Truthtelling+and+Deception

=__**Truthtelling and Deception**__ =

**I. How does truth telling and deception affect research proposals?**

Truth telling and deception is a two-sided argument that dramatically affects the validity and reliability of a research studies. According to Cottrell & McKenzie “deception is “the deliberate withholding of, or misinforming about, important information associated with research” (Cottrell & McKenzie 2011). Therefore deceiving or withholding vital information regarding the components that makeup a particular research study can often cause the data gathered from the participant to be considered inaccurate or void. Any information that is miscued or not properly outlined to the participant can also sway answers given by participants. This jeopardizes the validity and reliability of the participant’s responses, their behaviors being measured, as well as the research study itself (Cottrell & McKenzie 2011).

Although arguments have been made stating deception is essential for some research studies. Benhem states, “ if the research subjects were aware of certain aspects of the experiment, they would respond quite differently. In order to capture realistic or ecologically valid behavior in participants deception is necessary for some research” (Benhem 2008). This conflicting opinion ensues that deception does not necessarily make participants data invalid but in fact makes it more creditable and reliable. The researchers that use deception practices in their research proposals argue that if participants knew all aspects of the research study they are participating in they would maybe alter their responses accordingly (Benhem 2005). Also according to Weiss, “it has been argued that deception in research is some- what different from other types of deception, since research is for the disinterested pursuit of knowledge and good of mankind” (Weiss 1980).

 Finally According to Miller, Wendler, & Swartzman, “ when deception is used, a conflict between the means and ends of scientific investigation ensues: the end of discovering the truth is pursued by the means of deliberate untruth” (Miller, Wendler, & Swartzman 2005). Overall determining whether or not deception will strengthen the validity of a research study or undermine it is a difficult decision. But it is important for researchers to understand that utilizing truth telling or deception can affect research proposals.

**II. What must be considered?**

We must consider that misleading or deceiving participants about specific aspects of a study may violate a principle of autonomy. According to Benham, “ deceptive methods fundamentally undermine a person’s autonomy, which in bioethical terms means the person is not given an adequate opportunity for informed consent.3 Misleading an individual about the potential harms or other substantive features of the experiment effectively hinders the participant’s ability to make a rational, self-determined decision about participating in the research” (Benham 2008). In other words if a participant is not informed of all the aspects of a research study he or she may have chosen to not participate based on health reasons or moral code. Misinforming the participants of certain aspects of a research proposal may also unintentionally physically harm the participants.

According to Benhem, another consideration is “that research participants, upon learning of the deception, may feel duped, embarrassed, and distressed at being deceived; or worse, the deception may reveal something undesirable in the participant’s own character, thus negatively affecting the participant’s self-esteem and possibly leading to long- term harm” (Benhem 2008). Utilizing these deceptive techniques can emotionally damage the participants based on the results gathered from the research that they were only partially informed or deceived about.

Moral considerations and the reputation of the research study must also be taken in to deliberation. “Given growing public awareness of past abuses in the treatment of human subjects, many worry about the long-term effect the use of deception will have on the moral underpinnings of the profession and on public support” (Benhem 2008). Studies that use deception in their research studies may lose public support and sponsorship because of their illusive practices utilized.

Another consideration is the degree of the deception practices. According to Kimmel, Smith, & Klein, “deceptions differ according to the degree of severity of their potential negative effects, a crucial consideration that must enter into decisions about whether to proceed with a study as planned” (E. Lawson, 2001). “Severe deceptions can be expected to create negative affect both during and after actual participation in the research (e.g., upset or anxiety linked to a reduced self-image), whereas mild deceptions are unlikely to create negative beliefs and affect until the debriefing session (e.g., disappointment that the study was not really supported by an alleged sponsor)” (Kimmel, Smith, & Klein 2011).

 To finish “ once used as a matter of course in human participant research, deceptive procedures are now subject to rigorous scrutiny both within and outside the discipline: Their use must be justified by the methodological objectives of the research investigation; their potential for harm must be determined and addressed; and their application generally must conform to professional guidelines, legal strictures, and review board oversight" (Kimmel, Smith, & Klein 2011).

