The informed consent process presents challenges for psychological trauma research (e.g. Institutional Review Board [IRB] apprehension). While previous research documents researcher and IRB-member perspectives on these challenges, participant views remain absent. Thus, using a mixed-methods approach, we investigated participant views on consent guidelines in two convenience samples: crowdsourced (N = 268) and undergraduate (N = 265) participants. We also examined whether trauma-exposure influenced participant views. Overall, participants were satisfied with current guidelines, providing minor feedback and ethical reminders for researchers. Moreover, (...) participant views for consent were similar irrespective of trauma-exposure. Our study has implications for IRBs and psychological researchers. (shrink)

This study examined possible ways to ensure that participants provide fully informed consent for online surveys. Participants were randomly assigned to read either a traditional informed consent or one of three modified versions: enhanced, consent for each key element, or a combination of these two. Those who read the combination version scored higher on a comprehension quiz, guessed at fewer questions, and were more likely to read all of the informed consent than those who received the traditional version. These findings (...) suggest that comprehension can be improved by adopting alternatives to the traditional informed consent. (shrink)

Although research has examined factors influencing understanding of informed consent in biomedical and forensic research, less is known about participants' attention to details in consent documents in psychological survey research. The present study used a randomized experimental design and found the majority of participants were unable to recall information from the consent form in both in-person and online formats. Participants were also relatively poor at recognizing important aspects of the consent form including risks to participants and confidentiality procedures. Memory effects (...) and individual difference characteristics also appeared to influence recall and recognition of consent form information. (shrink)

Previous research shows that students often do not read informed consent forms to understand their rights. Four hundred fifty-eight students participated in an advertised temperament study that actually measured whether they noticed a manipulation within the consent form. Answering five questions about the form raised the percentage of students noticing the manipulation in multiple settings; however, overall rates were low. Fewer than 10% of ethnic minority students noticed the manipulation. If the goal of consent forms in higher education remains an (...) informed decision, these results indicate the need for increased interaction within the consent process. (shrink)

Although many people choose to sign consent forms and participate in research, how many thoroughly read a consent form before signing it? Across 3 experiments using 348 undergraduate student participants, we examined whether personality characteristics as well as consent form content, format, and delivery method were related to thorough reading. Students repeatedly failed to read the consent forms, although small effects were found favoring electronic delivery methods and traditional format forms. Potential explanations are discussed and include participant apathy, participants trying (...) to save time by not reading the consent form, and participant assumptions about consent forms. (shrink)