The present study investigated informed consent procedures as a possible methodological artifact in stressor research. The authors hypothesized that certain aspects of the consent form may give the subject the perception of control over the stressor. Empirical support was found for this hypothesis. Analyses revealed that stressed subjects who were explicitly informed via consent forms of their freedom to withdraw from the experiment performed significantly better on cognitive tasks than stressed subjects not so informed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Appelbaum, M. I. , & Cramer. E. M.Some problems in the nonorthogonal analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 335-343.
2.
Bowens, K. S. , & Kelly, P.Stress, disease, psychotherapy, and hypnosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1979, 88, 490-505.
3.
Cohen, S.Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of research and theory . Psychological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 82-108.
4.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary . Final regulations amending basic H HS policy for the protection of human subjects. Federal Register, January 26, 1981, 46 (16), 8366-8392.
5.
Diener, E. , & Crandall, R.Ethics in social and behavioral research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
6.
Donnerstein, E. , & Wilson, D. W.Effects of noise and perceived control on on-going and subsequent aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 774-781.
7.
Gardner, G. T.Effects of federal human subjects regulations on data obtained in environmental stressor research . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 628-634.
8.
Glass, D. C. , & Singer, J. E.Urban stress: Experiments on noise and social stressors. New York: Academic Press, 1972.
9.
Glass, D. C. , Singer, J. E., Leonard, H. S., Krantz, D., Cohen, S., & Cummings, H.Perceived control of aversive stimulation and the reduction of stress responses. Journal of Personality, 1973, 41, 577-595.
10.
Jensen, P. , Jokel, C. R., & Miller, L. N.Industrial noise control manual (revised edition). U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Publication 79-117, Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1978.
11.
Mills, R. T. , & Krantz, D. S.Information, choice, and reactions to stress: A field experiment in a blood-bank and laboratory analogue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 608-620.
12.
Perlmuter, L. C. , & Monty, R. A.The importance of perceived control: Fact or fantasy?American Scientist, 1977, 65, 759-765.
13.
Sherrod, D. R.Crowding, perceived control, and behavioral aftereffects . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 171-186.
14.
Sherrod, D. R. , & Downs, R.Environmental determinants of altruism: The effects of stimulus overload and perceived control on helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1974, 10, 468-479.
15.
Stroop, J. R.Studies of interference in serial verbal reaction . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935, 18, 643-662.
16.
West, S. G. , Gunn, S. P., & Chernicky, P.Ubiquitous Watergate: An attributional analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 55-65.
