Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Deception in Social Psychological Research: A Reply to Johnson
Donald L. Koteskey
Department of Psychology
Asbury College Wilmore, Kentucky
40390
From: JASA 32 (March1980): 64.
In the Journal ASA, September 1979, David E. Johnson criticized an earlier
article of mine which appeared in the Journal ASA,
March 1979. 1 would like to reply to his criticisms. First, I
should point out
that my original article was directed toward all of psychology, not
just toward
social psychology. Johnson seemed to be reacting basically toward paragraphs
two and three of my article. Now let us consider his six criticisms.
1. Although the original purpose of deception was to produce
a "real world" situation, it has not worked. Too large a
percentage
of the subjects are suspicious in our experiments and we are not
that suspicious
in real life Although we may not be aware of the motives of persons
in she world
around us, we do not walk around all she time in the real world suspicious of
others if we do, we are soon classified as paranoid and given treatment.
2. I did not characterize anyone as "a devious individual who
sits in his
laboratory constantly developing techniques to be used in doping unsuspecting
subjects." I said, "some authors even discuss ways of
improving deception"
and that we should do other things "rather than spending our
time rationalizing
our use of deception and creating more elaborate schemes of
deception."
3. Although Johnson accuses me of being outdated, I was the one who pointed
out that "most 'counts' of the frequency of deception were made in the
late 1960s." I did not make any recent counts myself, but cited Stang,
a social psychologist, who said in 1976 that suspicion is becoming
more widespread.
I hope that deception is becoming less widespread, but even if it
is, the damage
it has done is still with us.
4. 1 said "Although the evidence is conflicting,..." when
introducing
the material reacted to in Johnson's fourth criticism. I would
hardly characterize
that as leaving the reader with incomplete information. I was writing a brief
Communication to present a position on an issue, not a complete
article to present
all the evidence. Such an article would go far beyond a
"communication."
Thus. I merely mentioned that evidence was conflicting. While
Johnson has found
no difference between suspicious and unsuspicious subjects, Stocker, Messick
and Jackson did find a difference as I said, the evidence is conflicting.
5. My paragraph on "troth" was misread. I was citing
Seeman who said
that deception was not a means to truth. My position is that deception is not
a legitimate means to truth for us as Christians. I believe that this holds
for any kind of "troth."
6. I see no ethical problem in doing such things as naturalistic observation.
Anyone who appears in public most be aware that others see them and
may be watching
what they do. I do not believe that you have to get informed
consent to observe
a person although you would if you manipulate him or her in any way. I watch
people all the time and do not believe that I have to inform them that 1 am
looking at them that is assumed.
Finally, nowhere did I "totally dismiss the findings of research because
deception was used." The thesis of my article was that we
should not engage
in research which uses deception, not that we should ignore what others have
done. Journal ASA readers should read both Johnson's article and my article
because he presented my position inaccurately. Although he says
that he is "not
advocating that Christian psychologists adopt deception I would
characterize Johnson's article as one of those written while
"rationalizing
the use of deception." to use the words of my article. Again,
I would say
that we need to spend our time developing better methods.