In order to give valid consent, the subjects in an experiment need to be informed about all the harms that the experimenter plans to impose on them.
Being deceived is a harm.
Therefore, in order to give valid consent, the subjects in an experiment where the experimenter plans to use deceit need to be informed that deceit will be imposed.
Often, consent conditions are phrased in terms of risks, and it is stipulated that only non-minimal risks need to be disclosed, where minimality is measured relative to the risks in ordinary life. Being deceived about a minor matter might be thought to be a minimal risk even when the probability of deceit is nearly 100%, since in ordinary life people routinely suffer deception, and sometimes don’t mind much if at all (see here for discussion).
However, I think there may be a difference between disclosing risks and disclosing planned harms. For instance, minor pains are a daily occurrence for people. But deliberately imposing a minor pain on an experimental subject who did not consent to such imposition—apart from special cases such as pushing someone away from danger—would seem to be a morally impermissible assault.
2 comments:
When you play a game of poker, you tacitly consent to being deceived when the other players can successfully bluff you (though of course you don’t consent to any *individual* instance of being deceived). Without bluffing, the nature of the game changes. This isn’t something unique to poker. Chess, too, involves intentional deception, since you can expect your opponents to try to mislead you about their strategies if the opportunity arises.
When you consent to being the subject of a psychology experiment, you tacitly consent to being intentionally deceived (though of course you don’t consent to any *individual* instance of being deceived).
It is reasonable to assume that people who play poker know that being deceived is a part of what they consent to. My understanding is that currently the subjects of deceptive psychology experiments are typically not informed that they will be deceived. Sometimes they may be savvy enough to know that on their own--e.g., if they are psychology students (as many subjects are)--but I don't think such savvy is universal. This paper discusses ways in which consent might be sought for deception: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12222396/
Post a Comment