Author: Nadine Stirling
Stirling, Nadine, 2024 Is trauma research risky? Investigating ethical challenges facing psychological trauma-related research, Flinders University, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work
Terms of Use: This electronic version is (or will be) made publicly available by Flinders University in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. You may use this material for uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. If you are the owner of any included third party copyright material and/or you believe that any material has been made available without permission of the copyright owner please contact copyright@flinders.edu.au with the details.
Psychological trauma-related research raises ethical concerns, such as whether participation is highly distressing to participants (e.g., Jaffe et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2006). Although extant research has investigated some of these concerns (e.g., how participants react to answering trauma-related questionnaires; Jaffe et al., 2015), several important gaps remain. My thesis provides a new and original contribution to this literature by addressing three ethical concerns, framed here as research questions: (1) How risky is participating in experimental—or analogue—trauma-related research? (2) Do participants—including people with prior trauma-exposure—have unique ethical requirements, beyond what is outlined in current ethical guidelines, for participation in psychological research? (3) Are informed consent risk-warnings contributing to negative outcomes for participants in psychological trauma-related research?
Research Question One
Previous evidence from trauma questionnaire research indicates participation is generally well-tolerated by participants (e.g., Jaffe et al., 2015). But whether these findings extend to analogue trauma-related research (e.g., trauma film paradigm; James et al., 2016) and fit within IRB guidelines is unclear. Thus, I examined how participants reacted to viewing an analogue trauma film, including how this experience compared to other research participation (e.g., cognitive tasks) and everyday stressors (Chapter 3). Overall, relative to other participation conditions, participation in the trauma film condition was well-tolerated: participants reported low-to-moderate negative emotions, moderate benefits, and that participation was not worse than everyday stressors. Hence, analogue trauma-related research fits with minimal risk definitions (e.g., Public Welfare Act, 2018).
Research Question Two
I next investigated participants’ views on consent guidelines and whether these views differed between trauma-exposed (i.e., according to the DSM-5 Criterion A for posttraumatic stress disorder) and non-trauma-exposed participants. Differing views would suggest that trauma-exposed people have unique requirements. I found (Chapter 5) participants were generally satisfied with current consent guidelines and made minor requests for change (e.g., greater consistency amongst consent forms). Notably, trauma-exposed and non-trauma-exposed participants expressed similar consent preferences, suggesting that current consent guidelines serve trauma-exposed participants. That is—in crowdsourced and undergraduate samples—unique considerations in ethical guidelines that describe trauma-exposed people as a vulnerable population are likely unwarranted.
Research Question Three
Finally, I examined whether the informed consent risk-warnings used in psychological trauma-related research contribute to adverse outcomes for participants (e.g., Abu-Rus et al., 2019). There was scant empirical evidence (Chapter 7) that addressed this concern, and that existing evidence was limited in several ways (e.g., no control condition). I subsequently developed recommendations for future research that I applied to three experiments investigating trauma-related consent risk-warnings and adverse outcomes. Overall, I found (Chapters 8 and 9) that consent risk-warnings did not cause participants to expect to experience warned of side-effects, nor to experience adverse outcomes (e.g., distress).
Together, my findings challenge ethical concerns about psychological trauma-related research. Methodologically, my thesis is an example for how to conduct psychological trauma-related research—particularly online—and provides advice regarding risk-management protocols. Theoretically, my thesis has implications for ethical and trauma-related research participation models. Practically and clinically, my research challenges IRB and researcher apprehensions about trauma-related research (e.g., that trauma-related research is harmful), and provides recommendations for using consent risk-warnings in trauma-related research. My thesis also influences how ethical guidelines are developed and applied to psychological trauma-related research.
Keywords: trauma research, psychological research ethics, trauma research ethics
Subject: Psychology thesis
Thesis type: Doctor of Philosophy
Completed: 2024
School: College of Education, Psychology and Social Work
Supervisor: Professor Melanie Takarangi