谎言里有什么?研究人员如何判断欺骗的正当性

Q2 Social Sciences
Kamiel Verbeke, Tomasz Krawczyk, Dieter Baeyens, Jan Piasecki, Pascal Borry
{"title":"谎言里有什么?研究人员如何判断欺骗的正当性","authors":"Kamiel Verbeke,&nbsp;Tomasz Krawczyk,&nbsp;Dieter Baeyens,&nbsp;Jan Piasecki,&nbsp;Pascal Borry","doi":"10.1002/eahr.60003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Research ethics guidance on deception does not seem to provide extensive support to researchers and ethics reviewers on how to assess the justifiability of specific deceptive studies. One potential explanation for this shortcoming is that guidance does not offer precise and coherent descriptions of the ethically relevant characteristics of deceptive studies. To facilitate the development of improved guidance, we report on the findings of interviews with a diverse group of 24 researchers who use deception. Interviewees discussed how the interests of participants, society, and researchers can be affected by characteristics of the deceptive methods used. These characteristics pertained to the deceptive act (i.e., false, truthlike, or vague information; standardized or flexible deception), participants’ belief formation (i.e., credibility and suspicions), and deception-induced behaviors and experiences (i.e., consent validity, negative value, and duration of induced study behaviors and experiences). In addition, researchers described as ethically relevant the characteristics of the social context in which deceptive studies were embedded. These characteristics related to the deceiver-participant relationship and the participants’ community. Overall, our study contributes to a more coherent and precise, as well as complex and nuanced, understanding of the study characteristics that affect the justifiability of deception.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"47 3","pages":"13-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What's in a Lie? How Researchers Judge the Justifiability of Deception\",\"authors\":\"Kamiel Verbeke,&nbsp;Tomasz Krawczyk,&nbsp;Dieter Baeyens,&nbsp;Jan Piasecki,&nbsp;Pascal Borry\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.60003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Research ethics guidance on deception does not seem to provide extensive support to researchers and ethics reviewers on how to assess the justifiability of specific deceptive studies. One potential explanation for this shortcoming is that guidance does not offer precise and coherent descriptions of the ethically relevant characteristics of deceptive studies. To facilitate the development of improved guidance, we report on the findings of interviews with a diverse group of 24 researchers who use deception. Interviewees discussed how the interests of participants, society, and researchers can be affected by characteristics of the deceptive methods used. These characteristics pertained to the deceptive act (i.e., false, truthlike, or vague information; standardized or flexible deception), participants’ belief formation (i.e., credibility and suspicions), and deception-induced behaviors and experiences (i.e., consent validity, negative value, and duration of induced study behaviors and experiences). In addition, researchers described as ethically relevant the characteristics of the social context in which deceptive studies were embedded. These characteristics related to the deceiver-participant relationship and the participants’ community. Overall, our study contributes to a more coherent and precise, as well as complex and nuanced, understanding of the study characteristics that affect the justifiability of deception.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"47 3\",\"pages\":\"13-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.60003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.60003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于欺骗的研究伦理指导似乎没有为研究人员和伦理审稿人提供广泛的支持,以评估特定欺骗研究的合理性。对这一缺陷的一个可能解释是,指南没有对欺骗性研究的伦理相关特征提供精确和连贯的描述。为了促进改进指导的发展,我们报告了对24名使用欺骗的不同研究人员的访谈结果。受访者讨论了所使用的欺骗方法的特点如何影响参与者、社会和研究人员的利益。这些特征与欺骗行为有关(即虚假的、真实的或模糊的信息;标准化或灵活欺骗),参与者的信念形成(即可信度和怀疑),以及欺骗诱导的行为和经历(即同意效度,负价值,诱导的研究行为和经历的持续时间)。此外,研究人员还将欺骗性研究所处的社会背景特征描述为与伦理相关。这些特征与欺骗-参与者关系和参与者群体有关。总的来说,我们的研究有助于更连贯、更精确、更复杂、更细致地理解影响欺骗正当性的研究特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What's in a Lie? How Researchers Judge the Justifiability of Deception

Research ethics guidance on deception does not seem to provide extensive support to researchers and ethics reviewers on how to assess the justifiability of specific deceptive studies. One potential explanation for this shortcoming is that guidance does not offer precise and coherent descriptions of the ethically relevant characteristics of deceptive studies. To facilitate the development of improved guidance, we report on the findings of interviews with a diverse group of 24 researchers who use deception. Interviewees discussed how the interests of participants, society, and researchers can be affected by characteristics of the deceptive methods used. These characteristics pertained to the deceptive act (i.e., false, truthlike, or vague information; standardized or flexible deception), participants’ belief formation (i.e., credibility and suspicions), and deception-induced behaviors and experiences (i.e., consent validity, negative value, and duration of induced study behaviors and experiences). In addition, researchers described as ethically relevant the characteristics of the social context in which deceptive studies were embedded. These characteristics related to the deceiver-participant relationship and the participants’ community. Overall, our study contributes to a more coherent and precise, as well as complex and nuanced, understanding of the study characteristics that affect the justifiability of deception.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信