Deception in marketing research: Ethical, methodological, and disciplinary implications

Abstract

Although marketing researchers often find it necessary to deceive their research participants, little attention has been given within marketing to the ethical issues underlying the use of deception or to the potential consequences of deceptive research practices. This article provides a conceptual starting point for developing a more complete understanding of deception in marketing research, including an ethical analysis from the viewpoint of consequentialist and deontological theories of moral reasoning. A research agenda is outlined that draws on the extensive behavioral science literature on this topic and includes empirical questions relevant to the ethical, methodological, and disciplinary implications of using deceptive practices in marketing research. Despite a growing focus on the ethical issues inherent in the investigation of human participants, academic researchers in marketing have given relatively scant attention to the uses of ethically questionable research practices, such as deception, the invasion of privacy, and breaches of confidentiality. This inattention to the rightness and poten-

Social contract theory and the ethics of deception in consumer research

“…Deceptive research practices also have potentially negative implications for the field, as they may reduce trust within the academic community and diminish public trust in research (Bok, 1978;Kimmel & Smith, 2001;Singer, 1984; but see Pittenger, 2002 for an alternative view).…”

“…Considerable attention has been given to deceptive marketing practices (Aditya, 2001;Darke & Ritchie, 2007;Tybout & Zaltman, 1974), but few studies present a formal ethical analysis. Studies that have applied normative theories of ethics to deception in research (Atwell, 1981;Baumrind, 1985;Kimmel & Smith, 2001;Pittenger, 2002;Reynolds, 1982;Toy, Wright, & Olson, 2001) generally do not develop sufficiently detailed analysis and prescriptions to offer specific guidance for experimental consumer research. This paper, in contrast, while building on these studies, applies from first principles social contract theory (SCT), a prominent theory of normative ethics increasingly found in business ethics (e.g., Bailey & Spicer, 2007;Dunfee, Smith, & Ross, 1999;Dunfee, 2006).…”

Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense

“…As a consequence, the profession has succeeded in reducing the severity of deceptive methods used. Rosnow and Rosenthal, for instance, concluded that many of the seminal studies that were conducted then and that raised daunting ethical issues (e.g., Baumrind, 1964Baumrind, , 1971Baumrind, , 1985; see also Aguinis & Handelsman, 1997;Herrera, 1996;Kimmel & Smith, 2001) "would be impossible today" (p. 114).…”

Ethical Decision Making and Research Deception in the Behavioral Sciences: An Application of Social Contract Theory

“…Such an approach generally would preclude the use of any deception in research, because to deceive would violate an overriding obligation to always be completely honest with participants (Kimmel & Smith, 2001). The utilitarian approach, which underlies the weighing of costs and benefits in determining whether deception may be acceptable, is problematic in application because of the practical difficulties in identifying the likelihood and degree of all the potential consequences of an investigation and in objectively weighing them in order to determine whether the study can be carried out as planned.…”

“…Studies involving severe deceptions certainly are more difficult to justify when ethical principles are applied and are more likely to encounter problems when subjected to committee review, although mild deceptions also can be morally problematic. In fact, from some moral philosophy perspectives (e.g., certain duty-based theories), deception can be morally wrong even where the consequences are insignificant (Kimmel & Smith, 2001).…”