Subject-experimenter perceptions of ethical issues in human research.

Sullivan, David; Deiker, Thomas E.

doi:10.1037/h0034831

Cited by 59 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Annett et al (2004), in a quantitative study using asthma research participation vignettes, highlight this point when they demonstrated that parent and adolescent ratings of research benefits were often similar and that both groups inferred they would derive benefit from research procedures (e.g., placebo) even though physicians rated them as having little beneficial potential. These findings are compatible with qualitative research that has demonstrated lapses and faults in adult and adolescent comprehension of risks and benefits (Kupst 2001; Kupst et al 2003; Reynolds and Nelson, 2007; Susman, Dorn, and Fletcher 1992) and significant differences in their evaluation of research risk compared to research investigators (Michaels and Oetting 1979; Sullivan and Deiker 1973). …”

Section: The Empirical Evidence Regarding Assent To Pediatric Researchsupporting

confidence: 87%

Empirically Derived Knowledge on Adolescent Assent to Pediatric Biomedical Research

Scherer

Brody

Annett

et al. 2013

AJOB Primary Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There has been a recent growth in empirical research on assent with pediatric populations, due in part, to the demand for increased participation of this population in biomedical research. Despite methodological limitations, studies of adolescent capacities to assent have advanced and identified a number of salient psychological and social variables that are key to understanding assent. Methods The authors review a subsection of the empirical literature on adolescent assent focusing primarily on asthma and cancer therapeutic research; adolescent competencies to assent to these studies; perceptions of protocol risk and benefit; the affects of various social context variables on adolescent research participation decision making; and the inter-relatedness of these psychological and social factors. Results Contemporary studies of assent, using multivariate methods and updated approaches to statistical modeling, have revealed the importance of studying the intercorrelation between adolescents’ psychological capacities and their ability to employ these capacities in family and medical decision-making contexts. Understanding these dynamic relationships will enable researchers and ethicists to develop assent procedures that respect the authority of parents, while at the same time accord adolescents appropriate decision-making autonomy. Conclusions Reviews of empirical literature on the assent process reveal that adolescents possess varying capacities for biomedical research participation decision making depending on their maturity and the social context in which the decision is made. The relationship between adolescents and physician-investigators can be used to attenuate concerns about research protocols and clarify risk and benefit information so adolescents, in concert with their families, can make the most informed and ethical decisions. Future assent researchers will be better able to navigate the complicated interplay of contextual and developmental factors and develop the empirical bases for research enrollment protocols that will support increased involvement of adolescents in biomedical research.

show abstract

Section: The Empirical Evidence Regarding Assent To Pediatric Researchsupporting

confidence: 87%

Empirically Derived Knowledge on Adolescent Assent to Pediatric Biomedical Research

Scherer

Brody

Annett

et al. 2013

AJOB Primary Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fortunately, there is evidence that participants do not perceive deception to be unethical (Aguinis and Henle, 2001;Collins et al, 1979;Smith and Berard, 1982;Sullivan and Deiker, 1973;Wilson and Donnerstein, 1976), and debriefing seems to eliminate the negative effects of deceptive research on participants (Holmes, 1976;Smith and Richardson, 1983). Moreover, the type of deception involved when conducting a study using eLancing is defined as "mild deception," which consists of "creating false beliefs… such as misleading [participants] about the research sponsor or study purpose" (Kimmel, 2012, p. 402).…”

Section: Potential Limitations and Challenges Of Using Elancing As A mentioning

confidence: 95%

Conducting field experiments using eLancing's natural environment

Aguinis

Lawal

2012

Journal of Business Venturing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Fourth, most college students are generally accepting of ethically sensitive research practices such as deception and invasion of privacy (e.g., Collins, Kuhn, & King, 1979;Epstein, Suedfeld, & Silverstein, 1973;Farr & Seaver, 1975) and are less critical of those practices than members of Human Subjects Committees, psychologists, graduate students, and faculty (e.g., Korn, 1987;C. P. Smith & Berard, 1982;Sullivan & Deiker, 1973). Fifth, according to a questionnaire study by Sharpe, Adair, and Roese (1992), the continued use of deception did not evoke an increase in negative attitudes toward psychological research among the participant population.…”

Section: Does Deception Breed No Resentment?mentioning

confidence: 99%