Ethical guidelines are vague concerning how situations should be handled when researchers encounter participants in preexisting psychological distress. Ethical issues of beneficence, autonomy, and the nature of informed consent may arise in these situations. This study investigated the ethical practices and beliefs of 84 psychopathology researchers when confronting research participants in distress. Results indicated that psychopathology researchers in general engaged in diverse ethical practices in providing debriefing, treatment referrals, and providing for distressed participants. Characteristics of the designated studies and of (...) the researchers accounted for significant differences in ethical practices. In addition, the type of psychopathology being assessed accounted for significant differences in ethical practices and beliefs. Guidelines are offered to aid researchers who encounter participants in preexisting distress. (shrink)

Little attention has focused on the reporting of ethical research practices in journal articles. In Study 1, published articles in 2 psychopathology journals were reviewed to ascertain the types of ethical research information that were reported. In Study 2, a survey was sent to authors in Study 1 to determine which ethical practices they engaged in, if they reported this information, and reasons for not including this information in their article. In general, there is a great variability regarding the types (...) of ethical research practices reported in journal articles. Commonly cited reasons for not including ethical research practice information in the articles included the need for brevity, belief that it was common practice, and lack of relevance for the project. These results suggest that there is no standard practice for reporting research practices in journal articles and great variability in the implementation of procedures that are generally considered standard. (shrink)

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. (shrink)