Perceptions and understanding of research situations as a function

Stephen F. Austin State University Stephen F. Austin State University

SFA ScholarWorks SFA ScholarWorks

Faculty Publications Psychology

2020

Perceptions and understanding of research situations as a Perceptions and understanding of research situations as a

function of consent form characteristics and experimenter function of consent form characteristics and experimenter

instructions instructions

Jeremy D. Heider

Southeast Missouri State University

Jessica L. Hartnett

Gannon University

Emmanuel J. Perez

Stephen F Austin State University

John E. Edlund

Rochester Institute of Technology

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/psychology_facultypubs

Part of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Commons, and the Psychiatry and Psychology

Commons

Tell us how this article helped you.

Repository Citation Repository Citation

Heider, Jeremy D.; Hartnett, Jessica L.; Perez, Emmanuel J.; and Edlund, John E., "Perceptions and

understanding of research situations as a function of consent form characteristics and experimenter

instructions" (2020).

Faculty Publications

. 11.

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/psychology_facultypubs/11

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been

accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more

information, please contact cdsscholar[email protected].

Perceptions and understanding of research situations as a function of

consent form characteristics and experimenter instructions

Jeremy D. Heider

, Jessica L. Hartnett

, Emmanuel J. Perez

, John E. Edlund

Department of Psychology, Southeast Missouri State University, USA

Department of Psychology, Gannon University, USA

Department of Psychology, Stephen F. Austin State University, USA

Department of Psychology, Rochester Institute of Technology, USA

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Informed consent

Experimenter characteristics

Participant behavior

ABSTRACT

Two studies examined how research methodology affected participant behaviors. Study 1 tested (a) consent form

perspective (1

,or3

person) and (b) information on participants’ right to sue upon perceptions of coercion,

ability to recall consent information, and performance on experimental tasks. Unexpectedly, participants who

received instructions without the right to sue information had signiﬁcantly better recall of their research rights.

Study 2 manipulated (a) consent form complexity (presence or absence of jargon) and (b) the detail of verbal

instructions (simple, elaborate); participants who received a consent form with simpler language spent more time

on a difﬁcult task, and participants in the elaborate instruction condition recalled more details. Together, these

studies suggest (a) explaining the right to sue may actually be counterproductive; (b) providing a more detailed

explanation may help participants remember procedural details; and (c) using jargon may decrease task

performance.

1. Background

Research participation is a core component of undergraduate edu-

cation, particularly in the social sciences. However, despite the ubiqui-

tous nature of undergraduate research participation, researchers often

overlook how various aspects of basic research methodology impact

participants' overall perceptions of the research process, their perfor-

mance on experimental tasks, and – perhaps most importantly – their

ability to provide valid informed consent (e.g., Edlund et al., 2014; Mann,

1994; Pedersen et al., 2011). If we wish to remain true to our ethical

obligations as researchers, any factors that negatively affect a partic-

ipant's ability to validly consent to participation in a study should be

thoroughly explored and understood.

With limited exceptions, research with human participants requires

that we obtain their informed consent. Importantly, informed consent

goes above and beyond merely informing participants of the nature of the

research prior to their agreement to participate. True informed consent

also implies that participants are allowed to contemplate their decision to

participate (or not) under circumstances that “minimize the possibility of

coercion or undue inﬂuence” (x46.116; Code of Federal Regulations).

other words, researchers' procedures for obtaining informed consent

must clearly communicate to participants that they are under no obli-

gation whatsoever to participate, that they are free to decline participa-

tion outright or withdraw participation at any point during the study's

procedure, and that there can be no penalty for declining or withdrawing

participation. Typically, researchers attempt to address this issue by

including statements regarding the freedom to decline participation in an

informed consent form (Pedersen et al., 2011).

Unfortunately, empirical evidence suggests participants often do not

read consent forms thoroughly prior to participation. For example, in a

series of studies examining patients in a health care setting, over half of

the participants spent 30 s or less reading a consent form that should have

taken the average person several minutes to read (McNutt et al., 2008).

Other studies suggest participants have considerable difﬁculty under-

standing and/or remembering the content of an informed consent

document. These patterns have been documented among varying pop-

ulations, including medical patients (Palmer et al., 2008) and under-

graduate students (Pedersen et al., 2011; Wogalter et al., 1999). Mann

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: john.edlund@rit.edu (J.E. Edlund).

Because the authors reside in the United States, we reference the federal guidelines of that country. However, we believe the issues of informed consent addressed

in this article are applicable regardless of a researcher's country of origin.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Methods in Psychology

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/methods-in-psychology

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100015

Received 6 February 2019; Received in revised form 4 March 2020; Accepted 9 March 2020

Available online 13 March 2020

nc-nd/4.0/).

Methods in Psychology 2 (2020) 100015

(1994) found that a shortened version of a consent form led to better

comprehension among undergraduate participants than a longer version,

but even short-form participants struggled to recall certain aspects of the

form correctly (e.g., “What can you do if you have a complaint about the

study?“, p. 142). Mann (1994) also examined participants’ understand-

ing of their legal rights as communicated by the consent form. Compared

to participants who merely read the consent statement on an information

sheet with no signature line, participants who physically signed a consent

form were more likely to believe they had abdicated their legal right to

sue the researcher – a legal right that is in fact protected by the form.

Thus, it is tenuous at best to assume that simply handing participants a

consent form will sufﬁce in terms of fully informing them.

In addition to concerns related to comprehension and recall of infor-

mation in a consent form, federal guidelines express concern over the

language perspective used in the consent statement. Speciﬁcally, the Of-

ﬁce for Human Research Protections (Ofﬁce for Human Research Pro-

tections, 1993) suggested researchers should avoid ﬁrst person language

(e.g., “I agree to participate …“) in consent statements, as such language

may be overly coercive. However, this recommendation was not based on

empirical evidence. This lack of evidence is troubling, especially consid-

ering at least one recent study has suggested ﬁrst person prose has no

negative impact on participants (Edlund et al., 2014). Indeed, some

studies suggest ﬁrst person language may actually be beneﬁcial in terms of

reading comprehension (e.g., Wogalter et al., 1999).

