Deception in psychological research

Fraud is repeatedly attacked, morally unacceptable, and morally condemned. However, subjects involved in experiments that are not fraudulent and impersonate will enjoy this experience more, gain more educational interests and do not mind being cheated or invading privacy It is indicated by. These evidences suggest that fraud is immoral from a moral point of view, but from the perspective of research participants it is not considered an aversion, undesirable, or unacceptable way. An unacceptable fraud repeating hypothesis is believed because fraudulent behavior is evaluated only from the perspective of moral philosophy. This led to the repeat conclusion that fraud should be condemned and should appear to have created a perceptual set that can be regarded as soon as possible. However, in the investigation of harmless public behavior, there seems to be little recognition about the nature of immoral fraud, and the risk of research on research participants or private behavior is increased in the research. If this knowledge is combined with the fact that research participants are willing to be fooled and sometimes considered immoral without researching an important problem, the scale tends to continue to use fraud research in psychology It seems.

While these developments may lead to a significant reduction in deceptive behavior in psychological research and ultimately to solve the ethical controversies it has caused, both situations are difficult to achieve. My analysis of the content of misuse frequency in major journals of social psychology reveals its continued use in numerous human behavior studies (Kimmel, 2001, 2004). This includes the use of aggressive fraud (ie delegation of fraud such as allowing researchers to publicly mislead participants to deceive certain aspects of the investigation) and up to 35 studies using passive fraud Up to% is included. As researchers intentionally hide relevant information of participants)

New concerns about the potential harm of fraudulent methods in psychological research have raised interest in this topic and some IRBs place severe restrictions on the implementation of fraudulent methods. The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychological impact of certain deceptive factors in psychological research. In this survey I looked at three types of fraud, an explanation of deceptive work, error feedback, and experimenter's behavior by non-experts. The results show that task fraud and false feedback do not compromise the participants 'emotions and confidence in psychological researchers, but researchers' non-technical behavior is so. These findings suggest that we need to reevaluate the assumed risks of fraudulent methods and emphasize the experimenter's professionalism and appropriate training and supervision of researchers.