Informed Consent
by notwilliam
In psychology, one of the many ethical controls put in place is called informed consent, this means that before participants can take part in research they have to provide their consent.
The main problem with this is what constitutes informed consent, do we tell participants everything about our study, or only the parts we think are important. Most researchers choose to inform participants of the procedures of the study and any potential harm or benefit the study could provide, which I believe to be the correct way to go about it, because then potential participants know everything that is relevant, but you haven’t bored them with all the minute details, or providing them with a document so large that they don’t even pay attention (with an attention span like mine it’s a very real possibility).
Another issue with informed consent is the impact it can have on the validity of a study, sometimes if a participant knows, or guesses the intention behind a study, they will adjust their behaviour towards it, which can greatly skewer the results of a study and mess up an entire analysis. Though in studies where this is a serious issue, this effect can be negated by gaining what is known as retrospective consent, this means that you get consent for participation at the end of a study and provide full disclosure then, with only basic consent given at the beginning of the study. This technique was used in Milgrams study of obedience as participants had to believe they were actually causing someone harm.
Informed consent is a useful tool as it also allows us to see which studies are contentious in nature as participants will refuse consent to studies they believe are overly harmful which can also be used to test our own ethical procedures and controls.
notwilliam 
Informed consent is one of those tricky things. Yes it does help to ensure that the participants know what they’re letting themselves in for, but in my opinion it often makes experiments trickier to plan for. However, as I was looking around for information on how participants feel about the information they receive from researchers and found one study that examined how parents felt about the information they had received about the study they had volunteered their children for (Stuijvenberg et al. 1998). The study aimed to assess the quality of informed consent within child settings. The parents of 230 children who had volunteered their child to participate in a double blind study of the effectiveness of ibruprofen syrup in preventing seizures caused by fever, were sent questionnaires. These questionnaires wanted to measure just how much the parents actually knew about the study their children had participated in.
The study found that 73% of the 181 parents that responded to the questionnaire knew of the main characteristics of the study, with only a few of the parents having trouble understanding the information that they were provided with. But something else interesting that the study found that whilst 89% of parents were happy with the informed consent they received, 25% however felt that they had to participate. Stuijvenberg et al. (1998) therefore concluded that informed consent is important however studies should aim to ensure that the information is easy to understand (but also with enough detail for informed consent to occur) and researchers should also aim to ensure that participants do not feel that they have no choice but to participate.
I guess the point I’m trying to make with this piece of research is that informed consent is important and participants do deserve to know what the study involves. However, are we not costing ourselves valuable findings? As you mention above, participants are more likely to show demand characteristics if they know what the study is about. However, as the following guidelines from the APA show, not everything has to be divulged by the researcher. Participants should know: purpose, duration, procedures, right to withdraw, consequences of withdrawing, potential risks, potential benefits, any limits there may be to confidentiality, who they can contact if they have any further questions. BUT.. No where in this list does it mention that they should know the exact aim of the research before it has taken place! In my opinion, the information that researchers have to divulge will not really lead to demand characteristics.
Stuijvenberg, M., Suur, M. H., Vos, S., Tjiang, G. C. H., Steyerberg, E. W., Derksen-Lubsen, G., Moll, H. A. (1998). Informed consent, parental awareness, and reasons for participating in a randomised control study. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 79(2), 120-125.
http://www.socialpsychology.org/consent.htm
🙂 sorry it’s a bit long, kind of went off on a tangent there!