Another factor that may inﬂuence participant behavior is the pres-

ence and behavior of an experimenter obtaining the informed consent.

Though experimenter characteristics have been studied in the context of

general experimental procedures (e.g., in studies of aggression – Cohen

et al., 1996; social tuning – Sinclair et al., 2005; and stereotype threat –

Stout et al., 2011), rarely have they been studied with respect to the

informed consent process. There have been occasional exceptions,

however. Edlund et al. (2014) conducted two studies examining not only

the inﬂuence of language perspective of the consent form on under-

graduate participants' perceptions of the research situation and perfor-

mance on experimental tasks, but also how the experimenter's manner of

greeting participants, the experimenter's manner of dress, and the num-

ber of other participants in the laboratory affected these same outcomes.

Neither study yielded evidence supporting the OHRP recommendation to

avoid ﬁrst person language in consent statements, as there were no sig-

niﬁcant differences in participants' perceptions of coercion between ﬁ rst

person, second person, and third person wording. The ﬁndings also

suggested experimenter characteristics affected participants in two ways:

(1) formal laboratory attire (i.e., slacks and a lab coat): led to greater

perceptions of coercion; and (2) a warm greeting upon arriving at the

laboratory led to greater persistence on a difﬁcult experimental task.

Finally, the presence of other participants in the laboratory was posi-

tively related to participant effort, such that the more participants pre-

sent, the longer participants spent working on experimental tasks.

The current research represents an attempt to further understand how

small features of an experimental situation can inﬂuence participant

perceptions of freedom (vs. coercion), understanding of the right to sue,

and persistence on experimental tasks in quantitative psychological

research that utilizes a consent form as the primary method of obtaining

informed consent. Study 1 sought to replicate previous ﬁndings exam-

ining the effect of wording choice (1st, 2nd, or 3rd person prose) upon

participants’ perceptions of their right to sue a researcher as well as the

effect of additional research participants upon participant behavior.

Study 2 manipulated language complexity to examine its effects on

participant engagement as well as perceptions of coercion.

2. Study 1

Mann (1994) found that participants believed signing a consent form

constituted a waiver of the legal right to sue the researcher(s). Edlund

et al. (2014) found no support for the OHRP contention that ﬁrst person

language in an informed consent form may be coercive, but did ﬁnd

evidence that other aspects of the experimental situation – e.g., experi-

menter clothing – can impact perceptions of coercion. Edlund et al. also

found that experimenter demeanor and the presence of other participants

can affect effort and/or performance on experimental tasks. Study 1 was

designed to extend the work of Mann (1994) and Edlund et al. (2014) by

further exploring consent form language perspective and participants'

understanding of their legal rights. In addition to manipulating the lan-

guage perspective of the consent form, this study examined whether

verbally providing information regarding participants' right to sue the

researchers would impact participants' perceptions of coercion and their

comprehension of their rights as research participants. We predicted that

(a) consent form perspective would not affect perceptions of coercion

(Edlund et al., 2014); (b) information on the right to sue would yield

better understanding of one's rights as a research participant (Mann,

1994); and (c) the presence of other participants would be positively

related to persistence on experimental tasks (Edlund et al., 2014).

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants

The sample for Study 1 consisted of 210 undergraduates (170 women,

40 men, M

age

¼ 19.22 years, SD

age

¼ 2.78) enrolled in introductory

psychology courses at Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA), a mid-

sized public university in east Texas.

There were 109 Caucasians, 76

African Americans, 17 Hispanics, two Asian Americans, and six partici-

pants of other ethnicities. All participants received credit toward a course

requirement in return for their participation. The study's procedure was

approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at SFA as expedited.

2.1.2. Materials

2.1.2.1. Informed consent forms. Three versions of a standard informed

consent form were created for this study, differing only in the language

perspective used in the construction of the form. Speciﬁcally, the consent

statements were written entirely in either ﬁrst person (e.g., “I agree to

participate …“), second person (e.g., “You agree to participate …“), or

third person (e.g., “The participant agrees to participate …“; emphasis

added in all cases). Otherwise, the basic content of each version was

identical, including a general description of the study's procedures,

contact information for the principal investigator, a statement regarding

the voluntary nature of participation and the right to withdraw at any

time, information regarding SFA's IRB, a description of the perceived

risks and beneﬁts involved in the study, a statement that the participant

was not waiving any legal rights by signing the consent form, and a space

for a signature and date.

2.1.2.2. Triangle task. Participants were given a picture of an obtuse

triangle and instructed to divide it into a group of smaller acute triangles.

The instructions emphasized that participants were not simply to draw as

many acute triangles as possible, but rather to only draw those that were

needed. (The terms obtuse triangle, acute triangle, and right triangle were

deﬁned.) Even though this task has a concrete solution, it is essentially a

near-impossible challenge for most participants (in our labs’ pretesting,

the successful completion rate is less than .01%). Participants were

allowed a maximum of 10 min to work on the task, with the caveat that

they were under no obligation to use the full 10 min. Because of its slim

We acknowledge the possibility that participating in research for course

credit may in and of itself be perceived as a coercive process. However, the

psychology departments at all three institutions from which data were collected

for this report (Stephen F. Austin State University, Gannon University, and

Rochester Institute of Technology) provide introductory psychology students

with alternative assignments to research participation and clearly explain (both

verbally and in writing) that students are not obligated to take part in research

studies.

J.D. Heider et al. Methods in Psychology 2 (2020) 100015

likelihood of being solved correctly, we considered this task a measure of

persistence (cf. Orne, 1962).

2.1.2.3. Word completion task. Participants were given 10 word frag-

ments with multiple letters missing from each word. The words ranged

from 7 to 10 letters in length and had between three and six letters

missing. Instructions were to complete as many of the word fragments as

possible with legitimate words from the English language. As with the

triangle task, participants were allowed up to 10 min to work on the word

completion task, but they were also told they could ﬁnish prior to the 10-

min deadline if they chose to do so. This task was included as an addi-

tional measure of experimental persistence as well as a measure of

cognitive performance (as evaluated based on the number of words

successfully completed correctly).

