Introduction
The focus on Internet relationships has escalated in recent times, with researchers investigating such areas as the development of online relationships (e.g., McCown, Fischer, Page, & Homant, 2001; Parks & Roberts, 1998; Whitty & Gavin, 2001), the formation of friends online (Parks & Floyd, 1996), representation (Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons 2002), and misrepresentation of self online (Whitty, 2002). Researchers have also attempted to identify those addicted to accessing online sexual material (Cooper, Putnam, Planchon, & Boies, 1999). Moreover, others have been interested in Internet infidelity (Whitty, 2003a, 2005) and cybersex addiction (Griffiths, 2001, Young, Griffin-Shelley, Cooper, O’Mara, & Buchanan, 2000). Notwithstanding this continued growth of research in this field, few researchers have considered the new ethical implications of studying this topic area.
While it is acknowledged here that some of the discussions in this article might be equally applied to the study of other Internet texts, such as religious or racial opinions, the focus in this article is on the concomitant ethical concerns of ongoing research into Internet relationships. Given that the development and maintenance of online relationships can be perceived as private and very personal (possibly more personal than other sensitive areas), there are potential ethical concerns that are unique to the study of such a topic area (Whitty, 2004; Whitty & Carr, 2006). For a broader discussion of virtual research ethics in general, refer to Ess and Jones (2004) and Whitty and Carr (2006).
background
Early research into this area has mostly focused on the similarities and differences between online and off-line relationships. Researchers have been divided over the importance of available social cues in the creation and maintenance of online relationships. Some have argued that online relationships are shallow and impersonal (e.g., Slouka, 1995). In contrast, others contend that Internet relationships are just as emotionally fulfilling as face-to-face relationships, and that any lack of social cues can be overcome (Lea & Spears, 1995; Walther, 1996). In addition, researchers have purported that the ideals that are important in traditional relationships, such as trust, honesty, and commitment, are equally important online, but the cues that signify these ideals are different (Whitty & Gavin, 2001). Current research is also beginning to recognize that online relating is just another form of communicating with friends and lovers, and that we need to move away from considering these forms of communication as totally separate and distinct entities (e.g., Wellman, 2004). Moreover, McKenna, Green, and Gleason (2002) have found that when people convey their “true” self online they develop strong Internet relationships and bring these relationships into their “real” lives.
Internet friendships developed in chat rooms, newsgroups, and MUDs or MOOs have been examined by a number of researchers. For example, Parks and Floyd (1996) used e-mail surveys to investigate how common personal relationships are in newsgroups. After finding that these relationships were regularly formed in newsgroups, Parks and Roberts (1998) turned to examine relationships developed in MOOs. These researchers found that most (93.6%) of their participants had reported having formed some type of personal relationship online, the most common type being a close friendship.
Researchers have also been interested in how the playful arena of the Internet impacts on the types of relationships formed in these places (e.g., Whitty, 2003b; Whitty & Carr, 2003, 2006). Turkle’s (1995) well-known research on her observations while interacting in MUDs found that the role-playing aspect of MUDs actually creates opportunities for individuals to reveal a deeper truth about themselves. Whitty and Gavin (2001) have also contended that although people do lie about themselves online, this paradoxically can open up a space for a deeper level of engagement with others.
Importantly, some researchers are now starting to realize that cyberspace is not a generic space that everyone experiences in the same way. New theories are currently being developed to explain how individuals present themselves in different spaces online. For instance, Whitty (in press) devised the BAR theory to explain presentation of self on online dating sites, which she believes is different to other spaces within cyberspace. The BAR theory purports that most online daters find the best strategy for developing a “successful profile” is to create a balance between an “attractive self’ and a “real self.” The online daters Whitty and her research assistants interviewed (see Whitty, in press; Whitty & Carr, 2006) talked about the need to re-write their profiles if they were attracting either people they did not desire, or if they were attracting no one, or if their date appeared disappointed with them when they met face-to-face (given that they did not live out to their profile). Therefore, it would seem that a successful profile has to appear attractive enough to stand out and be chosen, but also one that individuals could live up to in their first face-to-face date (which often took place within a couple of weeks of meeting online).
Cybersex addiction and the available treatment for these cybersex addicts and their partners has been an area of research and concern for psychologists (e.g., Schneider, 2000; Young, Pistner, O’Mara, & Buchanan, 1999). Research has also focused on what online acts might be considered as an act of infidelity. For example, Whitty (2003a) found that acts such as cybersex and hot-chatting were perceived as almost as threatening to the off-line relationship as sexual intercourse. In addition to these concerns, Cooper et al. (1999) identified three categories of individuals who access Internet erotic material, including recreational users, sexual compulsive users (these individuals are addicted to sex per se, and the Internet is but one mode where they can access sexual material), and at-risk users (these individuals would never have developed a sexual addiction if it were not for the Internet).
ethical issues pertinent to the study of internet relationships
Much of the research, to date, on Internet relationships and sexuality has been conducted online—either through interviews, surveys, or by carrying out analysis on text that is readily available online. There are many advantages to conducting research online as well as collecting text or data available online for analysis in one’s research (see Table 1).
