Pittenger David J
Department of Psychology, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Ave., Chattanooga, TN 37403, USA.
Ethics Behav. 2002;12(2):117-42. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1202_1.
The use of deception in psychological research continues to be a controversial topic. Using Rawls's explication of utilitarianism, I attempt to demonstrate how professional organizations, such as the American Psychological Association, can provide more specific standards that determine the permissibility of deception in research. Specifically, I argue that researchers should examine the costs and benefits of creating and applying specific rules governing deception. To that end, I offer 3 recommendations. First, that researchers who use deception provide detailed accounts of the procedures they used to minimize the harm created by deception in their research reports. Second, that the American Psychological Association offer a definition of deception that describes techniques commonly used in research. Finally, I recommend that the informed consent procedure be revised to indicate that the researcher may use deception as part of the study.
在心理学研究中使用欺骗手段仍然是一个有争议的话题。利用罗尔斯对功利主义的阐释，我试图证明像美国心理学会这样的专业组织如何能够提供更具体的标准，以确定研究中欺骗行为的可允许性。具体而言，我认为研究人员应该审视制定和应用关于欺骗行为的特定规则的成本与收益。为此，我提出三条建议。第一，使用欺骗手段的研究人员应在其研究报告中详细说明他们为将欺骗在研究中造成的伤害降至最低所采用的程序。第二，美国心理学会应给出一个欺骗行为的定义，描述研究中常用的手段。最后，我建议修订知情同意程序，以表明研究人员可能会将欺骗作为研究的一部分。