2.1.2.4. Participant perceptions of freedom vs. coercion. Participants’

overall perceptions of freedom vs. coercion in the experimental situation

were assessed using a series of six questions, all of which utilized a 5-

point response scale ranging from None or Not at all (1) to Totally or

Completely (5). These questions addressed issues such as coercion (e.g.,

“How much freedom did you feel in choosing to decline to participate in

any part of this research?“), comfort (e.g., “How comfortable did you feel

with this research?“), and fairness (e.g., “How fair do you perceive the

research process as being?”–see Appendix A). No time limit was placed

on this measure.

2.1.2.5. Consent form quiz. Participants were given a quiz to test recall of

the basic content of the informed consent form. No time limit was used

for this measure. Participants were asked a total of seven questions, all of

which were open-ended (e.g., “What potential risks or discomforts did

the consent form suggest you might have?“), to measure the extent to

which they had retained information from the consent form (see Ap-

pendix B). This task was scored in two ways, referred to as the “conser-

vative” and “liberal” scoring methods from this point forward. The

conservative method scored each response as strictly correct or incorrect

based on the information presented in the consent form. The liberal

method was more lenient, accounting for the fact that an answer might be

plausible if not strictly correct based on the consent form. For example,

the strictly correct response to the question “Who should you contact if

you have questions about your rights as a research participant?” was the

SFA Ofﬁce of Research and Sponsored Programs. However, some par-

ticipants provided responses such as “My psychology instructor.” Though

not correct according to the consent form itself, this answer could be

considered reasonable, as the participant's course instructor could easily

direct the participant to the correct point of contact.

2.1.2.6. Demographics. Participants reported their age, gender,

ethnicity, classiﬁcation (i.e., freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior), the

number of psychology courses they had taken (including current en-

rollments), and the number of psychological research studies they had

participated in (including the current study).

2.1.3. Design and Procedure

Two variables were manipulated in Study 1. First, consent form

perspective was manipulated by randomly assigning participants to one

of the three aforementioned versions of the consent form. Second, in-

formation on the right to sue the researcher was also manipulated by

randomly assigning participants to either receive or not receive a verbal

explanation of this right from the experimenter (see Appendix C). Con-

sent form perspective was manipulated at the level of the individual

participant; however, information on the right to sue was manipulated at

the level of the experimental session. This approach was taken so the

experimenter only had to deliver the right to sue information once to all

participants in a given session. Finally, though not manipulated, the

number of other participants in the laboratory (from 0 to 5) during any

given experimental session was tracked so this variable could be used as a

quasi-experimental variable in the analyses. Similar to Edlund et al.

(2014), we felt tracking this variable could be important due to research

suggesting the presence of others can impact participant performance on

a variety of tasks (see Zajonc, 1965).

Upon arriving at the laboratory for a study purportedly investigating

basic cognitive abilities, participants were greeted by an experimenter

(either a graduate or undergraduate research assistant, depending on the

session) and provided with the ﬁrst person, second person, or third

person consent form. For participants in sessions that were randomly

assigned to receive the verbal right to sue information in addition to the

consent form, this information was delivered at the same time as the

consent form.

After signing and returning the consent form (no participants refused

to do so), each participant was seated at a desk and given a packet

containing the various experimental tasks, each on a separate page. First,

participants responded to the demographic inquiries. Next, participants

had 10 min to complete the triangle task, but were told they were not

obligated to use the entire 10 min. Once the triangle task was completed,

participants encountered the word completion task and were given

10 min to complete it, again with the caveat that there was no obligation

to use all 10 min. Once this task was completed, participants moved on to

the questionnaire on perceptions of the experimental process. Finally, the

research rights quiz was administered and completed. Total participation

time was approximately 30 min.

2.1.4. Data Analysis Strategy (treat as section heading)

Our hypotheses were that (a) consent form perspective would not

affect perceptions of coercion (based on the results obtained by Edlund

et al., 2014); ( b) information on the right to sue would yield better

understanding of one's rights as a research participant; and (c) the

presence of other participants would be positively related to persistence

on experimental tasks. The ﬁrst hypothesis was tested with a factorial

ANOVA using an aggregate sc ore on the perceptions of freedom vs.

coercion measure as the dependent variable. The second hypothesis was

tested with factor ial ANOVAs using overa ll scores on the consent form

quiz – one derived from the conservative scoring method and one

derived from the libera l scoring method – as the dependent variables.

The third hypothesis was tested with factorial ANOVAs using overall

time spent on the triangle task and word completion task as the

dependent variables.

2.2. Results

2.2.1. Perceptions of freedom vs. coercion

A 3 (Consent Form Perspective: ﬁrst person, second person, third

person) x 2 (Right to Sue Information: yes, no) x 2 (Participant Gender:

male, female) x 6 (Other Participants Present: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) between-

subjects ANOVA on the perceived freedom questionnaire resulted in a

signiﬁcant Right to Sue Information x Participant Gender interaction, F (1,

151) ¼ 6.40, p ¼ .012,

¼ 0.041. Among participants who did not receive

instructions on the right to sue, men had signiﬁcantly lower perceptions of

freedom than women, t (92) ¼3.19, p ¼ .002. However, among par-

ticipants who received instructions on the right to sue, there was no sig-

niﬁcant difference between men and women (see Table 1 for means and

SDs for each group). Importantly, consent form perspective did not have a

signiﬁcant main effect, F (2, 151) ¼ 0.54, p > .5, nor was it involved in any

signiﬁcant interactions (all p's > 0.3), supporting our hypothesis that

language perspective on the consent form would not impact the extent to

which participants felt coerced within the research situation.