In spite of the numerous advantages to conducting research online, investigators also need to be aware of the disadvantages (see Table 2).
What all studies that research Internet relationships have in common is that they are researching a sensitive topic, which requires individuals to reveal personal and often very private aspects of themselves and their lives. Given the sensitive nature of this topic area, it is crucial that researchers give some serious thought to whether they are truly conducting research in an ethical manner.
Table 1. Practical benefits of conducting research online
• Easy access to a population of individuals who form relationships online and who access sexual material
• Internet provides researchers with a population that is sometimes difficult to research (e.g., people with disabilities, agoraphobia)
• Contact people in locations that have closed or limited access (e.g., prisons, hospitals)
• Requires relatively limited resources
• Ease of implementation
Photographs, video, sound bites, and text produced by individuals online are sometimes examined by researchers. The text can be produced in a number of different forums, including chat rooms, MUDs, newsgroups, MySpace, Bebo, and online dating sites. One way researchers collect data is by lurking in these different spaces in cyberspace. The development of online relationships (both friendships and romantic) and engaging in online sexual activities, such as cybersex, could easily be perceived by those engaging in such activities as a private discourse. Given the nature of these interactions, social researchers need to seriously consider if they have the right to lurk in online settings in order to learn more about these activities—despite the benefits of obtaining this knowledge.
There are fuzzy boundaries between what constitutes public and private spaces online, and researchers need to acknowledge that there are different places within cyberspace. For example, a chat room might be deemed a more public space than e-mail. It is contended here that lurking in some spaces online might be ethically questionable. We must, as researchers, debate how intrusive a method lurking potentially is. As Ferri (1999, cited in Mann & Stewart, 2000) contends, “who is the intended audience of an electronic communication—and does it include you as a researcher?” (p. 46).
Researchers also need to consider how the participant perceives the various online spaces. As Ferri suggests, private interactions can and do indeed occur in public places. It has been theorized that the Internet can give an individual a sense of privacy and anonymity (e.g., Rice & Love, 1987; Whitty & Carr, 2006). The “socialpresence theory’ contends that “social presence” is the feeling one has that other persons are involved in a communication exchange (Rice & Love, 1987). Since computer-mediated-relating (CMR) involves less non-verbal cues (such as facial expression, posture, and dress) and auditory cues in comparison to face-to-face communication, it is said to be extremely low in social presence. Hence, while many others might occupy the space online, it is not necessarily perceived in that way. As researchers we need to ask some questions: Can researchers ethically take advantage of these people’s false sense of privacy and security? Is it ethically justifiable to lurk in these sites and download material without the knowledge or consent of the individuals who inhabit these sites? This is especially relevant to questions of relationship development and sexuality, which are generally understood to be private matters. Therefore, good ethical practice needs to consider the psychology of cyberspace and the false sense of security the Internet affords.
Table 2. Disadvantages of conducting research online
• Security issues
• Possible duplication of participants completing surveys
• Difficult to ascertain how the topic area examined impacts on the participant
• Restricted to a certain sample
It is suggested here that researchers need to maintain personal integrity as well as be aware of how their online investigations can impact the Internet relationships they study. For example, given researchers’ knowledge of online relationships, interacting on online dating sites, chat rooms, and so forth could potentially alter the dynamics of these communities.
While it might be unclear as to how ethical it is for lurk-ers to collect data on the Internet, there is less doubt as to whether it is acceptable to deceive others online in order to conduct social research, especially with respect to online relationships and sexuality. Ethical guidelines generally state that deception is unethical because the participant is unable to give free and fully informed consent. For example, according to the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which set the ethical guidelines for Australian research:
As a general principle, deception of, concealment of the purposes of a study from, or covert observation of, identifiable participants are not considered ethical because they are contrary to the principle of respect for persons in that free and fully informed consent cannot be given. (NHMRC, 1999)
Generally, ethical guidelines will point out that only under certain unusual circumstances deception is unavoidable when there is no alternative method to conduct one’s research. However, in these circumstances individuals must be given the opportunity to withdraw data obtained from them during the research that they did not originally give consent to.
future trends
As with any other research conducted within the social sciences, some important ethical practices need to be adhered to when we conduct research on Internet relationships and sexuality (see Table 3).
Informed consent requires researchers to be up front from the beginning about the aims of their research and how they are going to be utilizing the data they collect. In off-line research individuals often sign a form to give their consent; however, this is not always achievable online. One way around this is to direct participants to a Web site that contains information about the project. This Web site could inform the participants about the purpose of the study, what the study entails, as well as contact details of the researcher, and the university Human Ethics Committee.
