Decpetion

1. Deception allows the experimenter to increase the impact of a laboratory setting Presumably as the experimental situation becomes more realistic and involving, the independent variables are more Likely to have the impact (but not necessarily the results) intended by the experimenter calls this internal validity, a necessary condition for generalizing from the laboratory to the outside world.

As an extreme example of increasing internal validity consider a study by Berkun, et al. (1962) which assessed the effects of panic upon performance. In this study military personnel were led to believe they were in immediate danger of losing their life because of misdirected incoming artillery shells. The only means of escape was to repair a faulty radio transmitter and contact someone outside the area. Of course, the personnel were never really in danger. But it seems safe to conclude that the study did provide an accurate view of performance under emergency conditions.

Some significant areas of human life simply cannot be explored ethically using the experimental method. By using deception, however, the experimenter can sometimes sidestep this ethical dilemma by creating a facsimile of the area of interest.

Using deception may protect the experimenter from certain "subject problems." This argument is based on the assumption that a subject's motives can profoundly affect how he or she responds to the experimental situation. It has been argued that some motives place subjects in roles that threaten the validity of research results. Three such problem roles have been extensively discussed.

The good subject (Orne, 1962) is motivated in a more positive, but still misguided, direction. This subject wants to benefit science and/or the experimenter. However, the subject attempts to "help" by consciously confirming the experimenter's hypothesis. This kind of help can lead the experimenter to conclude falsely that the validity of his or her hypotheses has been verified.

The apprehensive subject (Rosenberg, 1965) wants to "look good" in the eyes of the experimenter. Most everyÐ'* one is at times concerned about the image he or she presents to others. The presence of an expert in psychological health (the experimenter as viewed through some subjects' eyes) probably amplifies such a concern. Thus, in an experiment, a subject might not respond honestly when such a response could make him look like a psychological pygmie.

Weber