Your blog was very clear and well thought-out, I enjoyed reading it 🙂 Informed consent is, in my view, one of the most important aspects in studies. For my project next year we’re experimenting with 6-month-olds, so the informed consent of their parents is absolutely crucial so they know exactly what we plan on doing to their obviously precious child! Don’t get me wrong, they don’t need to know the point of the study (what we aim to find) because even though they’ll have a cap over their eyes so they can’t see what’s going on and therefore can’t prompt their children, their knowledge may, as you rightly point out, affect results. But informed consent is absolutely crucial. The mention of the study in the comment above actually got me thinking about how often informed consent might not be fully understood, and therefore is technically not informed consent, which would violate ethical guidelines. Sugarman, McCrory and Hubal (1998) undertook a review of published literature, and they found that older subjects’ understanding of informed consent was more impaired, and also that those individuals with less formal education also tend to understand their informed consent less. From this it is easy to suggest that in studies who use such participants, clearer informed consent must be provided, and also that in *all* studies, researchers must make absolutely sure that their participants understand what they have read, and not just brush over it lightly. Sometimes, it seems to me that in our SONA studies, we sign consent forms rather too quickly because we trust what they say: as an example, in the last study I did, I was provided with 2 pieces of paper to read through and sign, which would provide informed consent, and the experimenter said to me something along the lines of ‘you can read it all through if you want, but most people just skim and sign.’ However, this was like I said done in SONA and therefore a trusted environment, and is very unlikely to occur in other kinds of research. In my opinion, informed consent cannot just be skimmed over; it is far too important for this.
Reference:
– Sugarman, McCrory & Hubal (1998) http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/9560079/reload=0;jsessionid=LWENUFfYtU3YciePiGSH.134
[…] https://notwilliam.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/informed-consent/#comment-118 […]
[…] 1. https://notwilliam.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/informed-consent/#comment-117 […]
There are so many pro’s and cons with informed consent that it is essentially a very long debate as to whether or not we should use it and this is also the same with debriefs – are they necessary or are those mass amounts of paper a complete waste of time?
Well with regards to consent it is always needed. If doctors did not ask for consent prior to taking organs out of cadaver then they would be sued and the same goes with psychologists – if they didn’t ask before doing some of the more weird and wonderful studies they would be sued. But does this mean with the more minor studies such as RT tasks pressing a button every time a target appears, that we dont really need consent as it is too minor? I would say that with these kind of studies only informed constent OR debrief is necessary unless asked for due to it being very obvious and non-threatening. With regards to milgram, he used a crazy amount of data prior from the public as to whether they would consent to taking part in his study and also did mass debrief post study to check his participants were as happy and safe as they were prior to testing. So maybe mass poll is a good way to get around lack of informed consent in all studies by seeking the population opinions first and then testing the sample.
Although it sounds simple, whether informed consent is needed or not, this is a question which really does have a big impact on Psychological research.
I agree with all of your points about the effects that getting informed consent can have on the validity of a study, as lets face it, if the study isn’t valid then it’s a bit of a waste of time! So in these situations I do feel that getting simple consent and following the study with retrospective consent and a thorough debrief is the best idea!
A final point I’ll make is in reference to a popular blog topic of whether or not it is ethical to use data/research from the internet without informed consent. A summary of the conclusion that I personally came to is that consent should be gained if contact details are provided or at least an effort should be made! However, in such a public area, when people put information on the internet it does become available to everyone in the majority of circumstances, which in effect is giving consent for others to access/use it.
Nice blog 🙂
[…] https://notwilliam.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/informed-consent/#comment-122 […]
I believe it depends to what extent one feels it’s ok to deceive a participant and how by giving 100% informed consent are we hindering potential future findings and how does it effect the all important validity!
Say if informed consent wasn’t an ethic principal, would we feel more nervous about participating in experiments?
This then raises the issue of using information found on the internet. Do individuals indirectly give consent for their information to be used if they post on public forums?
It is my personal belief that so long as you are not deceived into doing a different task to the task you agreed to do, its ok. I think in general if you are told the experiment is to measure one thing and its actually to measure another, I can’t imagine it would cause very much upset.
i think getting informed consent from participants is of vital importance to research so that particpants know the basics of what will happen in the study and know that they can withdraw at any time and also know they won’t be harmed. However i don’t think getting fully informed comment before a study is of paramount importance becuase not only is it likely to alter how participants perform as they know what the study is looking for. But also the participants can find out exactly what is being measured in the study in the debrief so don’t need to know everything before a study.
The deal with psychology is that until something is disproven we believe it to be true, and I’m sure you remember the word ‘falsify’ from first year. It’s a difficult notion to grasp but the field of psychology is built upon it. With inductive reasoning I do believe it is unreliable as well, but it does have its’ uses in psychological research. The inductive process is very important in qualitative research. Yes qualitative research is wholly subjective but it is this kind of research that leads to the later formulation of theories. Observing behaviour in a small sample is often applied to broader populations by conducting quantitative research in the later stages, and this is how theories are generated. My overall point is that inductive research is often vital for developing a theory, whereas the deductive approach helps to establish reliability of a theory.
