (i.e., dropout by simply closing the browser window) in which case full debriefing and an option to withdraw one’s data are no longer available. As a consequence, the study would no longer be compatible with ethical standards. Based on recent meta-analytical data, we provide an existence proof of this problem, showing that deception is used in web-based research with little to no indication of safeguards ensuring full debriefing and subsequent data withdrawal options. We close by revisiting recommendations for the (non-)use of deception in web-based research and offer solutions to implement such safeguards in case deception is truly unavoidable.","PeriodicalId":263823,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für Psychologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000466","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract. The deception of research participants remains a controversial issue in the behavioral sciences. Current ethics codes consistently limit the use of deception to cases in which non-deceptive alternatives are unfeasible and, crucially, require that participants subjected to deception be debriefed correspondingly along with an option to withdraw their data after learning about the deception. These conditions pose a particular challenge in the context of web-based research because participants can typically discontinue a study unilaterally (i.e., dropout by simply closing the browser window) in which case full debriefing and an option to withdraw one’s data are no longer available. As a consequence, the study would no longer be compatible with ethical standards. Based on recent meta-analytical data, we provide an existence proof of this problem, showing that deception is used in web-based research with little to no indication of safeguards ensuring full debriefing and subsequent data withdrawal options. We close by revisiting recommendations for the (non-)use of deception in web-based research and offer solutions to implement such safeguards in case deception is truly unavoidable.
论网络研究中欺骗行为的(错误)运用
摘要研究参与者的欺骗行为在行为科学中一直是一个有争议的问题。目前的道德规范一直将欺骗的使用限制在非欺骗方法不可行的情况下,并且至关重要的是,要求遭受欺骗的参与者进行相应的汇报,并在了解欺骗后选择撤回他们的数据。这些情况对基于网络的研究构成了特别的挑战,因为参与者通常可以单方面停止研究(即,通过简单地关闭浏览器窗口退出),在这种情况下,完整的汇报和撤回数据的选项不再可用。因此,这项研究将不再符合伦理标准。基于最近的元分析数据,我们提供了这一问题的存在证据,表明在基于网络的研究中使用了欺骗,几乎没有迹象表明有保障措施确保充分的汇报和随后的数据撤回选择。最后,我们回顾了在基于网络的研究中(不)使用欺骗的建议,并提供了在欺骗确实不可避免的情况下实施此类保护措施的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信