2.2.2. Knowledge of content of consent form

A 3 (Consent Form Perspective: ﬁrst person, second person, third

person) x 2 (Right to Sue Information: yes, no) x 2 (Participant Gender:

male, female) x 6 (Other Participants Present: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) between-

subjects ANOVA on the conservatively-scored consent form quiz

J.D. Heider et al. Methods in Psychology 2 (2020) 100015

indicated a signiﬁcant main effect of Right to Sue Information, F (1,

151) ¼ 4.74, p ¼ .031,

¼ 0.03. Participants who received instructions

with the right to sue information (M ¼ 2.28, SD ¼ 1.03) performed

signiﬁcantly worse on the quiz than those who did not receive in-

structions on the right to sue (M ¼ 2.84, SD ¼ 0.89). This result was

contrary to our hypothesis, which posited that participants who received

the right to sue information would have better knowledge of their rights

as a research participant.

A 3 (Consent Form Perspective: ﬁrst person, second person, third

person) x 2 (Right to Sue Information: yes, no) x 2 (Participant Gender:

male, female) x 6 (Other Participants Present: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) between-

subjects ANOVA on the liberally-scored consent form quiz did not yield

any signiﬁcant effects.

2.2.3. Persistence and performance on experimental tasks

2.2.3.1. Time spent on triangle task. A 3 (Consent Form Perspective: ﬁrst

person, second person, third person) x 2 (Right to Sue Information: yes,

no) x 2 (Participant Gender: male, female) x 6 (Other Participants Pre-

sent: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) between-subjects ANOVA on time spent on the tri-

angle task yielded no signiﬁcant effects.

2.2.3.2. Time spent on word completion task. A 3 (Consent Form

Perspective: ﬁrst per son, second person, third person) x 2 (Right to Sue

Information: yes, no) x 2 (Partic ipant Gender: male, female) x 6 (Other

Partic ipants Present: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) between-subjects ANOVA on time

spent on the word completion task resulted in several signiﬁcant ef-

fects.

However, all of these effects were subsumed by a signiﬁcant

Consent Form Perspective x Right to Sue Information x Participant

Gender x Other Participants Present interaction, F (2, 152) ¼ 3.83,

p ¼ .024,

¼ 0.048.

To break down this four-way interaction, the data were separated

according to Right to Sue Information condition. Among participants

who received the right to sue information, the only signiﬁcant effect was

a main effect of Other Participants Present, F (5, 89) ¼ 3.51, p ¼ .006,

¼ 0.165. Participants who had between two and ﬁve other participants

present in the laboratory (Ms ¼ 7:02, 7:18, 8:14, and 7:16, respectively)

spent considerably more time on the word completion task than partic-

ipants with no other participants present or only a single other partici-

pant present (Ms ¼ 4:49 and 4:18, respectively). Among participants who

did not receive the right to sue information, the only signiﬁcant effect

was a Consent Form Perspective x Participant Gender x Other Partici-

pants Present interaction, F (5, 63) ¼ 2.53, p ¼ .037,

¼ 0.167. Follow-

up analyses suggested this interaction was driven by a marginal tendency

(p ¼ .074) for female participants to be affected by the presence of other

participants, taking more time on the word completion task when one or

more other participants were present. Male participants did not show this

tendency.

2.2.3.3. Performance on word completion task. A 3 (Consent Form

Perspective: ﬁrst person, second person, third person) x 2 (Right to Sue

Information: yes, no) x 2 (Participant Gender: male, female) x 6 (Other

Participants Present: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) between-subjects ANOVA on the

number of words correctly completed revealed a signiﬁcant main effect

of Consent Form Perspective, F (2, 152) ¼ 3.32, p ¼ .039,

¼ 0.042.

However, this effect was qualiﬁed by a Consent Form Perspective x

Participant Gender interaction, F (2, 152) ¼ 3.03, p ¼ .051,

¼ 0.038.

Female participants (M ¼ 4.28, SD ¼ 2.21) outperformed male partici-

pants (M ¼ 2.70, SD ¼ 1.42) among those who received the ﬁrst person

consent form, t (75) ¼2.19, p ¼ .032, whereas male participants

(M ¼ 5.38, SD ¼ 2.14) outperformed female participants (M ¼ 4.12,

SD ¼ 1.68) among those who received the second person consent form, t

(60) ¼ 2.27, p ¼ .027. There was no gender difference among partici-

pants who received the third person consent form.

2.3. Discussion

Our ﬁrst hypothesis – that consent form language perspective

would not affect participant perceptions of coercion – was sup-

ported. Although we understand this support is based on null ef-

fects, and interpretation of such effects can be difﬁcult, we feel

conﬁdent in this outcome for two reasons: (1) the sample size here

was substantial enough that detecting even small effects should not

have been problematic; and (2) the current data essentially replicate

the null pattern obtained by Edlund et al. ( 2014). However, the

interactio n between the right to sue information and participant

gender on perceptions of coercion was an unexpected effect. These

results are somewhat similar to Sloan et al. (2013), who found

African American males expressed more pessimistic views about

their likelihood of arrest and convictionondrivingwhileintoxi-

cated (DWI) charges relative to other ethnicity/gender combina-

tions. Nonetheless, because Sloan et al. (2013) focused on

perceptions of freedom in a legal c ontext rather than a research

context, our ﬁnding requires further replication before any deﬁni-

tive conclusions can be dr awn.

We also expected that providing participants with verbal informa-

tion about their research rights (particularly the right to sue the re-

search ers) would improve the accuracy of their recall regarding su ch

rights, but this was not the case. In fact, the opposite occurred: Par-

ticipants who were verbally informed of their right to sue performed

worse on the research rights qu iz than those who were not verbally

informed. We speculate that this decline in recall am ong verbally-

informed participants may be at tributable to a decrease in their moti-

vation to pay attention to the informed consent process after learning

their rights were protected. That is, upon hearing their rights were

protected, some participants may have had little de sire to actually read

and comprehend the speciﬁc content of the consent form. Another

possibility is that the additional information rece ived by participants in

the right to sue information condition disrupted memory consolidat ion

for the informed consent information. That is, receiving additional

verbal information may have interfered with memory processing for

the informed consent information as it occurred immediately after

Table 1

Mean Perceptions of Freedom vs. Coercion as a Function of Right to Sue Infor-

mation and Participant Gender, Study 1.

