Deception is all a part of psychology experiments, but harming someone goes against the rules they have to go by.

#17 has obviously not taken psych 101 ... or failed... this is a pretty common procedure (that is telling your subjects you're testing one thing when you're actually testing another). I can lend you my text book if you feel a need to verify :) also #21, deception can lead to harming others, emotionally anyways, it's kinda a hazard of the procedure. though really I don't think rejection can count as "harm." I mean seriously people, getting rejected isn't the end of the world, I'm sure he won't be scarred for the rest of his life. OP that does suck though

No, I'm in a psychology class right now and have to do tons of experiments. It's not like they have to be like, "Well, we're going to have this attractive girl hit on you, it's part of the experiment." But they would give some cryptic description that would let him know the basis of the experiment without the actual details of what is going on. Things that are detrimental to someone's emotions or anything like that are not allowed. Ever heard of the Milgram experiment? It's why you you have to at least tell the participants the basis of the experiment without actually giving it away.

@17 If you outright told them what the experiment was about there is a more likely hood that they will not give truthful, accurate evidence. By not telling them, its called a blind study. The participant doesn't know what's really being tested so they can't consciously do something that will look better or worse. They even have double blind studies where the experimenter and the patient have no idea what's really being tested. This is because they realized that sometimes the experimenter would do something that would indicate a response, thus skewing the results.

It's a harmless experiment. They couldn't do this experiment without passing an IRB. Being shot down by a confederate hardly amounts to something that would deem this unethical/harmful. There are a lot of things significantly more harmful than this that are approved.

Here is a direct quote from my book: "Participants in any form of research or therapy must be informed, in easy-to-understand language, of any significant factors that could affect their willingness to participate. Physical and emotional risks should be explained, as should the general nature of the project and any therapeutic procedures to be used." ......."It is agreed also that any deception might be involved, it should not cause physical or emotional harm affect someone's willingness to participate in the study."

You'd be surprised what they consider "emotional harm". Since everyone responds to situations differently, they have to be extremely careful. Especially at the university level, they can't flat out lie and say "We're going to do an experiment over politics" when it has nothing to do with politics. They have to inform him to the best of their ability.

26- That sounds more like a drug trial than a psycology test. The point of a psycology test like that is to see how the mind reacts without thinking about what others think. When you know that you're being monitored, you are more concerned with how you think you are expected to respond than how you honestly feel.

#12 = win

#28, it was in reference to deceiving people during experiments, and had nothing to do with drug trials. The teacher also said the same thing during class when talking about the Milgram experiment and why the same thing wouldn't be allowed today.