Article

Deception research involving children: ethical practices and paradoxes.

Center for EThics Education, Dealy Hall, Fordham University, 441 E. Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10458, USA.
Ethics & Behavior (Impact Factor: 0.78). 02/2005; 15(3):271-87. DOI: 10.1207/s15327019eb1503_7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This commentary draws on the thoughtful contemplation and innovative procedures described in the special section articles as well as current professional codes and federal regulations to highlight ethical practices and paradoxes of deception research involving children. The discussion is organized around 4 key decision points for the conduct of responsible deception research involving children: (a) evaluating the scientific validity and social value of deception research within the context of alternative methodologies, (b) avoiding and minimizing experimental risk, (c) the use of child assent procedures as questionable ethical safeguards, and (d) debriefing as both remedy and risk.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Celia Fisher, Jun 01, 2014
2 Followers
 · 
127 Views
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article is a reconsideration of Tesch's (1977)72. Tesch , F. E. 1977 . Debriefing research participants: Though this be method there is madness to it. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35 : 217 – 224 . [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®]View all references 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.
    Ethics & Behavior 09/2009; 19(5):432-447. DOI:10.1080/10508420903035455
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics I, they present a historical overview of the evolution of RCR in the United States then examine the evolution of human and animal experimentation from the birth of scientific medicine through World War II to the present day. They relied on authoritative documents, both historical and contemporary, insightful commentary, and empirical research in order to identify current issues and controversies of potential interest to both faculty and students. The authors have written this article from a historical perspective because they think all readers interested in RCR should appreciate how the history of science and all the good--and harm--it has produced can inform how researchers practice responsible research in the 21st century and beyond.
    Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 11/2010; 54(1):S303-29. DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0265)
Show more