The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense
Open accessAbstract
In psychology, deception is commonly used to increase experimental control. Yet, its use has provoked concerns that it raises participants' suspicions, prompts second-guessing of experimenters' true intentions, and ultimately distorts behavior and endangers the control it is meant to achieve. Over time, these concerns regarding the methodological costs of the use of deception have been subjected to empirical analysis. We review the evidence stemming from these studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority
Asch, S. E. (1956) · Psychological Monographs: General and Applied · doi:10.1037/h0093718 · Cited by 4,267
Orne, M. T. (1962) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0043424 · Cited by 4,041
Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0025589 · Cited by 3,083 · cited 4×
“Had MacCoun and Kerr’s study been concerned with altruistic behavior, then the participants’behavior, that is, withholding help because they were suspicious of deception and expected to be framed, would have been mistaken as evidence for the “bystander effect” (Darley & Latané, 1968).”
InfluentialDo studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies?
Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.309 · Cited by 748
Cited by
Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000217 · Cited by 689
Metadata
- Authors
- Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A.
- Venue
- Ethics & Behavior
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-03-11
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-92
- ISSN
- 1050-8422 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7019
- OpenAlex
- W2121000471
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 7.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10508420701712990
- The paper
- Hertwig, R., & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense. Ethics & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701712990
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
