Follow-up Analysis of the Use of Deception and Aversive Contingencies in Psychological Experiments

Pihl, Robert O.; Zacchia, Camillo; Zeichner, Amos

doi:10.2466/pr0.1981.48.3.927

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kimmel's (1998) conclusion seems to rest on the following five observations: First, participants in general do not seem to express negative feelings (i.e., regret having participated) about their experience in deception experiments (e.g., Milgram, 1964;Pihl, Zacchia, & Zeichner, 1981;Ring, Wallston, & Corey, 1970;C. P. Smith, 1981).…”

Section: Does Deception Breed No Resentment?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Does Deception Breed No Resentment?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…ously. Many of these questions and the assessed constructs are similar to those used in prior research (e.g., Britton et al, 1983;Pihl et al, 1981;. Moreover, items that assessed responses to a particular procedure (e.g., distress related to the use of electric shocks) also reflected conceptually different aspects of that procedure (e.g., concerns in response to receiving vs. administering electric shocks).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…A separate research group (Pihl, Zacchia, & Zeichner, 1981) sampled 78 men who had participated in studies that used the TAP to examine the effects of alcohol on aggressive behavior. Results indicated that 4% of the sample reported disturbances due to the deception and 5% reported disturbance related to the administration or receipt of electric shocks.…”

Section: Potential Effects Of Participating In Laboratory Aggression ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate and short-term reactions to participation in laboratory aggression research.

Parrott

Miller

Hudepohl

2015

Psychology of Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research assessed self-reported reactions to participation in a laboratory aggression paradigm immediately postexperiment and at 1-week follow-up. Method: Three hundred nineteen men completed a competitive laboratory aggression task that involved deception and mild electric shocks that were received from, and administered to, a fictitious opponent. Participants' aggressive ideation was assessed immediately after participation, whereas their aggressive ideation and self-reported reactions to experimental procedures were assessed approximately 1 week later. Results: Participation did not increase respondents' self-reported likelihood of engaging in aggressive behavior after completing the aggression task or at 1-week follow-up. The percentage of participants who reported inflicted insight was extremely low (approximately 1%), and this experience was associated with little distress. At 1-week follow-up, 98% of participants reported little or no adverse effects in response to the use of deception and electric shocks. Conclusion: The likelihood of adverse consequences in response to participation in laboratory aggression research is low. Of particular importance, participation is not associated with inflicted insight or an increased likelihood of engaging in aggression following participation. Findings may assist institutional review boards and researchers in making more informed analyses of the risks and benefits of laboratory aggression research.

show abstract

“…The behavioral sciences may serve as a useful model for the development of a program of research to assess the impact of deception at the disciplinary level for marketing. Several evaluations of research participants' reactions to deception experiments in psychology have been reported (e.g., Christensen, 1988;Pihl, Zacchia, & Zeichner, 1981;C. P. Smith, 1981;S.…”

Section: Disciplinary Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kimmėl

Smith

2001

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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-

show abstract

Follow-up Analysis of the Use of Deception and Aversive Contingencies in Psychological Experiments

Cited by 14 publications

References 2 publications

Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense

Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense

Immediate and short-term reactions to participation in laboratory aggression research.

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About