Right to Sue Information Participant Gender

Male Female

Yes 24.95 (3.87) 25.19 (3.90)

No 23.10 (3.88) 25.90 (3.46)

Note. Right to Sue Information x Participant Gender interaction, F (1,

151) ¼ 6.40, p ¼ .012,

¼ 0.041. Higher values reﬂect greater perceptions of

freedom within the experimental situation; standard deviations are presented in

parentheses.

An astute reader will note that the four-way interactions in this section are

signiﬁcantly underpowered. The omnibus analyses were not focused on this

four-way interaction; instead, this approach was utilized to attenuate

experiment-wise error rates. Parallel lower-order conﬁrmatory analyses reached

the same conclusions when the underpowered higher-order interactions were

dropped.

The signiﬁcant effects in this analysis included a main effect of Consent

Form Perspective, F (2, 152) ¼ 4.82, p ¼ .009,

¼ 0.06; a main effect of Right

to Sue Information, F (1, 152) ¼ 7.43, p ¼ .007,

¼ 0.047; a Consent Form

Perspective x Participant Gender interaction, F (2, 152) ¼ 3.13, p ¼ .046,

¼ 0.04; a Right to Sue Information x Other Participants Present interaction, F

(5, 152) ¼ 2.96, p ¼ .014,

¼ 0.089; and a Consent Form Perspective x Right to

Sue Information x Participant Gender interaction, F (2, 152) ¼ 4.42, p ¼ .014,

¼ 0.055. To conserve space, we focused on the four-way interaction in the

Study 1 results section.

J.D. Heider et al. Methods in Psychology 2 (2020) 100015

reading the conse nt form. Finally, it is also worth noting that the mean

recall performances of the two groups, when taken out of a maximum

possible score of 7, translate to 32.6% and 40.6% respectively. Such

mediocre recall is well in line with past studies investigating partici-

pants’ abil ity (or lack thereof) to remember information from consent

forms (e.g., Ped ersen et al., 2011).

Based on the work of Edlund et al. (2014), we also hypothesized that a

higher number of participants being present in the laboratory would be

associated with greater persistence on the triangle and word completion

tasks. This hypothesis only partially supported for the word completion

task. Participants who received the right to sue information spent more

time on the word completion task when more fellow participants were

present. We also found an unexpected interaction between consent form

perspective and participant gender on the number of words correctly

completed, with female participants completing more words if they

received the ﬁrst person consent form, but male participants completing

more words if they received the second person consent form. Because this

effect was not predicted, and similar effects were not observed in the

studies within our literature review, we are unsure as to why this pattern

occurred. At a minimum, this pattern should be replicated before

attempting to draw any concrete conclusions.

Though not all of the results from Study 1 were expected, we do feel

conﬁdent in drawing two basic conclusions: (1) the concern over lan-

guage perspective (ﬁrst, second, or third person) in consent forms

expressed by the OHRP is unwarranted – the data simply do not indicate

participants feel more coerced when reading a consent statement worded

in the ﬁrst person

; and (2) researchers need to explore other possible

techniques for helping participants understand their legal rights –

particularly the fact that signing a consent form is not the equivalent of

giving up one's right to sue the researchers.

3. Study 2

Numerous studies have investigated how well patients understand

consent forms in the context of medical informed consent, and the

majority of these studies have found understanding to be wanting. For

instance, the National Quality Forum (2005) found that over 60% of

patients did not fully understand the procedure they had consented to. A

more recent study found participants did not understand the meaning of

key terminology commonly used in consent forms (Koh et al., 2012).

This ﬁnding was further echoed by Edlund et al. (2015), who found low

rates of comprehension of key components of the consent process that

directly impacted the patients' quality of life. Edlund et al. (2015)

speculated that the complexity of the language used in the consent form

contributed to low comprehension of the content (which was written at

a 13th grade level). This speculation is in line with past studies of

participants’ ability to recall medical information. For example, Brad-

shaw et al. (1975) found that more complex language (as determined by

the Flesch Reading Ease Formula) led to decreased recall of dietary

information.

In an effort to directly address these issues, the current study

manipulated the compl exity of the language used in the consen t form

(everyday terminology vs. complex jargon) and the level of detail in

the verbal instru ctions provided by an experimenter (minimally

det aile d vs. highly detail ed) to determine their effects on partic ipant

comprehension and task performance . We predicted that (a) more

complex language on the consent form would lead to grea ter percep-

tions of coercion; (b) more complex language on the con sent form

would lead to worse recall of the content of the form; and (c) a more

det ailed description of procedural tasks would lead to greater recall of

the nature of those tasks.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants

The sample for Study 2 consisted of 157 undergraduate students (99

women, 58 men, M

age

¼ 19.91 years, SD

age

¼ 2.09) enrolled in intro-

ductory psychology courses at three separate institutions: SFA; Gannon

University, a small private institution in northwestern Pennsylvania; and

Rochester Institute of Technology, a mid-sized private institution in

western New York. There were 100 Caucasians, 36 African Americans, 11

Hispanics, eight Asian Americans, and two participants of other ethnic-

ities. All participants received either required course credit or extra credit

in return for their participation.

3.1.2. Materials

3.1.2.1. Informed consent forms. Two versions of a standa rd informed

consent form were created for this study. One was written using

relatively everyday language, whereas the other was written using

more complex psychological jargon. The everyday language form had

a Flesch Reading Ease score of 41.7withanassociatedFleschGrade

Level of 12.6 (as calculated by Microsoft Word, 2010). The complex

jargon form had a Flesch Reading E ase s core of 7.0 (lower numbers

reﬂect more difﬁcult reading) with an associated Flesch Grade Level

of 18.9 (see Fig. 1 for an example of wording differences between the

two forms). Importantly, the basic content of the two forms was the

same (and complied with IRB standards). Both included a general

description o f the study's procedures, contact info rmation for the

principal investigator, a statement regarding the voluntary nature of

participation and the ri ght to withdraw at any time, information

regarding the relevant institution's IRB, a description of the perceived

risks and beneﬁts involved in the study, a statement that the

participant was not waiving any legal rights by signing the consent

form, and a space f or a signature and date.