The deductive approach is very narrow by nature for a good reason, exploring a theory with different research methods such as between subjects designs and observations provides a large amount of data supporting a theory. However, it doesn’t really allow scope for alternative findings as the research is always going to be thriving towards significance linking to the theory in question. This study highlights how researchers now, without realising combine the two approaches for both quantitative and qualitative research http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=858387&show=abstract. In my opinion, the inductive and deductive processes intertwine with one another as often the inductive approach is needed to provide the theory tested by the deductive process.
I’m really sorry, I’ve accidentally posted a comment meant for another blog on this one so just ignore the one above this one. 😦
Milgram’s experiment really was an exceptional one, as it highlighted just how far human beings could be pushed by an authority figure. The study itself was approved by an Ethics committee but by all means there were no APA ethical guidelines hanging over the study. The only thing close was the Post War convention, which provided guidelines for medical research whereas there were no specific psychology ones. To withhold informed consent at the start of the experiment, like you said could risk participants becoming aware of the intentions of the researchers and lead to demand characteristics.
The beauty of Milgram’s experiment is that is highlighted true human nature but went ethically about it with the de-brief at the end. People were shocked by the findings but they were for the good of psychology and led to the further progression of the field and its’ research. You have said that most researchers choose to inform participants of the procedure and of potential harm, but the issue is how much is too much information? This research highlights how the issue of informed consent is much more sensitive than we had initially considered, where it discusses how individual differences affect the amount of information participants require about research, and highlights how psychologists and ethicists should work together to find the most appropriate use of language for consent forms and how much information is appropriate to reveal for research. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0277953696001736?via=sd.
Overall, I believe that the necessity for informed consent is dependent on the nature of the experiment but it does provide participants with the chance to make an informed decision about participating without making them feel coerced into it. The APA website also highlight the usefulness of informed consent http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/ethics.aspx.
I think the important thing with informed consent is you must be justified in not providing it. I also believe it should be as long as needed to provide the participant with everything they need to know, because even if the participant doesn’t end up reading the form they should at least have had the chance too. Some believe that true informed consent cannot occur as one article stated that informed consent would always have an element of deception in it as ‘complete, wholly specific consent is an illusion’ (O’Neil, 2003). He stated that we must instead ensure that the participant has control of the information they receive off the researcher and that they should have the right to take away that consent (O’Neil, 2003). Which technically we already have as we have the right to withdraw and ask any questions we wish. Overall informed consent provides a certainty that the data collected has not been obtained via deception or coercion (O’Neil, 2003). Which is important as otherwise data collected would be unethical (due to deception) and lacking validity (due to persuading and/or altering the way the participant answers).
O’Neil, O. (2003). Some informed levels of consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 4-7. DOI: 10.1136/jme.29.1.4
[…] 6. https://notwilliam.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/informed-consent/#comment-128 […]
This blog was very interesting to read and very concise, which is probably why there are so many comments. It was interesting to read because you included something that I have not come across up until now (ashamedly), ‘retrospective consent’.
An area that I believe you were referring to in the second paragraph was passive deception, that is, informing the participants of the details that they must know, while holding back detail that if they were to know would confound the entire study.
Gravetter and Forzano (2009) describe ‘passive deception’ as the omission of the true purpose of the study, which seems to be very similar to ‘retrospective consent’. That is, providing basic information at the start of the experiment, such as ‘you are not obligated to partake in the study’ etc. Therefore, choosing to provide full explanation of the study in the debrief, a method used quite frequently in psychological research (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Asch, 1956). Research indicates that this method is effective in reducing demand characteristics, which is vital in order to examine behaviour under “normal” circumstances, subsequently increasing the validity of the experiment.
[…] https://notwilliam.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/informed-consent/#comment-130 […]
Like you have shown in your blog, informed consent can be quite tricky. As you have discussed there is an ethical duty to let participants know what it is they are participating in, but also there is a difficulty in making sure that you don’t give away too much information that they then change how they will respond and this will increase the likelihood of a type 1 error.
