𝔖 Bobbio Scriptorium
✦   LIBER   ✦

Social contract theory and the ethics of deception in consumer research

✍ Scribed by N. Craig Smith; Allan J. Kimmel; Jill Gabrielle Klein

Publisher
Elsevier Science
Year
2009
Tongue
English
Weight
429 KB
Volume
19
Category
Article
ISSN
1057-7408

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

✦ Synopsis

Abstract

Deception of research participants is a pervasive ethical issue in experimental consumer research. Content analyses find as many as three‐fourths of published human participant studies in our field involved some form of deception, almost all of which employed experimental methodologies. However, researchers have little guidance on the acceptability of the use of deception, notwithstanding the codes of root disciplines. We turn to theories of moral philosophy and use social contract theory specifically to identify conditions under which deception may be justified as morally permissible. Seven guiding principles for research practice are formulated and their implications for consumer researchers are identified, together with practical recommendations for decision making on studies involving deception.

πŸ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES

The social control of behavior control:
The social control of behavior control: Behavior modification, individual rights, and research ethics in America, 1971–1979
✍ Alexandra Rutherford πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 2006 πŸ› John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English βš– 139 KB

In 1971, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights began a three-year study to investigate the federal funding of all research involving behavior modification. During this period, operant programs of behavior change, particularly those implemented in closed institutions, were subjected t

Social-psychological theory as a basis f
Social-psychological theory as a basis for a theory of ethics and value: The case of Charles Horton Cooley
✍ John W. Petras πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 1968 πŸ› Springer 🌐 English βš– 934 KB

The volume is somewhat of an anomaly in sociological literature, but it is none the less welcome for its very non-conformity. 1 The above statement by George E. Vincent in his 1903 review of Charles Horton Cooley's Human Nature and the Social Order can serve to give the reader some indication of th