3.1.2.2. Triangle task and word completion task. The same triangle task

and word completion task from Study 1 were used in Study 2. The nature

of each task and its instructions were the same, including the 10-min time

limit for each.

3.1.2.3. Participant perceptions of freedom vs. coercion. Participants’

overall perceptions of freedom vs. coercion in the experimental situation

were assessed using the same series of six questions from Study 1, using

the same 5-point response scale ranging from None or Not at all (1) to

Totally or Completely (5). This measure had no time limit.

3.1.2.4. Consent form quiz. Participants were administered the same

basic “Research Rights Quiz” as Study 1 in order to gauge their recall of

the basic content of the informed consent form, but one key difference

was that the question that speciﬁcally addressed the right to sue the re-

searchers was omitted (thus leaving a total of six questions rather than

seven). This measure had no time limit, and was scored via the liberal

scoring method from Study 1.

3.1.2.5. Procedural tasks quiz. Because one of the manipulations in this

study involved providing participants with a greater amount of detail

regarding speciﬁc procedural tasks (see Design and Procedure subsection

below), we included an additional recall measure to assess participants’

ability to remember what speciﬁc tasks they were going to be asked to

perform. This open-ended measure consisted of a single prompt:

“Describe the various tasks you will be asked to complete.” This measure

had no time limit.

We understand that the true underlying issue is whether ﬁrst person lan-

guage is coercive, not whether participants perceive it as coercive. However,

given the limitations of self-report methodology and the importance of

perception in psychological research, we believe our data regarding this issue

are highly informative. We express thanks to an anonymous reviewer for

bringing this issue to our attention.

J.D. Heider et al. Methods in Psychology 2 (2020) 100015

3.1.2.6. Demographics. Participants reported their age, gender,

ethnicity, classiﬁcation (i.e., freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior), the

number of psychology courses they had taken (including current en-

rollments), and the number of psychological research studies they had

participated in (including the current study).

3.1.3. Design and Procedure

Two variables were manipulated in Study 2: Consent form complexity

and depth of procedural detail. Consent form complexity was manipu-

lated by randomly assigning participants to read either the everyday

language consent form or the complex jargon consent form. Depth of

procedural detail was manipulated by randomly assigning approximately

half of the participants to receive additional details from the experi-

menter regarding the experimental tasks they would be asked to perform.

For those participants who received the additional details, they were

delivered immediately after providing the participant with the consent

form. Consent form complexity was manipulated at the level of the in-

dividual participant; however, additional procedural detail was manip-

ulated at the level of the experimental session. This approach was taken

so the experimenter only had to deliver the additional procedural in-

formation once to all participants in a given session.

As with Study 1, Study 2 was advertised as an investigation of basic

cognitive abilities. Upon arriving at the laboratory, an experimenter

(either a graduate or undergraduate research assistant, depending on the

session) greeted participants and provided them with the consent form

(everyday language or complex jargon). For participants in sessions that

were randomly assigned to receive the additional procedural details in

addition to the consent form, the experimenter delivered this information

verbally at the same time the consent form was presented.

After signing and returning the consent form (no participants refused

to do so), each participant sat at a desk and completed a packet con-

taining the various experimental tasks, each on a separate page. The ﬁrst

ﬁve tasks – demographic inquiries, triangle task, word completion task,

questionnaire on perceptions of the experimental process, and research

rights quiz – were administered exactly as described in Study 1. The

procedural tasks quiz was last in the sequence. Total participation time

was approximately 30 min.

3.1.4. Data analysis strategy

We hypothesized that (a) more complex language on the consent

form would lead to greater perceptions of coercion; (b) more complex

language on the consent form would lead to worse recall of the content

of the form; and (c) a more detailed description of procedural tasks

would lead to greater recall of the nature of those tasks. The ﬁrst hy-

pothesis was tested with a factorial ANOVA using an aggregate score on

the perceptions of freedom vs. coercion measure as the dependent

variable. The second hypothesis was tested with a factorial ANOVA

using overall scores on the consent form quiz as the dependent variable.

The third hypothesis was tested with a factorial ANOVA using perfor-

mance on the procedural details quiz as the dependent variable. We also

conducted ANOVAs to examine whether any of the independent vari-

ables affected persistence and/or performance on the triangle and word

completion tasks.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Perceptions of freedom vs. coercion

A 2 (Consent Form Language Complexity: everyday language,

complex jargon) x 2 (Depth of Procedural Detail: minimally detailed,

highly detailed) between-subjects ANOVA on the perceived freedom

questionnaire did not result in a signiﬁcant main effect of language

complexity, F (1, 157) ¼ 0.856, p ¼ .36. Thus, our hypothesis that

complex jargon would result in greater p erceptions of coercion was

not supported.

3.2.2. Knowledge of content of consent form

A 2 (Consent Form Language Complexity: everyday language, com-

plex jargon) x 2 (Depth of Procedural Detail: minimally detailed, highly

Fig. 1. Example of language differences between consent form with everyday terminology and consent form with complex jargon.

J.D. Heider et al. Methods in Psychology 2 (2020) 100015

detailed) between-subjects ANOVA on the consent for quiz did not yield a

signiﬁcant main effect of language complexity, F (1, 157) ¼ 0.241,

p ¼ .62. Thus, our hypothesis regarding worse recall for more complex

jargon was not supported.

3.2.3. Recall of procedural tasks

A 2 (Consent Form Language Complexity: everyday language, com-

plex jargon) x 2 (Depth of Procedural Detail: minimally detailed, highly

detailed) between-subjects ANOVA on the procedural tasks quiz revealed

a signiﬁcant main effect for Depth of Procedural Detail, F (1,

157) ¼ 111.78, p < .001,

¼ 0.421. Participants recalled more of the

procedural tasks they were going to be asked to perform under highly

detailed instructions (M ¼ 3.46, SD ¼ 1.37) than under minimally

detailed instructions (M ¼ 1.26, SD ¼ 1.23). Thus, our hypothesis

regarding the effect of procedural details on participants’ ability to recall

procedural tasks was supported.

