1. INTRODUCTION HYPOTHESES MEASURES RESULTS Correspondence to: kneppm@mountunion.eduPresented at the 25 th Annual Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, Washington DC, May 2013 RESULTS Michael M. Knepp University of Mount Union One hundred eight-three total subjects 102 online; 81 laboratory participation Approximately 2/3rds college women Mean age: 19.55, SD=1.3 87 percent Caucasian No demographic differences between online and laboratory portions PARTICIPANTS CONCLUSIONS Laboratory Experience, Gender, and Personality Impact Reading Informed Consent Forms. As electronic consent forms become more common, we are becoming trained to scroll to the end of the document and click accept. This mindset may have particular consequences for the ethics of college student sampling and whether or not participants are even aware of their rights anymore. The field has a dearth of objective findings about the consent form reading process (Varnhagen et al., 2005). Previous reviews indicate that informed consent form comprehension is lowest with regard to alternatives and risks of the procedure: two areas that would be a focus in research subjects (Stanley & Guido, 1996). H1: Students in the lab section would be more likely to read, comprehend and express knowledge of the IFC Due to physical presence of researcher Still expected that less than half will read IFC H2:Students who notice the IFC detail will be: High in trait worry High in suppression of emotions High in state stress, anxiety, and depression Students in the laboratory session (38.3%) were more likely to read the IFC compared with students completing the tasks online at home (11.8%) χ² = 17.65, df = 1, p <.001 Students who followed the directions reported higher trait worry F(1, 179)=10.40, p<.005 Students who read the forms further reported more state stress those who did not read the forms F(1, 179)=4.13, p<.05 There was a gender effect in that women were more likely to read the informed consent forms χ² = 7.02, df = 1, p <.01 Informed Consent Form: (Both Portions) There was a line in the procedure section that was worded as: On the next questionnaire about demographics, whether you have had a medical diagnosis or not, answer the question which reads “are you taking any medications” with the answer “I am paying attention to the study.” The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990;). The PSWQ consists of 16-item scale designed to measure trait worry levels Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). The ERQ is a 10 item self-report questionnaire that assesses for emotion suppression and reappraisal strategies Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The DASS-short form is a 21-item self-report questionnaire examining the state conditions of depression, anxiety, and tension/stress The overall reading of informed consent forms was low as expected. It appears that anxious individuals or those in current stress situations would be more likely to do the proper diligence and take the time to read through the entire form. Future research could test various procedures intended to increase compliance at reading the consent forms and understanding one’s own rights. Figure 1: PSWQ scores for College Students Who Read and Did Not Read Informed Consent Forms Online and During the Lab Phase Figure 2: DASS scores for College Students Who Read and Did Not Read Informed Consent Forms Online and During the Lab Phase