Factors affecting participant reactions to random assignment in ameliorative social programs.

Wortman, Camille B.; Hendricks, Michael; Hillis, Jay W.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.33.3.256

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That participants in an undesirable condition held less positive feelings mirrors findings by Wortman et al (1976). This study is, however, the first to investigate the effect of matching to preference among participants in a randomized controlled trial setting.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

“…One experimental investigation that focused on reactions to randomization was conducted by Wortman, Hendricks, and Hillis (1976). They designed a study such that one group of participants were kept unaware of the existence of a more desirable treatment group in which participants were given coupons for leisure opportunities (the "unaware" group), while another group of participants knew of the existence of the treatment group (the "aware" group), and a third group of participants found out about the treatment group partway through the study (the "becoming aware" group).…”

Section: Effects Of Participant Preferences In Unblinded Randomizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A second component of this study (Wortman, Hendricks, & Hillis, 1976) using college students, investigated the effect of having a choice about whether to enroll in a study in which participants were randomized to either have access to choose extra college course enrichment seminars or to a control group. As the researchers hypothesized, participants in the choice group had more positive feelings about the research project in comparison to participants in the no-choice group.…”

Section: Effects Of Participant Preferences In Unblinded Randomizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Participant Preferences in Unblinded Randomized Controlled Trials

Floyd

Moyer

2010

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little research has deliberately investigated the effects of participant preferences for treatment condition in unblinded randomized controlled trials. We designed a study with a non-patient sample comparing a randomized arm to a preference arm of the same trial to investigate: (1) whether having a choice to select one's preference affects feelings about participation, belief in treatment effectiveness, treatment contamination, intervention adherence and engagement, and trial attrition; and (2) the interaction of preferences and treatment assignment on these variables. Contamination and attrition were rare and excluded from analyses. There was no effect of choice. Participants mismatched to preference felt less positive about their experience, but this did not affect belief in treatment, adherence, or engagement. Stronger effects may occur for patient populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Effects Of Participant Preferences In Unblinded Randomizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effects Of Participant Preferences In Unblinded Randomizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Participant Preferences in Unblinded Randomized Controlled Trials

Floyd

Moyer

2010

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because expectancies regarding the effi cacy of treatment are related to outcome (Cunningham et al, 2000), demoralization resulting from being assigned to an undesired treatment condition is thought to artifi cially defl ate the true effect of a treatment (Cook & Campbell, 1979;Schwartz, Chesney, Irvine, & Keefe, 1997), and motivation resulting from being assigned to a desired treatment condition is thought to infl ate its true effect. It is also possible that competitive sentiments or compensatory rivalry may make those assigned to an undesired treatment strive to do better (Wortman, Hendricks, & Hillis, 1976) or that cognitive dissonance would lead them to report better outcomes. Participant preferences also may change over the time that participants are involved in a trial (Bower et al, 2005).…”

Section: Research Participant Recruitment: Strategies and Further Inqmentioning

confidence: 96%

Psychomethodology: The Psychology of Human Participation in Science

Moyer¹

2009

J Psych Sci Technol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The psychology of science has typically focused on the psychology of the scientist or experimenter.A neglected perspective has been the psychology of the participant in scientific research. Social science and biomedical researchers face a number of challenges when working with human participants, such as selective enrollment, aversion to random assignment, differential attrition, and low engagement.These challenges, rooted in the psychology of research participants, are not simply logistical problems but threaten the integrity of the otherwise rigorous methodology that ensures the internal and external validity of research. Such threats, unfortunately, have not been systematically examined. This review considers predominantly serendipitously documented evidence that such problems arise in typical research practice and discusses potential remedies. The review focuses upon challenges related to participant recruitment, reactivity, and retention in research. Deliberate, systematic investigation of the ways in which psychological factors interact with research methodology could help inform empirically based measures to ensure the validity of research with human participants. Social and behavioral scientists' expertise in psychological theory related to individuals' perceptions, attitudes, and behavior could very fruitfully contribute to this effort.

show abstract

“…An experimental study using college students as clients for a special extracurricular activities program is relevant here (Wortman, Hendricks, and Hillis, 1976). The randomization process can be explained and demonstrated in ways that permit genuine understanding by clients.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%