Fix It Mary Jo Recently Read a Research Article About Deception in Deception

Fix It
Mary Jo recently read a research article about deception in research. The author of the article asserts that deception in research is stigmatized, but individuals in research who are deceived report enjoying the experience. Intrigued by this paper, Mary Jo decides to conduct a study to determine how people feel when they find out they have been deceived, and what types of deception are acceptable. To that end, she conducts two studies. In the first study she randomly assigns participants to one of two treatment conditions. Individuals in the deception group are deceived about the purpose of the study in which they volunteer. Individuals in the control group are told the true nature of the experiment. In both conditions the participants study a list of words in a lavender-scented room and their retention of those words is later assessed. The control group are told the lavender scent is to improve learning, but the deception group are told nothing about the lavender scent. In the second study the participants are again divided into two groups: deception and no deception. Participants come to a health clinic to receive a flu shot. Half of the participants get the vaccine whereas the other half gets a placebo shot (although all believe they have been vaccinated). Six months later the researchers disclose that only some of the participants actually got the vaccine. Mary Jo finds that in the first study deception did not negatively affect participants' perception about research. In fact, many who were not told about the lavender scent were excited to learn why it was present because it confirmed their hypothesis of its presence. In contrast, many individuals in the flu study who did not actually get the flu shot were upset about being lied to.
Was deception justified in this study? What might an IRB say about how the groups were deceived? Fix it!