To Tell or Not to Tell

This essay is to determine whether to deceive a subject in a psychological experiment if their knowing could affect their return.

To Tell or Not To Tell

An Evaluation of two discipline theses:

Subject Reaction:
The Neglected Factor in the Ethics of Experimentation
	By Stanley Milgram

Learning to Deceive
	By Thomas Murray

Milgram vs. Murray

There is a fine line between Science and Ethics. If one is to maintain a full compliment of perfectionist ethics, then one must expect to surrender some objectives of science, and thus not execute an accurate assessment. To expect that human nature is infallible and overall good is a perfect example of an ideal humanist view. To achieve the true and natural response from a subject, the experiment must be free from all diversions, and must not impair the subject’s psychological ability to render a natural response. Thus, the experimenter should facilitate this need to the best of his ability.

Thomas Murray offers some ideas as to why deception in an experiment is severe compromise of ethics. For subjects who are engaged in a deceitful experiment, there may be dire psychological consequences. Using an illustration: if a subject is deceived and told that he has a lower Intelligence Quotient than expected, he may suffer unforeseen psychological consequences. The self-esteem of such an individual may decrease dramatically and have a long-term, detrimental effect on the subject. While most who volunteer for experiments, agree that the experiment that they participated in was worthwhile directly ex post facto, the effects enduring, may be injurious to the subject’s state of mind.

In addition to the health effects suffered by the subject, the experimenter may also suffer consequences by “…trying to make [the] laboratory so much like the world…”¹ By attempting this, says Murray, “…[We] sometimes succeed in making our world like the laboratory…”² Murray’s position, is that if we proceed to regularly deceive our subjects, then it is plausible that we may carry-over, and regularly deceive peoples in other facets of our lives.

It is the position of most social Psychologists, and in particular, Stanley Milgram, that in order to receive a complete, and dispassionate result from an experiment, the subject must either not know about the true nature of the experiment, or must be denied knowledge, in any manner, of the presented supposition. In effect, the researcher should have free reign to impose any psychosomatic impediments to prevent the subject from become conscious of, and thus biasing the pending experiment.

The justification for such a moral indignation lies in the knowledge that, though subjects were deceived and stress was exposed upon them, “…the central moral justification for… my experiments… [is that they were] judged acceptable by those who took part in [them]…”³ There is not a single documented case in which there is demonstrated, lasting trauma, resulting from a social psychology experiment. The experiments have “…had less effect on a participants self esteem, than the negative emotions engendered by a routine school examination.”⁴ These emotions are, like those of a scholastic exam, illustrate to the subjects, truths about themselves, which may not have been disclosed.

The reaction from subjects in such experiments are often overlooked if not completely ignored. Milgram states that not enough attention is paid to “experiences and views” of the subjects in experiments benefiting social psychology. The effects of the experiments are at best temporary, and are uninterrupted insofar as needed for continuation of the experiment.

The pursuit of scientific discovery, by way of psychological experimentation is a very sensitive focus. While deception may not be directly advantageous to the subject, and may not be a principled institution, more credit and attention must be paid to the “experiences and views” of those who participated in the experiment.

With the correct pre-information, stating that the experiment may include hidden or otherwise subtle designs and with a healthy “compassionate” follow up/debriefing, science must prevail. Scientific study is paramount if we expect to learn about ourselves as a species, and as a cognitive sentiency. While individual feeling and emotions must not be ignored, should the reservations of an individual hold back the advancement of an entire group?

¹ Can Deception be Justified? NO: Thomas H. Murray, p.353 2
² Can Deception be Justified? NO: Thomas H. Murray, p.353 2
³ Can Deception be Justified? YES: Stanley Milgram, p344 1
⁴ Can Deception be Justified? YES: Stanley Milgram, p344-345 2-1

See also: The American Psych Assoc. ON ETHICS
And: Psych.org, Homepage of the American Psych Accoc.

Brandon M. Belinsky
Westford Academy
Psychology Department

To Question or Comment, please write to b4linky14@aol.com