When a Negative Experience Sticks With You: Does the Revised Outcome Debriefing Counteract the Consequences of Experimental Ostracism in Psychological Research?

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-23 DOI:10.1177/15562646241227065
Stefanie Miketta, Malte Friese
{"title":"When a Negative Experience Sticks With You: Does the Revised Outcome Debriefing Counteract the Consequences of Experimental Ostracism in Psychological Research?","authors":"Stefanie Miketta, Malte Friese","doi":"10.1177/15562646241227065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For research purposes, it is generally accepted that experimental ostracism manipulations can lead to a reduction of participants' well-being. To eventually restore participants' well-being, researchers rely on post-experimental debriefings that discredit prior deception. However, evidence suggests that discredited beliefs can persevere. The present research investigates whether a potent debriefing procedure restores participants' well-being after an experimentally induced ostracism experience. In two studies, participants were either excluded or included in a Cyberball game, indicated their well-being, and were debriefed. In two additional conditions, participants were debriefed before indicating their well-being. Ostracism compared to inclusion led to decreased positive and increased negative mood. The debriefing did not counteract this effect (Studies 1 & 2). Unwanted aftereffects of the manipulation persevered for more than one day after the experimental session (Study 2). These findings question the effectiveness of debriefings and raise issues about research ethics.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10958747/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646241227065","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For research purposes, it is generally accepted that experimental ostracism manipulations can lead to a reduction of participants' well-being. To eventually restore participants' well-being, researchers rely on post-experimental debriefings that discredit prior deception. However, evidence suggests that discredited beliefs can persevere. The present research investigates whether a potent debriefing procedure restores participants' well-being after an experimentally induced ostracism experience. In two studies, participants were either excluded or included in a Cyberball game, indicated their well-being, and were debriefed. In two additional conditions, participants were debriefed before indicating their well-being. Ostracism compared to inclusion led to decreased positive and increased negative mood. The debriefing did not counteract this effect (Studies 1 & 2). Unwanted aftereffects of the manipulation persevered for more than one day after the experimental session (Study 2). These findings question the effectiveness of debriefings and raise issues about research ethics.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
当负面经历挥之不去时:修订后的结果汇报能否抵消心理学研究中实验性排斥的后果?
就研究目的而言,人们普遍认为,实验性排斥操纵会导致参与者的幸福感下降。为了最终恢复参与者的幸福感,研究人员依靠实验后的情况汇报来否定之前的欺骗行为。然而,有证据表明,被抹黑的信念会持续存在。本研究调查了一种有效的汇报程序是否能在实验诱导的排斥体验后恢复参与者的幸福感。在两项研究中,参与者要么被排除在外,要么被纳入到一个网络球游戏中,表明他们的幸福感,并接受汇报。在另外两项研究中,参与者在表明自己的幸福感之前先听取汇报。与加入游戏相比,排斥会导致积极情绪下降,消极情绪上升。汇报并没有抵消这种影响(研究 1 和 2)。在实验课结束后的一天多时间里,操纵的意外后遗症仍在持续(研究 2)。这些发现对汇报的有效性提出了质疑,并引发了研究伦理方面的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Understanding of Key Considerations for Effective Community Engagement in Genetics and Genomics Research: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Research Ethics Committee Members and National Research Regulators in a low Resource Setting. Vulnerable Research Participant Policies at U.S. Academic Institutions. Considerations for the Design of Informed Consent in Digital Health Research: Participant Perspectives. Public Perspectives on Consent for and Governance of Biobanking in Japan. Comparison of Instructions to Authors and Reporting of Ethics Components in Selected African Biomedical Journals: 2008 and 2017.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1