**III. What challenges does it represent for research around sexuality related research?**

Being deceptive when performing research poses concerns that are not exclusive to sexuality research. Professional organizations generally have a code of ethics that would have strict guidelines for conducting research. Violation of these codes may result in removal from the organizations and possible loss of practice privileges. The American Psychological Association, in their 2010 amendment to their Ethical Principals of Psychologists and Code of Conduct document have stated that psychologists should provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research as well as correcting any misconceptions that the psychologist has been made aware of. The psychologist should also take reasonable steps to reduce harm if the information must be withheld for a time and to take reasonable steps to minimize harm (APA, 2010). This does not state that deception cannot be used but infers that there should be reasonable attempts to avoid this and any harm caused by it to the best of one’s ability. The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) also has a code of ethics which states that its members should only be involved in research that requires investigators to be truthful and honest with their subjects (2004).

Prior to conducting research the informed consent and assent must be attained for its participants. Giving informed consent means that the potential participants have been properly informed about the study and agree to participate (Cottrell & McKenzie, 2011). The logical conclusion would be that if there is deception on the part of the researchers then the participants would not have been given all the necessary information about the research in order to make an informed decision about wanting to be in the study nor give consent to be in the study (Benham, 2008).

The result of deceptive practices can be in inflicted insight and embarrassment of the participants, the image of science is lowered, general mistrust of others and reduced self-confidence of the participants ( Kimmel, Smith & Klein, 2011). This practice would prevent many people from wanting to participate in research and breeds a general distrust for people who may otherwise be able to provide much needed services as a result of the research. In some communities the mistrust of medical professions can be justified by the history of deceptive research practices such as in the Tuskegee Syphilis study (Thomas & Crouse Quinn, 1991).

**IV. An Example that Illustrates Deception**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">One of the most infamous cases of deceptive practices that exemplifies the seriousness of performing ethical research is the Tuskegee Syphilis study. In 1928, The Julius Rosenwald Fund approached the United States Public Health Service (PHS) in an effort to expand activities to improve the health status of Blacks in the rural South. The result was a study whose population originally consisted of 399 Black men with syphilis and 201 controls. The study was intended to last for 6 to 9 months but subsequently ran for 40-years. The continuation of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study was attributed to the collaboration among government and the community by using Tuskegee Institute, African American churches and health professionals to show some degree of cultural sensitivity toward the target population. The purpose of the study was to demonstrate that rural African Americans could be tested and treated for syphilis. There was also an underlying assumption that the natural progression of the disease was somehow different in African Americans than in Whites resulting in a desire to monitor the progression of the disease. The participants already lacked access to adequate health care and did not have an understanding of medical terminology. They were not educated of the severity of the disease they had acquired or how it was spread, nor were they treated adequately for the disease and its symptoms. This lay the foundation for the pervasive distrust of health professionals in the African American community to this day (Thomas & Crouse Quinn, 1991). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif;">

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists. (2004). Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">American Psychological Association. (2010). //Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.// Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from []

<span style="color: #262626; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Behman, B. (2008). THE UBIQUITY OF DECEPTION AND THE ETHICS OF DECEPTIVE RESEARCH. Bioethics, 22(3), 147-156. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00619.x

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Cottrell, R. R. & McKenzie, J. F. (2011). Health promotion and education research methods: Using the five-chapter thesis/dissertation model. 2nd Ed. Salisbury, MA. Jones & Bartlett.

<span style="color: #262626; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Kimmel, A. J., Smith, N., & Klein, J. (2011). Ethical Decision Making and Research Deception in the Behavioral Sciences: An Application of Social Contract Theory. Ethics & Behavior, 21(3), 222-251. doi:10.1080/10508422.2011.5701 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Miller, F. G., Wendler, D., & Swartzman, L. C. (2005). Deception in Research on the Placebo Effect. PLoS Medicine, 2(9), 853-859. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020262

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Thomas, S. B., & Crouse Quinn, S. (1991). The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: Implications for HIV Education and AIDS Risk Education Programs in the Black Community. //American Journal of Public Health//, 81(11), 1498-1505. Retrieved from EBSCO//host//.

<span style="color: #262626; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 110%;">Weiss, R. J. (1980). The Use and Abuse of Deception. American Journal of Public Health, 70(10), 1097-1098. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.