INTRODUCTION

1. Laboratory Experience, Gender, and Personality Impact Reading Informed Consent Forms. Michael M. KneppUniversity of Mount Union INTRODUCTION MEASURES RESULTS • As electronic consent forms become more common, we are becoming trained to scroll to the end of the document and click accept. • This mindset may have particular consequences for the ethics of college student sampling and whether or not participants are even aware of their rights anymore. • The field has a dearth of objective findings about the consent form reading process (Varnhagen et al., 2005). • Previous reviews indicate that informed consent form comprehension is lowest with regard to alternatives and risks of the procedure: two areas that would be a focus in research subjects (Stanley & Guido, 1996). • Informed Consent Form: (Both Portions) • There was a line in the procedure section that was worded as: On the next questionnaire about demographics, whether you have had a medical diagnosis or not, answer the question which reads “are you taking any medications” with the answer “I am paying attention to the study.” • The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990;). The PSWQ consists of 16-item scale designed to measure trait worry levels • Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). The ERQ is a 10 item self-report questionnaire that assesses for emotion suppression and reappraisal strategies • Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale(DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The DASS-short form is a 21-item self-report questionnaire examining the state conditions of depression, anxiety, and tension/stress Figure 1: PSWQ scores for College Students Who Read and Did Not Read Informed Consent Forms Online and During the Lab Phase HYPOTHESES • H1: Students in the lab section would be more likely to read, comprehend and express knowledge of the IFC • Due to physical presence of researcher • Still expected that less than half will read IFC • H2:Students who notice the IFC detail will be: • High in trait worry • High in suppression of emotions • High in state stress, anxiety, and depression Figure 2: DASS scores for College Students Who Read and Did Not Read Informed Consent Forms Online and During the Lab Phase RESULTS • Students in the laboratory session (38.3%) were more likely to read the IFC compared with students completing the tasks online at home (11.8%) • χ² = 17.65, df = 1, p <.001 • Students who followed the directions reported higher trait worry • F(1, 179)=10.40, p<.005 • Students who read the forms further reported more state stress those who did not read the forms • F(1, 179)=4.13, p<.05 • There was a gender effect in that women were more likely to read the informed consent forms • χ² = 7.02, df = 1, p <.01 CONCLUSIONS • The overall reading of informed consent forms was low as expected. • It appears that anxious individuals or those in current stress situations would be more likely to do the proper diligence and take the time to read through the entire form. • Future research could test various procedures intended to increase compliance at reading the consent forms and understanding one’s own rights. PARTICIPANTS • One hundred eight-three total subjects • 102 online; 81 laboratory participation • Approximately 2/3rds college women • Mean age: 19.55, SD=1.3 • 87 percent Caucasian • No demographic differences between online and laboratory portions Correspondence to: kneppm@mountunion.edu Presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Washington DC, May 2013