Studies that cannot ethically be conducted as experiments with typical human participants ________.

1. Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963;67(4):371–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Humphreys L. Tearoom trade. Society. 1970;7(3):10–25. [Google Scholar]

2. Kelman HC. Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin. 1967;67(1):1–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Hertwig R, Ortmann A. Deception in experiments: Revisiting the arguments in its defense. Ethics and Behavior. 2008;18(1):59–92. [Google Scholar]Broder A. Deception can be acceptable. American Psychologist. 1998;53(7):805–806. [Google Scholar]Ortmann A, Hertwig R. Is deception acceptable? American Psychologist. 1997;52(7):746–747. [Google Scholar]

3. American Psychological Association Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. 2002 http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx.

4. Kimmel AJ. Ethical Issues on Behavioral Research: Basic and Applied Perspectives. 2nd ed Blackwell Publishing; Oxford, U.K.: 2007. [Google Scholar]Cook KS, Yamagishi T. A defense of deception on scientific grounds. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2008;71(3):215–221. [Google Scholar]

5. Riach PA, Rich J. Deceptive field experiments of discrimination: Are they ethical? Kyklos. 2004;57(3):457–470. [Google Scholar]Oakes JM. Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator’s guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review. 2002;26(5):443–479. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122–1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Kim S, Ubel P, de Vries R. Pruning the regulatory tree. Nature. 2009;457(7229):534–535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Hertwig R, Ortmann A. Deception in social psychological experiments: Two misconceptions and a research agenda. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2008;71(3):222–227. [Google Scholar]

8. Epley N, Huff C. Suspicion, affective response, and educational benefit as a result of deception in psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1998;24(7):759–768. [Google Scholar]

9. Christensen L. Deception in psychological research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1988;14(4):664–675. [Google Scholar]

10. Singer E, Levine FJ. Research synthesis: Protection of human subjects of research: Recent developments and future prospects for the social sciences. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2003;67(1):148–164. [Google Scholar]

11. Fillenbaum S. Prior deception and subsequent experimental performance: The “faithful” subject. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1966;4(5):532–537. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Finney PD. When consent information refers to risk and deception—implications for social research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 1987;2(1):37–48. [Google Scholar]

12. Baumrind D. Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist. 1985;40(2):165–174. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Portnoy DB. Deception (methodological technique) In: Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, editors. Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2007. pp. 222–223. [Google Scholar]

13. Oczak M, Niedźwieńska A. Debriefing in deceptive research: A proposed new procedure. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2007;2(3):49–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. See ref. 12, Baumrind 1985.

15. Baumrind D. IRBs and social science research: The costs of deception. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research. 1979;1(6):1–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Ortmann A, Hertwig R. The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology. Experimental Economics. 2002;5(2):111–131. [Google Scholar]

16. Sharpe D, Adair J, Roese NJ. Twenty years of deception research: A decline in subjects’ trust? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1992;18(5):585–590. [Google Scholar]Edlund JE, Sagarin BJ, Skowronski JJ, et al. Whatever happens in the laboratory stays in the laboratory: The prevalence and prevention of participant crosstalk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2009;35:635–642. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Taylor KM, Shepperd JA. Probing suspicion among participants in deception research. American Psychologist. 1996;51(8):886–887. [Google Scholar]

18. McDaniel T, Starmer C. Experimental economics and deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology. 1998;19(3):403–409. [Google Scholar]

19. See ref. 2, Broder 1998. ; Babbie E. Laud Humphreys and research ethics. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 2004;24(3-5):12–19. [Google Scholar]

20. Bortolotti L, Mameli M. Deception in psychology: Moral costs and benefits of unsought self-knowledge. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance. 2006;13(3):259–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Pihl R, Zacchia C, Zeichner A. Follow-up analysis of the use of deception and aversive contingencies in psychological experiments. Psychological Reports. 1981;48(3):927–930. [Google Scholar]

22. Benham B. The ubiquity of deception and the ethics of deceptive research. Bioethics. 2008;22:147–156. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. See ref. 8, Epley, Huff 1998. ; Smith CP. How (un)acceptable is research involving deception? IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research. 1981;3(8):1–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]; Soliday E, Stanton AL. Deceived versus nondeceived participants’ perceptions of scientific and applied psychology. Ethics and Behavior. 1995;5(1):87–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Smith SS, Richardson D. Amelioration of deception and harm in psychological research: The important role of debriefing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983;44(5):1075–1082. [Google Scholar]

25. Elms AC. Keeping deception honest: Justifying conditions for social scientific research stratagems. In: Beauchamp TL, Faden RR, Wallace RJ, Walters L, editors. Ethical Issues in Social Science Research. Johns Hopkins University Press; Baltimore, MD: 1982. pp. 232–245. [Google Scholar]

26. Holmes DS. Effectiveness of debriefing after a stress-producing deception. Journal of Research in Personality. 1973;7(2):127–138. [Google Scholar]Holmes DS, Bennett DH. Experiments to answer questions raised by the use of deception in psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1974;29(3):358–367. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. See ref. 22, Benham 2008.

28. See ref. 15, Baumrind 1979. p. 4.

29. Tsugawa Y, Ohbu S, Cruess R, et al. Introducing the professionalism mini-evaluation exercise (P-MEX) in Japan: Results from a multicenter, cross-sectional study. Academic Medicine. 2011;86(8):1026. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Ginsburg S, Regehr G, Lingard L. Basing the evaluation of professionalism on observable behaviors: A cautionary tale. Academic Medicine. 2004;79(10):S1–S4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Wilkinson TJ, Wade WB, Knock LD. A blueprint to assess professionalism: Results of a systematic review. Academic Medicine. 2009;84(5):551–558. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Sears DO. College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51(3):515. [Google Scholar]Henry PJ. College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry. 2008;19(2):49–71. [Google Scholar]

32. Rosenberg M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press; Princeton, NJ: 1965. [Google Scholar]

33. Gramzow RH, Gaertner L. Self-esteem and favoritism toward novel in-groups: The self as an evaluative base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005;88(5):801–815. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;54(6):1063–1070. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Mainous AG, III, Smith DW, Geesey ME, Tilley BC. Development of a measure to assess patient trust in medical researchers. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2006;4(3):247–252. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. See ref. 2, Kelman 1967.

37. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research . The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington DC: 1979. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Fisher CB, Fried AL, Feldman LG. Graduate socialization in the responsible conduct of research: A national survey on the research ethics training experiences of psychology doctoral students. Ethics and Behavior. 2009;19(6):496–518. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. See ref. 24, Smith, Richardson 1983.

40. Cohen D, Nisbett RE, Bowdle BF, Schwarz N. Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;70(5):945–959. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]Williams LE, Bargh JA. Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science. 2008;322(5901):606–607. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]