Honesty in scientii c study

William B Swann

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

A colleague asked me whether a project he was considering doing was scientifically and ethically viable. The study was designed to replicate (and extend) a published study that had been conducted using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In the original study, participants received small amounts of money as an incentive for participating. My colleague did not have money to pay participants but he could offer them the chance of winning an iPod as an incentive. He recognized, however, that offering a chance to win an iPod was not the same as offering a certainty of acquiring money, and he worried that readers would insist that he had not fully replicated the earlier study. To address this concern, he suggested telling participants that they would receive money for participating “as long as they solved a problem” that they would receive after performing the other components of the experiment. The “problem” would be insolvable, so he would not be obligated to pay them money (which he didn’t have), but in the spirit of compensating participants, he planned to enter them into a lottery for the iPod after they were told that they had not solved the problem. He reasoned that the study was ethical for two reasons. First, technically he did not lie to them when he told them that he would give them the money if they completed the problem (although he would be lying by omission become most if not all participants would assume that the problem was solvable). Second, because he intended to award someone an iPod, he did intend to compensate participants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationEthical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages153-154
Number of pages2
ISBN (Electronic)9781139626491
ISBN (Print)9781107039735
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Motivation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Swann, W. B. (2015). Honesty in scientii c study. In Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences (pp. 153-154). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781139626491.050

Honesty in scientii c study. / Swann, William B.

Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 153-154.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Swann, WB 2015, Honesty in scientii c study. in Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Cambridge University Press, pp. 153-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/9781139626491.050
Swann WB. Honesty in scientii c study. In Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Cambridge University Press. 2015. p. 153-154 https://doi.org/10.1007/9781139626491.050
Swann, William B. / Honesty in scientii c study. Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Cambridge University Press, 2015. pp. 153-154
@inbook{0ab4463188ce431893545894de24a075,
title = "Honesty in scientii c study",
abstract = "A colleague asked me whether a project he was considering doing was scientifically and ethically viable. The study was designed to replicate (and extend) a published study that had been conducted using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In the original study, participants received small amounts of money as an incentive for participating. My colleague did not have money to pay participants but he could offer them the chance of winning an iPod as an incentive. He recognized, however, that offering a chance to win an iPod was not the same as offering a certainty of acquiring money, and he worried that readers would insist that he had not fully replicated the earlier study. To address this concern, he suggested telling participants that they would receive money for participating “as long as they solved a problem” that they would receive after performing the other components of the experiment. The “problem” would be insolvable, so he would not be obligated to pay them money (which he didn’t have), but in the spirit of compensating participants, he planned to enter them into a lottery for the iPod after they were told that they had not solved the problem. He reasoned that the study was ethical for two reasons. First, technically he did not lie to them when he told them that he would give them the money if they completed the problem (although he would be lying by omission become most if not all participants would assume that the problem was solvable). Second, because he intended to award someone an iPod, he did intend to compensate participants.",
author = "Swann, {William B}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/9781139626491.050",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781107039735",
pages = "153--154",
booktitle = "Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Honesty in scientii c study

AU - Swann, William B

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - A colleague asked me whether a project he was considering doing was scientifically and ethically viable. The study was designed to replicate (and extend) a published study that had been conducted using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In the original study, participants received small amounts of money as an incentive for participating. My colleague did not have money to pay participants but he could offer them the chance of winning an iPod as an incentive. He recognized, however, that offering a chance to win an iPod was not the same as offering a certainty of acquiring money, and he worried that readers would insist that he had not fully replicated the earlier study. To address this concern, he suggested telling participants that they would receive money for participating “as long as they solved a problem” that they would receive after performing the other components of the experiment. The “problem” would be insolvable, so he would not be obligated to pay them money (which he didn’t have), but in the spirit of compensating participants, he planned to enter them into a lottery for the iPod after they were told that they had not solved the problem. He reasoned that the study was ethical for two reasons. First, technically he did not lie to them when he told them that he would give them the money if they completed the problem (although he would be lying by omission become most if not all participants would assume that the problem was solvable). Second, because he intended to award someone an iPod, he did intend to compensate participants.

AB - A colleague asked me whether a project he was considering doing was scientifically and ethically viable. The study was designed to replicate (and extend) a published study that had been conducted using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. In the original study, participants received small amounts of money as an incentive for participating. My colleague did not have money to pay participants but he could offer them the chance of winning an iPod as an incentive. He recognized, however, that offering a chance to win an iPod was not the same as offering a certainty of acquiring money, and he worried that readers would insist that he had not fully replicated the earlier study. To address this concern, he suggested telling participants that they would receive money for participating “as long as they solved a problem” that they would receive after performing the other components of the experiment. The “problem” would be insolvable, so he would not be obligated to pay them money (which he didn’t have), but in the spirit of compensating participants, he planned to enter them into a lottery for the iPod after they were told that they had not solved the problem. He reasoned that the study was ethical for two reasons. First, technically he did not lie to them when he told them that he would give them the money if they completed the problem (although he would be lying by omission become most if not all participants would assume that the problem was solvable). Second, because he intended to award someone an iPod, he did intend to compensate participants.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952803237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952803237&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/9781139626491.050

DO - 10.1007/9781139626491.050

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84952803237

SN - 9781107039735

SP - 153

EP - 154

BT - Ethical Challenges in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -