|
back to 7670 homepage - back to Dr. Whatley's homepage If participants know they are being deceived, then do they tell the experimenter of their knowledge? If they do not tell the experimenter, then do they perform differently from truly naive participants? Golding and Lichtenstein (1970) had participants interact with a confederate
who they believed had just completed the experiment in one of three conditions.
In the Naive condition, the confederate told them that the experiment
was interesting.
They
get you in there, you know, and then they have you look at these girl pictures,
Golding and Lichtenstein also manipulated the information presented to the participants at the beginning of the debriefing. In the Pact of Ignorance condition, the experimenter told the participant: I'm
trying to get the data collected before the end of the quarter...it's pretty
hard to
In the Scientific Integrity condition, the experimenter told the participant: The
idea of this interview is to make sure we know if any kinds of possible
The results of the study indicated that those participants in the Informed condition who admitted to the researcher that they knew about the experiment did not show the Valins effect. More importantly, the results indicated that those participants in the Informed condition who did not admit to the researcher that they knew about the experiment performed no differently from truly Naive participants.
Golding, S. L., & Lichtenstein, E. (1970). Confession of awareness and prior knowledge of deception as a function of interview set and approval motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 213-223. Valins, S. (1966). Cognitive effects of false heart-rate
feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 400-408.
|