In contrast to the behavioral sciences, the nature and impact of ethical procedures such as informed consent and constraints on the use of deception have been addressed infrequently in the marketing discipline. This article describes an initial investigation into the methodological and ethical practices reported in published marketing research articles since the mid-1970s. Empirical articles appearing in the Journal of Marketing Research and the Journal of Consumer Research between 1975 and 1976, 1989 and 1990, and 1996 and 1997 were coded (...) according to methodological and ethical practices employed and compared with recent trends in the social psychological research literature. The marketing findings revealed an increase over time in laboratory experimentation, the utilization of active deception and debriefing, and the use of university student samples. Although the results suggest that marketing researchers use deception with less frequency and intensity overall than social psychologists, the observed rise in deception procedures in marketing investigations stands in stark contrast to the situation in social psychology, where deception rates have been declining along with a corresponding increase in nonexperimental methodologies and nonstudent samples. The article concludes with a call for greater attention to the ethical, methodological, and disciplinary consequences of the increasing use of deception in marketing research and emphasizes the need for more complete reporting of ethical procedures in published research. (shrink)

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 (...) recommendations to guide researchers on the ethical employment of deception in behavioral science research. (shrink)

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 (...) to clarify aspects of research participation. Recommendations are made to improve the conducting and reporting of debriefings. (shrink)

A lively exchange sparked by Ortmann and Hertwig's call to outlaw deception in psychological research was intensified by underlying differences in the meaning of deception. The conception held by Broder, who defended deception, would restrict research more than Ortmann and Hertwig's conception. Historically, a similar difference in conceptions has been embedded in the controversy over deception in research. The distinction between informational and relational views of deception elucidates this difference. In an informational view, giving false information, allowing false assumptions, and (...) withholding information are deceptive. In a relational view these failures to inform are not necessarily deceptive. Rather, relational criteria, including denial of right to the truth, betrayal of trust, and impairment of commerce with reality finally determine what is deceptive. Analyses reveal that fewer research procedures are deceptive on a relational view than on an informational view. Surveys of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology correspondingly show that a lower percentage of studies are deceptive on the relational view applied in this analysis than on the informational view applied by Sieber, Iannuzzo, and Rodriguez. If restrictions on deception keep increasing, more studies will be vetoed on the currently salient informational view than would be vetoed on a relational view. (shrink)

Fear appeals are used in many domains. Cybersecurity researchers are also starting to experiment with fear appeals, many reporting positive outcomes. Yet there are ethical concerns related to the use of fear to motivate action. In this paper, we explore this aspect from the perspectives of cybersecurity fear appealdeployersandrecipients. We commenced our investigation by considering fear appeals from three foundational ethical perspectives. We then consulted the two stakeholder groups to gain insights into the ethical concerns they consider to be pertinent. (...) We first consulteddeployers: (a) fear appeal researchers and (b) Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs), and then potential cybersecurity fear appealrecipients:members of a crowdsourcing platform. We used their responses to develop aneffects-reasoning matrix, identifying the potential benefits and detriments of cybersecurity fear appeals for all stakeholders. Using these insights, we derived six ethical principles to guide cybersecurity fear appeal deployment. We then evaluated a snapshot of cybersecurity studies using the ethical principle lens. Our contribution is,first, a list of potential detriments that could result from the deployment of cybersecurity fear appeals andsecond, the set of six ethical principles to inform the deployment of such appeals. Both of these are intended to inform cybersecurity fear appeal design and deployment. (shrink)