Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


PhilPapersPhilPeoplePhilArchivePhilEventsPhilJobs
Order:

1 filter applied
  1.  45
    No more than discomfort: the trauma film paradigm meets definitions of minimal-risk research.Nadine S. J. Stirling,Reginald D. V. Nixon &Melanie K. T. Takarangi -2023 -Ethics and Behavior 33 (1):1-17.
    ABSTRACT Despite Institutional Review Board concerns about psychological harm arising from research participation, evidence from trauma-questionnaire research suggests that participation is typically well-tolerated by participants. Yet, it is unclear how participant experiences of in-lab trauma simulations align with IRB ethical guidelines. Thus, we compared reactions to a trauma film paradigm with reactions to a positive film task or cognitive tasks. Overall, relative to other conditions, the trauma film was well-tolerated by participants: they generally reported low-to-moderate negative emotions, moderate benefits, and (...) that participation was not worse than everyday stressors. Our results have implications for the research community in designing trauma-based research. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2.  20
    The participant’s voice: crowdsourced and undergraduate participants’ views toward ethics consent guidelines.Nadine S. J. Stirling &Melanie K. T. Takarangi -2025 -Ethics and Behavior 35 (3):190-220.
    The informed consent process presents challenges for psychological trauma research (e.g. Institutional Review Board [IRB] apprehension). While previous research documents researcher and IRB-member perspectives on these challenges, participant views remain absent. Thus, using a mixed-methods approach, we investigated participant views on consent guidelines in two convenience samples: crowdsourced (N = 268) and undergraduate (N = 265) participants. We also examined whether trauma-exposure influenced participant views. Overall, participants were satisfied with current guidelines, providing minor feedback and ethical reminders for researchers. Moreover, (...) participant views for consent were similar irrespective of trauma-exposure. Our study has implications for IRBs and psychological researchers. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  30
    Nocebo effects on informed consent within medical and psychological settings: A scoping review.Nadine S. J. Stirling,Victoria M. E. Bridgland &Melanie K. T. Takarangi -2023 -Ethics and Behavior 33 (5):387-412.
    Warning research participants and patients about potential risks associated with participation/treatment is a fundamental part of consent. However, such risk warnings might cause negative expectations and subsequent nocebo effects (i.e., negative expectations cause negative outcomes) in participants. Because no existing review documents how past research has quantitatively examined nocebo effects – and negative expectations – arising from consent risk warnings, we conducted a pre-registered scoping review (N = 9). We identified several methodological issues across these studies, which in addition to (...) mixed findings, limit conclusions about whether risk warnings cause nocebo effects. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
Export
Limit to items.
Filters





Configure languageshere.Sign in to use this feature.

Viewing options


Open Category Editor
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?

Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server or OpenAthens.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp