Manipulation in the Enrollment of Research Participants

Hastings Center Report 43 (2):38-47 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In this paper we analyze the non-coercive ways in which researchers can use knowledge about the decision-making tendencies of potential participants in order to motivate them to consent to research enrollment. We identify which modes of influence preserve respect for participants’ autonomy and which disrespect autonomy, and apply the umbrella term of manipulation to the latter. We then apply our analysis to a series of cases adapted from the experiences of clinical researchers in order to develop a framework for thinking through the ethics of manipulating people into research participation. All manipulation disrespects autonomy and is therefore pro tanto wrong. However, only deceptive manipulation invalidates the consent that results from it. Use of the other forms of manipulation can be permissible, but only if the outcome of using manipulation is sufficiently good and if the research cannot be carried out using ethically preferable means to obtain consent.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-08-09
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Coercion.Nozick, Robert
A Definition of Deceiving.Mahon, James Edwin
Coercive Wage Offers.Zimmerman, David
Coercion.Anderson, Scott

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
257 ( #17,416 of 50,246 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
7 ( #45,528 of 50,246 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.