3.2.4. Persistence and performance on experimental tasks

The only effect in these analyses was a marginal main effect of Con-

sent Form Language Complexity on amount of time spent on the triangle

task, F (1, 157) ¼ 2.72, p ¼ .101,

¼ 0.017. Participants who received

the everyday language consent form (M ¼ 4:53, SD ¼ 3:04) spent more

time on the triangle task than participants who received the complex

jargon form (M ¼ 4:08, SD ¼ 2:40).

3.3. Discussion

Given the tendency for certain methodological characteristics to in-

ﬂuence perceptions of coercion (e.g., formal laboratory attire; Edlund

et al., 2014), we ﬁrst hypothesized that more complex language on the

informed consent form would yield greater perceptions of coercion on

the part of our participants. The data did not support this prediction. Our

second hypothesis examining the effects of language complexity upon

knowledge of the consent form was also not supported, though previous

studies (e.g., Bradshaw et al., 1975) have studied samples of medical

patients whose average reading ability may have been lower than that of

our college student sample. Finally, our third hypothesis, which pre-

dicted that participants who received a more detailed verbal description

of the procedural tasks from the experimenter would better be able to

remember the nature of those tasks when quizzed a few moments later,

was supported.

Additionally, we did not make any speciﬁc predictions regarding

persistence and/or performance on the triangle and word comple-

tion tasks, but we did observe a marginally signiﬁcant main effect

of the complexity of the language in the consent form whereby

participants who read the consent form with everyday language

spent more time on the triangle task than participants who read the

consent form with complex jargon. We speculate that reading

complex jargon may have decreased p articipants ’ motivation to

spend time working on experimental tasks (or at least one of those

tasks), perhaps in a manner that could be explained via the ego

depletion model, which has found that effort exerted on one task

candecreasetheeffortexpendedinotherpartsoflife(Baumeister

et al., 1998).

Certainly, more research is needed before deﬁnitive advice can be

given from the current study, especially considering one of the ke y

effects was only marginally signiﬁcant. However, any suggesti ons that

might reduce error variance shou ld be welcomed by research ers. With

this thought in mind, the data from Study 2 suggest two conclusions:

(1) providing a more detailed explanation at the outset of an

experiment can help participants remember more details about the

experimental procedure; and (2) using more complicated jargon in a

consent form may lead to decreased motivation on task performance.

Though we acknowledge t hat participants' ability to remember pro-

cedural details is less important than their ability to remember their

legal rights and a study's risks, these outcomes nonetheless create a

paradox that requires follow up research: If we use more complex,

thorough language, it seem s that one of the key rationales for seeking

informed consent (ensuring that a participant understands what is

expected of him or her) is met. However, in doing so, the data suggest

that we may be discouraging our research participants in terms o f task

motivation, hence decreasing the validity of the research itself.

4. General discussion

Researchers are trained to be wary of and overcome the obvious

shortcomings inherent in inferential statistics. Among other things, we

use double-blind designs with random assignment to conditions, we have

extensive research protocols in order to ensure that every research

participant has the same experience, and we pre-test our materials and

probe our participants at the end of our studies. Scientists are taught to

attend to such minutiae as to eliminate confounds that might muddy our

research ﬁndings and to ensure that every experiment we conduct is in

compliance with laws that govern the treatment of human research

participants.

Despite this level of oversight, limited information has been collected

to examine how the presentation and content of the informed consent

inﬂ

uences participant behavior. This may be a signiﬁcant oversight, as

the present research suggests that (1) language perspective (ﬁrst, second,

or third person) does not affect participant perceptions of coercion, at

least within psychology student samples; (2) participants who are

verbally informed of their right to sue demonstrate less knowledge of

their research rights; (3) the number of experimental participants in a

room may affect persistence on experimental tasks; and (4) more com-

plex jargon in informed consent statements seems to lead to better

comprehension of the informed consent but (5) diminishes effort put

forth on the experimental tasks.

This research is especially timely with the shift (most notably in

psychology) towards rigorous replication of research (supported by the

Center for Open Science; http://centerforopenscience.org/). One could

argue that minute differences in informed consent word choice may

actually have a signiﬁcant impact on research writ large, up to and

including rendering a signiﬁcant ﬁnding non-signiﬁcant. It does not seem

too far-fetched to imagine a situation in which one experiment used an

informed consent that increased participant engagement and decreased

feelings of coercion, whereas its replication did the opposite and, thus,

inﬂuenced experimental ﬁndings. Further research investigating features

of the informed consent may eventually coalesce into best practices to be

followed. If this goal were achieved, it may eliminate confounds that

decrease replicability.

4.1. Future directions

Basedonourﬁndings from this paper, more research is necessary

before ﬁrm best practices can be recommended. However, some

preliminary suggestions can be provided: Generally, the speciﬁc

perspective of prose (ﬁrst, second, or third person) does not directly

affect partici pants – at least among traditional psychology-based

student samples (see a lso Edlund et al., 2014). Additionally,

depending on the intent of one's research, the present ﬁndings pro-

vide speciﬁc advice. If the purpose of one's study is to ask f or a great

J.D. Heider et al. Methods in Psychology 2 (2020) 100015

amount of attention from participants for a limited amount of time,

we would suggest using less jargon in one's informed consent.

However, if one is asking f or informed consent in a more high-stakes

situation, like consenting to surgery, then it may be preferable to use

more in-depth langua ge as to encourage patients to remember more

details of the informed consent.

Per our best practice recommendations, further research is necessary

in order to completely understand the nuances of the informed consent

procedure and how these nuances affect research participants. As such,

we recommend research looking into (1) different circumstances in

which informed consent is necessary (social science research, clinical

trials, consent to medical treatment, etc.); (2) the speciﬁcinﬂuence of

legal jargon on participant perceptions of possible danger or harm related

to the research and how this may lead to increased participant attention;

and (3) whether feelings of perceived loss of free will are more strongly

associated with young adults, some of whom are still adolescents, or

whether these ﬁndings apply broadly to a wide range of adult

populations.