Table 3. Ethical practices
• Informed consent
• Withdrawal of consent
• Confidentiality
• Psychological safeguards
In some cases, spaces on the Web are moderated. In these instances, it is probably also appropriate to contact the moderators of the site prior to contacting the participants. This is analogous to contacting an organization prior to targeting individuals within that organization. Wysocki (1998), for instance, asked permission from the moderator of a sadomasochist bulletin board called the “pleasure pit.”
Researchers also need to be aware that some European countries require written consent. If written consent is required, then the participant could download a form and sign it off-line and then return it by fax or postal mail (Mann & Stewart, 2000).
In research about relationships and sexuality, in particular, there is the risk that the interview or survey will stress the participant too much for them to continue with the study. As with off-line research, researchers need to consider up until what point a participant can withdraw consent. The end point of withdrawal of consent might be, for instance, after the submitting of the survey, or at the conclusion of the interview the interviewer might find confirmation that the participant is happy to allow the researcher to include the transcript in the study. Social scientists should also be aware that the lack of social cues available online makes it more difficult for them to ascertain if the participant is uncomfortable. Thus one should tread carefully and possibly make an effort to check at different points in the interview if the individual is still comfortable with proceeding.
There are other issues unique to Internet research in respect to withdrawal of consent. For example, the computer could crash mid-way through an interview or survey. Mechanisms need to be put into place to allow that participant to re-join the research if desired, and consent should not be assumed (Buchanan & Smith, 1999). In circumstances such as the computer or server crashing, we might need to have a system to enable debriefing, especially if the research is asking questions of a personal nature. Nosek, Banaji, and Greenwald (2002) suggest that debriefing can be made available by providing a contact e-mail address at the beginning of the study. They also suggest providing “a ‘leave the study’ button, made available on every study page, [which] would allow participants to leave the study early and still direct them to a debriefing page” (p. 163). In addition, they state that participants be given a list of FAQs, since they argue that there is less opportunity to ask the sorts of questions participants typically ask in face-to-face interviews.
There are various ways we might deal with the issue of confidentiality. As with off-line research we could elect to use pseudonyms to represent our participants or even request preferred pseudonyms from them. However, a unique aspect of the Internet is that people typically inhabit the Web using a screen name, rather than a real name. Can we use a screen name given that these are not real names? While they may not be people’s off-line identities, individuals could still be identified by their screen names if we publish them—even if it is only recognition by other online inhabitants.
As mentioned earlier in this article, research into the areas of relationships and sexuality is likely to cause psychological distress for some. It is perhaps much more difficult to deal with psychological distress online and with individuals in other countries. Nevertheless, it is imperative that we ensure that the participant does have counseling available to them if the research has caused them distress—which sometimes might be delayed distress. This could mean that there are limits to the kinds of topics about which we interview participants online or that we restrict our sample to a particular country or region where we know of psychological services that can be available to our participants if required.
Given that research into Internet relationships and sexuality is a relatively new area, future research might also focus on how to improve ethical practices. For instance, future studies might interview potential participants about how they would prefer social scientists to conduct research. Moreover, gaining a greater understanding of how individuals perceive private and public space could also influence how we conduct future studies in this topic area.
conclusions
In concluding, while this article has provided examples of ways forward in our thinking about virtual ethics in respect to the study of online relationships, it is by no means prescriptive or exhaustive. Rather, it is suggested here that debate over such issues should be encouraged, and we should avoid setting standards for how we conduct our Internet research without also considering the ethical implications of our work. The way forward is to not restrict the debate amongst social scientists, but to also consult the individuals we would like to and are privileged to study.
KEY TERMS
Bebo: A social networking site where members can communicate with school and university friends, connect with friends, share photos, comment on others sites and photos, and write a blog.
Blog: Online diaries on a Web page, where the blogger updates entries, typically fairly regularly, in reverse chronological sequence.
Chat Room: A Web site, or part of a Web site, that allows individuals to communicate in real time.
Cybersex: Two or more individuals using the Internet as a medium to engage in discourses about sexual fantasies. The dialogue is typically accompanied by sexual self-stimulation.
Hot-Chatting: Two or more individuals engaging in discourses that move beyond light-hearted flirting.
Lurker: A participant in a chat room or a subscriber to a discussion group, listserv, or mailing list who passively observes. These individuals typically do not actively partake in the discussions that befall in these forums.
MUDs and MOOs: Multiple-user dungeons, or more commonly understood these days to mean multi-user dimension or domains. These were originally a space where interactive role-playing games could be played, very similar to Dungeons and Dragons.
MySpace: A social networking site where members can communicate with school and university friends, connect with friends, share photos, comment on others’ sites and photos, and write a blog.
Online Sexual Activity: Using the Internet for any sexual activity (e.g., recreation, entertainment, exploitation, education).
Screen Name: A screen name can be an individual’s real name, a variation of an individuals’ name, or a totally made-up pseudonym. Screen names are especially required on the Internet for applications such as instant messaging.
