In two year-long studies, one of a sensitive nature (sexual activity) and one of a much less sensitive nature (mathematics anxiety), approximately 33% of subjects were lost when prompted to continue their participation, compared to 52% who were lost when they were reminded of their withdrawal option at each follow-up point. Evidence for potential biasing of samples is also presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GardnerG. T.Effects of federal human subjects regulations on data obtained in environmental stressor research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 629–634.
2.
Price-GreathouseJ.TriceA. D.Chance health-orientation and AIDS information seeking. Psychological Reports, 1986, 59, 10.
TriceA. D.Informed consent: III. Informing students that performance will not affect credit may affect performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1986, 62, 178. (b).
5.
TriceA. D.Informed consent: IV. The effects of the timing of giving consent on experimental performance. Journal of General Psychology, 1987, 114, 125–128.
6.
TriceA. D.Informed consent: VIII. Biasing of sensitive self-report data by both consent and information. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, in press.
7.
TriceA. D.BaileyB. H.Informed consent: II. Withdrawal-without-prejudice clauses may increase no shows. Journal of General Psychology, 1986, 113, 285–287.
8.
TriceA. D.OgdenE. P.Informed consent: I. The institutional nonliability clauses as a liability in recruiting research subjects. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1986, 1, 391–396.