Conﬂict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing ﬁnancial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inﬂuence

the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

Portions of this research were supported by a Faculty Research Fund

Grant awarded by the College of Liberal Arts at the Rochester Institute of

Technology.

Appendix A

Participant Perceptions of Freedom vs. Coercion

1. How much freedom did you feel in choosing to participate in this study?

1 2345

No freedom Complete freedom

2. How manipulated did you feel by this research?

1 2345

Not at all manipulated Totally Manipulated

3. How much freedom did you feel in choosing to decline to participate in any part of this research?

1 2345

No freedom Complete freedom

4. How comfortable did you feel with this research?

1 2345

Not at all comfortable Completely comfortable

5. How comfortable did you feel in interacting with the research assistant who gave you these forms (please note that the research assistant will not see

these responses)?

1 2345

Not at all comfortable Completely comfortable

6. How fair do you perceive the research process as being?

1 2345

Not at all fair Completely fair

Appendix B

Research Rights Quiz

1. Who can you contact if you have any questions about this research?

2. Who should you contact if you have questions about your rights as a research participant?

3. Are you allowed to leave the experiment at any time?

4. How long did the consent form estimate this experiment taking?

5. What was the purpose of this research according to the consent form?

6. What potential risks or discomforts did the consent form suggest you might have?

7. If something goes wrong in this experiment can you sue the researcher?

J.D. Heider et al. Methods in Psychology 2 (2020) 100015

Appendix C

Experimenter Scripts Used for Right to Sue Information Conditions

Right to Sue Information Condition:

“Here is an informed consent form. Please read the form and sign it as an indication of your willingness to participate. By signing the form, you do not

give up any legal rights to take action against the experimenter. The form is designed to protect you, the participant. Should you have any questions

regarding your rights as a participant, you can contact the SFASU Ofﬁce of Research and Sponsored Programs using the information provided on the

form. If you have any questions about the experiment or the form, I would be happy to answer it to the best of my abilities. Okay?”

No Right to Sue Information Condition:

“Here is an informed consent form. Please read it over, and sign at the end if you are willing to participate in the experiment. If you have any

questions about the experiment or the form, I would be happy to answer it to the best of my abilities. Okay?”

References

Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., Tice, D.M., 1998. Ego depletion: is the

active self a limited resource? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1252–1265. https://doi.org/

10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252.

Bradshaw, P.W., Ley, P., Kincey, J.A., Bradshaw, J., 1975. Recall of medical advice:

comprehensibility and speciﬁcity. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 14, 55–62. https://

doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1975.tb00149.x.

Cohen, D., Nisbett, R.E., Bowdle, B.F., Schwarz, N., 1996. Insult, aggression, and the

Southern culture of honor: an “experimental ethnography. Interpers. Relat. Group

Process. 70, 945–960. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.945.

Edlund, J.E., Edlund, A.E., Carey, M.G., 2015. Patient understanding of risk and beneﬁt

with informed consent in a left ventricular assist device population: a pilot study.

J. Cardiovasc. Nurs. 30, 435–439. https://doi.org/10.1097/

JCN.0000000000000188.

Edlund, J.E., Hartnett, J.L., Heider, J.D., Perez, E.J., Lusk, J., 2014. Experimenter

characteristics and word choice: best practices when administering an informed

consent. Ethics Behav. 24, 397–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/

10508422.2013.854171.

Koh, J., Goh, E., Yu, K., Cho, B., Yang, J., 2012. Discrepancy between participants'

understanding and desire to know in informed consent: are they informed about what

they really want to know? J. Med. Ethics 38, 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1136/

jme.2010.040972.

Mann, T., 1994. Informed consent for psychological research: do subjects comprehend

consent forms and understand their legal rights? Psychol. Sci. 5, 140–143. https://

doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00650.x.

McNutt, L., Waltermaurer, E., Bednarczyk, R.A., Carlson, B.E., Kotval, J., McCauley, J.,

Campbell, J.C., Ford, D.E., 2008. Are we misjudging how well informed consent

forms are read? J. Empir. Res. Hum. Res. Ethics Int. J. 3, 89–97. https://doi.org/

10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.89.

National Quality Forum, 2005. Implementing a National Voluntary Consensus Standard

for Informed Consent: A User's Guide for Healthcare Professionals.

Ofﬁce for Human Research Protections, 1993. Tips on informed consent. Retrieved from.

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/ictips.html.

Orne, M.T., 1962. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with

particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. Am. Psychol.

17, 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424.

Palmer, B.W., Cassidy, E.L., Dunn, L.B., Spira, A.P., Sheikh, J.I., 2008. Effective use of

consent forms and interactive questions in the consent process. IRB: Ethics Hum. Res.

30, 8–12.

Pedersen, E.R., Neighbors, C., Tidwell, J., Lostutter, T.W., 2011. Do undergraduate

student research participants read psychological research consent forms? Examining

memory effects, condition effects, and individual differences. Ethics Behav. 21,

332–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.585601.

Sinclair, S., Lowery, B.S., Hardin, C.D., Colangelo, A., 2005. Social tuning of automatic

racial attitudes: the role of afﬁliative motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 583–592.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.583.

Sloan, F.A., Chepke, L.M., Davis, D.V., 2013. Race, gender, and risk perceptions of the

legal consequences of drinking and driving. J. Saf. Res. 45, 117–125. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.jsr.2013.01.007.

Stout, J.G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., McManus, M., 2011. STEMing the tide: using

ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept and professional goals in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100,

255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385.

Wogalter, M.S., Howe, J.E., Sifuentes, A.H., Luginbughl, J., 1999. On the adequacy of

legal documents: factors that inﬂuence informed consent. Ergonomics 42, 593–613.

https://doi.org/10.1080/001401399185504.

Zajonc, R.B., 1965. Social facilitation. Science 149, 269–274.

J.D. Heider et al. Methods in Psychology 2 (2020) 100015