Sigmon Sandra T, Rohan Kelly J, Dorhofer Diana, Hotovy Lisa A, Trask Peter C, Boulard Nina
Ethics Behav. 1997;7(4):299-310. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0704_2.
When researchers encounter preexisting psychological distress in participants, ethical codes provide little guidance on how to balance issues of beneficence and autonomy. Although researchers may inform participants what will occur given responses indicating distress, this information may lead to biased self-reports. This important issue was addressed in this study by manipulating consent form information regarding the type of psychopathology to be assessed and various levels of possible follow-up. In comparing responses on self-report measures of anxiety, depression, and general psychological distress, men who believed depression was the focus of the study reported fewer symptoms of depression and less trait anxiety as intrusiveness of experimenter follow-up increased. These results are discussed within the framework of socialization theory. Given that half of the sample did not correctly answer questions regarding information contained in the consent form, guidelines to improve consent form comprehension are offered.
当研究人员在参与者中遇到预先存在的心理困扰时,伦理准则对于如何平衡善行和自主问题几乎没有提供指导。尽管研究人员可能会告知参与者,若其回答表明有困扰将会发生什么,但这些信息可能会导致有偏差的自我报告。本研究通过操纵关于待评估精神病理学类型和各种可能随访水平的同意书信息,解决了这一重要问题。在比较焦虑、抑郁和一般心理困扰的自我报告测量结果时,那些认为抑郁症是研究重点的男性,随着实验者随访干扰性的增加,报告的抑郁症状和特质焦虑较少。这些结果在社会化理论的框架内进行了讨论。鉴于一半的样本没有正确回答关于同意书所含信息的问题,本文提供了提高同意书理解的指导方针。