Research Involving Deception
When Deception May be UsedDeception should be employed only when there are no viable alternative procedures. The IRB may find the use of deception acceptable when, and to the extent which, it is unavoidably required by the research to be done, and when the benefits outweigh the risks.
Problems arise when major deception is involved. For example, if an investigator leads a subject to believe that he or she has committed a crime, has a disease, or has some serious character flaw, then the merit of the investigation must clearly counterbalance the risk to the subject for the research to be approved.
Preliminary Quasi-ConsentWhere deception is a necessary part of an experiment, the IRB will generally require that preliminary quasi-consent be obtained, in which the investigator informs the subject that the experiment cannot be described fully in advance.
Preliminary quasi-consent may be provided verbally or in written form, and should contain information required in a typical consent form, such as procedures, purpose, risks, and level of confidentiality provided. If in written form, do not call the document a "Consent Form" for participants cannot fully consent since they do not know the full nature of the research. Instead, you may call the document an "Information Sheet."
The research must qualify for an alteration of consent for quasi-consent, and therefore must meet the following criteria: 1) the research involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects; 2) the waiver will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects; 3) the research could not practicably be carried out without the alteration; and 4) whenever appropriate, the subjects will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation (i.e., debriefed).
DebriefingTo ameliorate the effects of unavoidable deception, the IRB requires debriefing of the deceived subjects.
The debriefing form must include the following information:
- Apology for the use of deception;
- Explanation of why it was necessary;
- Offer the subjects a chance to ask questions or work through any confusion they might have;
- Description of the extent the study can ensure confidentiality of the data gained from the deception;
- Inform the subjects that they have the right to have the data obtained from the research destroyed instead of used for data analysis.
The IRB may require that the study have subjects sign the debriefing form to provide written consent for the use of the data during data analysis.
The IRB recognizes that there are rare instances in which no consent can be obtained or debriefing done: e.g., if the researcher pretended to lie unconscious on a sidewalk and noted how many and what sorts of persons stopped, attempted assistance, or simply hurried past; or where debriefing would cause more harm to the subject than the deception itself.
Debriefing after deception has several goals: (1) to repair the breach of informed consent entailed by the deception, (2) to remove any confusions or defuse any tensions that might have been generated by the deception, (3) to make it clear especially to younger subjects that deception is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, and (4) to repair (as much as possible) the breach of trust that has occurred not only between the investigator and the subject, but (potentially) between all researchers and all subjects.