Undergraduate Consent Form Reading in Relation to Conscientiousness,Procrastination,and the Point-of-Time Effect

Abstract

Informed consent is central to conducting ethical research with human participants. The present study investigated differences in consent form reading in relation to conscientiousness, procrastination, and the point-of-time (PT) effect among undergraduate participants at a U.S. university. As hypothesized, conscientious participants and those who signed up to participate in a research study more days in advance and for earlier sessions (PT effect) read the consent form more thoroughly. However, procrastination was not related to consent form reading. Most importantly, consent form reading in general was poor, with 80% of participants demonstrating that they had not read the consent form. Conscientious participants were more likely to self-report reading the consent form, irrespective of their measured consent form reading. The article closes with suggestions to improve the process of obtaining informed consent with undergraduate participants.

Keywords

informed consent students reading comprehension subject pool

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.

Arnett

J. J.

(2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602-614.

Brody

J. L.

Gluck

J. P.

Aragon

A. S.

(1997). Participants’ understanding of the process of psychological research: Informed consent. Ethics & Behavior, 7, 285-298.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Profesional manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Fee

R. L.

Tangney

J. P.

(2000). Procrastination: A means of avoiding shame or guilt? Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15, 167-184.

Flory

Emanuel

(2004). Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 292, 1593-1601.

Jackson

J. J.

Wood

Bogg

Walton

K. E.

Harms

P. D.

Roberts

B. W.

(2010). What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the Behavioral Indicators of Conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 501-511.

Johnson

J. L.

Bloom

A. M.

(1995). An analysis of the contribution of the five factors of personality to variance in academic procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 127-133.

Krashen

(1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

10.

Lay

C. H.

(1986). At last, my research article on procrastination. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 474-495.

11.

Lee

D. G.

Kelly

K. R.

Edwards

J. K.

(2006). A closer look at the relationships among trait procrastination, neuroticism, and conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 27-37.

12.

Mann

(1994). Informed consent for psychological research: Do subjects comprehend consent forms and understand their legal rights? Psychological Science, 5, 140-143.

13.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90.

14.

McNutt

L. A.

Waltermaurer

Bednarczyk

R. A.

Carlson

B. E.

Kotval

McCauley

Ford

D. E.

(2008). Are we misjudging how well informed consent forms are read? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3, 89-97.

15.

Ones

D. S.

Viswesvaran

Reiss

A. D.

(1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660-679.

16.

Pedersen

E. R.

Neighbors

Tidwell

Lostutter

T. W.

(2011). Do undergraduate student research participants read psychological research consent forms? Examining memory effects, condition effects, and individual differences. Ethics & Behavior, 21, 332-350.

17.

Saucier

(1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516.

18.

Schouwenburg

H. C.

Lay

C. H.

(1995). Trait procrastination and the Big-Five factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 481-490.

19.

Stevens

C. D.

Ash

R. A.

(2001). The conscientiousness of students in subject pools: Implications for “laboratory” research. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 91-97.

20.

Sullivan

M. P.

Lashley

S. L.

(2009). Developing informed research participants in an introductory psychology participant pool. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 24-28.

21.

Taub

H. A.

(1986). Comprehension of informed consent for research: Issues and directions for future study. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 8(6), 7-10.

22.

Wang

A. Y.

Jentsch

F. G.

(1998). Point-of-time effects across the semester: Is there a sampling bias? The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 132, 211-219.

23.

Watson

D. C.

(2001). Procrastination and the five-factor model: A facet level analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 149-158.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB