Ethical problems: The deceptive practice of "No informing"

Deception in studies involving the practice of no informing. No-informing suggests that participants are unaware that they are participating in research, which could have long -lasting psychological or physical effects. Non-informing invites several potential ethical objections (a) First, the subject's privacy is invaded, (b) the person's informed consent is not obtained, (c) there is no self-determination [(as the real nature of the test is not revealed], (d) No debriefing, (e) researcher has lied to the participant, and (f) researcher has concealed information (Sieber et al., 1995). In addition, debriefing (explaining what happened), and desensitizing (efforts to remove any harmful effects) is not always feasible, or effective (Levine, 2009). In addition, according to Sieber et al., role deception has replaced other techniques in the practice of deception in research with the use of computers that provide false impressions to subjects. They note that even when deception was unnecessary, the percentage of deception practices occurred in areas such as personality and sex differences, rising from 22% in 1988 to 37% in 1992.

Relative to the specific practice of deception in no informing, one of the most infamous cases that highlighted this form of deception occurred in the biomedical research related to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study [1932-1972] (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008) when poor black men unknowingly participated in a study in which they assumed they were receiving free health care. Many of the subjects, including their wives and children died from the disease. In the same way, the notion that deception is needed to further research in the social and psychological disciplines is an indefensible rationale in deceiving people into participating in research that they might otherwise not engage in. Moreover, concealing information from participants draws suspicion, and could lead to outcomes in a study that are misleading.