However as long as participants are aware of what they have to do in the experiment and possible risks involved, I feel like a little lie in what exactly you are testing, when necessary, is okay.
Informed consent is an extremely important part of a study and to be dishonest in an investigation can lead to people having a negative view on research. For example the well-known Mailgram obedience study is a highly criticised study for deceiving and causing distress to participants, and although participants did give informed consent they were not fully aware of what they were participating in. Although there is a difficulty as this research has led us to see humanity in a way that even the experimenters didn’t expect.
If participants have been misled about what is being tested then I think it should always be put in the debrief form and participants must have the opportunity to withdraw their results if they are unhappy with the participation after finding out the true investigation.
I feel it is extremely important that researchers should only not give the full details of the experiment when absolutely necessary and isn’t likely to cause distress to participants as it is important that people aren’t deterred from participating and feel as though they have been lied to.
[…] https://notwilliam.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/informed-consent/#comment-132 […]
Informed consent is a tricky one because for some studies, it is necessary for the participants not to know what is going on but are then debriefed fully afterwards. Before a study begins, the researcher must outline to the participants what the research consists of and then must ask their consent aka permission to take part. However, this is the tricky bit, it is not always possible to gained the participants consent, but this is acceptable as long as what happens in the experiment is something that is highly likely to happen in daily life. For example: if the research involves observing people in a bus queue, those individuals may be observed by anyone when in the queue without giving consent. However, if the research may involve deception and the participants are deceived into doing something they’re not without any consent, this breaks ethical guidelines. E.g. Milgram (1963) did not obtain informed consent from his participants as this would’ve messed up his experiment so this was essential, however, the participants were deceived.
I think consent forms are important for every research. If there is any risk of harm participant should know it before participate the study. Also consent form will tell the procedure of the study. For example, I attanded SONA experiment which is about brain waves and I found boring to read consent form and only sign it before the experiment. After first procedure has done, experimenter came to room and told me to wash my hair then they will put some gel to my hair to take my brain signals. I couldnt leave the experiment becase I need the credit but on the other hand I was plannig to go out after the experiement with my friend. And the disgusting dirty hair is not appropriate for a meeting. I told them, if know how is experiment goes, i will quit before signing everything. Then they told me that, everything aobut the experiment written in the consent form which i didnt read. Based on my experience consent forms are really important for participants.
[…] https://notwilliam.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/informed-consent/#comment-134 […]
AS you write using informed consent can comprimise the accuracy of an experiment as the participants might do better if they know what the study is about.
However using informed consent cannot be avoided, and only under very special circumstances can a researcher be allowed to not disclose everything in the experiment, as leaving even just a little part is not being told it is classed as deception. It might seem annoying that participants have to know everything, but as you say yourself, when the descriptions are long you forget what it is about. And personally after so many experiments for SONA, reading the information sheet is merely a formality that needs to be done and signed, and i know many people that doesn’t even bother doing it, as there generally is no harm.
Also personally, if i was not doing SONA but just participated in one experiment i would like to know if i was in any kind of danger, or what exactly would happen to me.
really good blog, personally i am a strong believer in the use of retrospective consent when its is needed. one of my favourite ares of psychology is social psychology where alot of this taes place, for example milgrams study in which you mentioned above. another example is in the asche study on conformity, this experiment would have never woprked if the participant knew that all the other people were confederates, this study went on to tell us alot about human behaviour and its for that reason i believe retrospective consent is a good thing and must be used when the experiment is at risk.
Informed consent makes for boring studies. Let’s be honest.
Exciting and ground research rarely uses informed consent, most experiments infact will involve some kind of deception.
This is, to me, why ethics committees are important.
It is up to the ethics committee to make sure it’s not a stupid, unneccesary experiment.
The reason i say this is that 99.9999% of experiments will likely involve some sort of component of deception, therefore we should just accept that we are going to be deceived and that it will all be explained at the end.
In conclusion, this is an excuse of using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut, most of the time none of us mind about being deceived, personally, i find it interesting about how they present the experiment. We have ethics committees to stop us doing horrific things, adding yet another filter to make sure no one gets offended seems far too limiting to me.