4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      On the (Mis)Use of Deception in Web-Based Research : Challenges and Recommendations

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract. The deception of research participants remains a controversial issue in the behavioral sciences. Current ethics codes consistently limit the use of deception to cases in which non-deceptive alternatives are unfeasible and, crucially, require that participants subjected to deception be debriefed correspondingly along with an option to withdraw their data after learning about the deception. These conditions pose a particular challenge in the context of web-based research because participants can typically discontinue a study unilaterally (i.e., dropout by simply closing the browser window) in which case full debriefing and an option to withdraw one’s data are no longer available. As a consequence, the study would no longer be compatible with ethical standards. Based on recent meta-analytical data, we provide an existence proof of this problem, showing that deception is used in web-based research with little to no indication of safeguards ensuring full debriefing and subsequent data withdrawal options. We close by revisiting recommendations for the (non-)use of deception in web-based research and offer solutions to implement such safeguards in case deception is truly unavoidable.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.

          Decades of research document individual differences in prosocial behavior using controlled experiments that model social interactions in situations of interdependence. However, theoretical and empirical integration of the vast literature on the predictive validity of personality traits to account for these individual differences is missing. Here, we present a theoretical framework that identifies 4 broad situational affordances across interdependent situations (i.e., exploitation, reciprocity, temporal conflict, and dependence under uncertainty) and more specific subaffordances within certain types of interdependent situations (e.g., possibility to increase equality in outcomes) that can determine when, which, and how personality traits should be expressed in prosocial behavior. To test this framework, we meta-analyzed 770 studies reporting on 3,523 effects of 8 broad and 43 narrow personality traits on prosocial behavior in interdependent situations modeled in 6 commonly studied economic games (Dictator Game, Ultimatum Game, Trust Game, Prisoner's Dilemma, Public Goods Game, and Commons Dilemma). Overall, meta-analytic correlations ranged between -.18 ≤ ρ̂ ≤ .26, and most traits yielding a significant relation to prosocial behavior had conceptual links to the affordances provided in interdependent situations, most prominently the possibility for exploitation. Moreover, for several traits, correlations within games followed the predicted pattern derived from a theoretical analysis of affordances. On the level of traits, we found that narrow and broad traits alike can account for prosocial behavior, informing the bandwidth-fidelity problem. In sum, the meta-analysis provides a theoretical foundation that can guide future research on prosocial behavior and advance our understanding of individual differences in human prosociality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The internet as psychological laboratory.

            This chapter reviews studies published in American Psychological Association (APA) journals from 2003-2004 and additional studies (received in response to listserv requests) that used the Internet to collect data (N=121 total studies). Specific examples of three kinds of Web-based research are reviewed: (a) translational (established methods and research questions are adapted to the Web), (b) phenomenological (behavior on the Web is the focus of study), and (c) novel (methodologically innovations unique to Web-based research). Among other findings, our review indicated that 21% of APA journals published at least one article that reported on Web-based research, most Web-based psychological research uses experimental methods, a surprising number use college student samples, and deception in Web-based research is not uncommon. Strengths and weaknesses of Web-based psychological research in general, and our sample of studies in particular, are reviewed with special attention to possible concerns about sampling and the use of deception.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Human research and data collection via the internet.

              Advantages and disadvantages of Web and lab research are reviewed. Via the World Wide Web, one can efficiently recruit large, heterogeneous samples quickly, recruit specialized samples (people with rare characteristics), and standardize procedures, making studies easy to replicate. Alternative programming techniques (procedures for data collection) are compared, including client-side as opposed to server-side programming. Web studies have methodological problems; for example, higher rates of drop out and of repeated participation. Web studies must be thoroughly analyzed and tested before launching on-line. Many studies compared data obtained in Web versus lab. These two methods usually reach the same conclusions; however, there are significant differences between college students tested in the lab and people recruited and tested via the Internet. Reasons that Web researchers are enthusiastic about the potential of the new methods are discussed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                zfp
                Zeitschrift für Psychologie
                Hogrefe Publishing
                2190-8370
                2151-2604
                December 17, 2021
                December 2021
                : 229
                : 4 , Topical Issue: Web-Based Research in Psychology
                : 225-229
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Cognitive Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Landau, Germany
                Author notes
                Benjamin E. Hilbig, Cognitive Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Fortstraße 7, 76829 Landau, Germany, hilbig@ 123456uni-landau.de
                Article
                zfp_229_4_225
                10.1027/2151-2604/a000466
                1d87f45c-ad65-4f7e-a7e9-b86e060c35dd
                Distributed as a Hogrefe OpenMind article under the license CC BY-NC 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0)

                Distributed as a Hogrefe OpenMind article under the license CC BY-NC 4.0 ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0)

                History
                : January 18, 2021
                : May 24, 2021
                : July 28, 2021
                Funding
                Funding: Open access publication enabled by the University of Koblenz-Landau .
                Categories
                Original Article

                Psychology,General behavioral science
                web-based research,deception,research ethics,debriefing,data withdrawal

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content637

                Cited by2

                Most referenced authors124