Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Ethical Decision Making and Research Deception in the Behavioral Sciences: An Application of Social Contract Theory.Allan J. Kimmel, N. Craig Smith & Jill Gabrielle Klein - 2011 - Ethics and Behavior 21 (3):222 - 251.
    Despite significant ethical advances in recent years, including professional developments in ethical review and codification, research deception continues to be a pervasive practice and contentious focus of debate in the behavioral sciences. Given the disciplines' generally stated ethical standards regarding the use of deceptive procedures, researchers have little practical guidance as to their ethical acceptability in specific research contexts. We use social contract theory to identify the conditions under which deception may or may not be morally permissible and formulate practical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Mapping Ethical Consumer Behavior: Integrating the Empirical Research and Identifying Future Directions.Eleni Papaoikonomou, Gerard Ryan & Mireia Valverde - 2011 - Ethics and Behavior 21 (3):197 - 221.
    The concept of ?ethical consumer behavior? has gained significant attention among practitioners and academic researchers, generating increasing but disjointed knowledge on the topic. By analyzing the empirical research on ethical consumer behavior, this article provides researchers with a map to guide future research. In total, we review 80 studies. The main contributions of the article include the identification of the main trends in the ethical consumer literature and the conceptualization of ethical consumer behavior. In addition, several areas for future research (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense.Ralph Hertwig & Andreas Ortmann - 2008 - Ethics and Behavior 18 (1):59 – 92.
    In psychology, deception is commonly used to increase experimental control. Yet, its use has provoked concerns that it raises participants' suspicions, prompts second-guessing of experimenters' true intentions, and ultimately distorts behavior and endangers the control it is meant to achieve. Over time, these concerns regarding the methodological costs of the use of deception have been subjected to empirical analysis. We review the evidence stemming from these studies.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • A Second Look at Debriefing Practices: Madness in Our Method?Cathy Faye & Donald Sharpe - 2009 - Ethics and Behavior 19 (5):432-447.
    This article is a reconsideration of Tesch's (1977) ethical, educational, and methodological functions for debriefing through a literature review and an Internet survey of authors of articles published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Journal of Traumatic Stress . We advocate for a larger ethical role for debriefing in nondeception research. The educational function of debriefing is examined in light of the continued popularity of undergraduate participant pools. A case is made for the methodological function of debriefing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The relative importance of undesirable truths.Lisa Bortolotti - 2013 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (4):683-690.
    The right not to know is often defended on the basis of the principle of respect for personal autonomy. If I choose not to acquire personal information that impacts on my future prospects, such a choice should be respected, because I should be able to decide whether to access information about myself and how to use it. But, according to the incoherence objection to the right not to know in the context of genetic testing, the choice not to acquire genetic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The relative importance of undesirable truths.Lisa Bortolotti - 2012 - Medicine Healthcare and Philosophy (4):683-690.
    The right not to know is often defended on the basis of the principle of respect for personal autonomy. If I choose not to acquire personal information that impacts on my future prospects, such a choice should be respected, because I should be able to decide whether to access information about myself and how to use it. But, according to the incoherence objection to the right not to know in the context of genetic testing, the choice not to acquire genetic (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations