805282

research-article2018
JREXXX10.1177/1556264618805282Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research EthicsAtkins and LeGrow

Research Risks, Benefits and Trust

Journal of Empirical Research on

Risk Perceptions for Trauma-Related

Human Research Ethics
2018, Vol. 13(5) 537­–545
© The Author(s) 2018
Research: An Exploratory Study Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

of Undergraduate Student Researchers DOI: 10.1177/1556264618805282

https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618805282
journals.sagepub.com/home/jre

in Psychology

Melissa S. Atkins1 and Christopher LeGrow1

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine student researchers’ perceptions of risks associated with trauma-related research.
The participants were 92 students enrolled in an introductory Research Methods course. Students evaluated (a) trauma-
exposed participants’ ability to provide informed consent and (b) the potential consequences of participating in trauma-
focused research. Risk perceptions were assessed at the beginning of the course, after completion of the Collaborative
Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) ethics education, and at the end of the course. Results show that student researchers’
perceptions of risk changed significantly across time. After completing the CITI ethics education, students perceived
trauma-exposed individuals as less able to provide informed consent and also perceived greater potential for negative
consequences from participation in trauma-focused research, perceptions that were relatively maintained throughout the
remainder of the course.

Keywords
research ethics, ethics education, trauma-focused research

Exposure to trauma is a common human experience (Elliott,
1997; Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, & Nelson, 1995).
As a result, researchers have studied traumatic experiences
(e.g., abuse, combat, loss of a child, natural disasters) and
social problems related to trauma exposure (e.g., criminal-
ity, homelessness, mental illness) in attempts to identify
factors related to trauma reactions and recovery (e.g.,
Brabin & Berah, 1995; Chu, DePrince, & Weinzierl, 2008;
Felitti et al., 1998; Herman, Susser, Struening, & Link,
1997; Saxon et al., 2001). But what effects does participa-
tion in trauma-related research have on trauma-exposed
individuals?
Research on trauma-exposed individuals has shown that
participants typically experience minimal distress and are
rarely traumatized by their participation in trauma-focused
research. Participants typically report that they do not regret
participating (Jaffe, DiLillo, Hoffman, Haikalis, & Dykstra,
2015; Newman, Walker, & Gefland, 1999), that they would
be willing to participate in the research again (Hebenstreit
& DePrince, 2012; Ruzek & Zatzick, 2000), that they per-
ceive answering questions about their traumatic experi-
ences no more distressing than the events in their day-to-day
lives (Cromer, Freyd, Binder, DePrince, & Becker-Blease,
2006; Yeater, Miller, Rinehart, & Nason, 2012), that they
recognize the importance of researchers asking questions
about traumatic experiences to gather information that may
help other trauma survivors (Cromer et al., 2006; DePrince
& Freyd, 2004), and that they report that the benefits of
their participation in trauma research outweighed the risks
(DePrince & Freyd, 2004; Hebenstreit & DePrince, 2012;
Ruzek & Zatzick, 2000). Participants have also reported
experiencing health and psychological benefits from par-
ticipating in research on trauma (Brown et al., 2014;
DePrince & Chu, 2008; Legerski & Bunnell, 2010; Newman
et al., 1999). These benefits have included “feeling valued
and listened to, being treated with respect and dignity, gain-
ing personal insight, and finding the experience to be mean-
ingful” (Cromer & Newman, 2011, p. 1542). In addition,
researchers have argued that avoiding trauma-related
research is a form of stigmatizing the victims of trauma,
while providing opportunities to take part in research may
instead empower those victims (Becker-Blease & Freyd,
2006; Newman, Risch, & Kassam-Adams, 2006;
Schwerdtfeger & Nelson-Goff, 2008).
1
Marshall University, Huntington, WV, USA
Corresponding Author:
Melissa S. Atkins, Marshall University, 1 John Marshall Drive, Huntington,
WV 25755, USA.
Email: stinson8@marshall.edu
538 Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 13(5)
Despite the empirical evidence from trauma-exposed
individuals showing that participation in trauma-focused
research is minimally distressing and potentially beneficial,
trauma researchers contend that their research is often held
to a higher ethical standard by the Institutional Review
Boards (IRBs) tasked with evaluating the risks and benefits
of the research (Cromer & Newman, 2011; Newman &
Kaloupek, 2004). They further contend that not all IRBs are
equally knowledgeable about the empirical literature on
trauma-focused research (Cromer & Newman, 2011;
Dalenberg, 2013). As a result, in their sincere efforts to mini-
mize risk and protect the well-being of what they perceive to
be vulnerable populations of trauma-exposed individuals,
some IRBs may overestimate the potential risks and under-
estimate the potential benefits associated with participation
in trauma-focused research (Becker-Blease & Freyd, 2006;
DePrince & Freyd, 2004; Newman, 2008). Overestimating
the potential risks may then lead some IRBs to require the
addition of unnecessary safeguards for participants into
trauma-focused research protocols and/or require research-
ers to use language within informed consents that overstates
the potential risks associated with participation in the
research (Dalenberg, 2013). Cromer and Newman (2011)
suggest that the dissemination of the empirical evidence
from trauma-exposed individuals to IRBs, through its inclu-
sion in trauma-focused research protocols and continuing
education for IRB members, will allow IRBs to become bet-
ter informed and more consistent in their evaluations of
trauma-focused research (Dalenberg, 2013; Newman &
Kaloupek, 2009).
As trauma researchers and IRBs continue to work
together to facilitate quality trauma- focused research, while
ensuring the protection of trauma-exposed individuals who
participate in this research, the next generation of trauma
researchers is currently in training. Psychology, a discipline
devoted to the study and treatment of trauma-exposed indi-
viduals, plays a role in training this next generation.
Undergraduates in psychology begin their research training
in a required Research Methods course. Ethics is an impor-
tant component of student researchers’ training. Student
researchers often receive this training by completing IRB-
required ethics education programs. The Collaborative
Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) is one of the most
widely used ethics education programs in organizations
conducting biomedical and/or social-behavioral-educa-
tional research (Braunschweiger & Goodman, 2007). The
CITI’s presentation of the risks associated with trauma-
focused research, however, has raised some concern.
Specifically, concern was expressed that the CITI “inaccu-
rately suggested that risk of psychological harm from
trauma studies is less predictable and remediable than risk
for physical harm from other types of studies” (Cromer &
Newman, 2011, p. 1541). To date, no research has exam-
ined the influence of CITI ethics education on students’
perceptions of research ethics and related risks, especially
as they pertain to trauma-related research.
The purpose of the present study was to examine student
researchers’ perceptions of the risks associated with trauma-
related research (i.e., the capability of trauma-exposed indi-
viduals to provide informed consent, risk of stigmatization
or exacerbation of trauma-related symptoms) at the start of
their required Research Methods course, after completing
the CITI ethics education, and at the conclusion of their
Research Methods course. The main focuses of the study
were (a) to examine student researchers’ perceptions of risk
for trauma-focused research, (b) to examine the extent to
which student researchers’ perceptions of risk for trauma-
focused research changed throughout their required
Research Methods course, and (c) to examine how student
researchers’ perceptions of risk for trauma-focused research
changed after completing the IRB-required CITI ethics edu-
cation. It was predicted that student researchers would per-
ceive significantly higher risk associated with trauma-related
research after completing the CITI ethics education (i.e.,
lower perceived capability of trauma-exposed individuals
to provide informed consent, higher perceived risk of stig-
matization or exacerbation of trauma-related symptoms).
Method
Participants
The participants (referred to as student researchers in this
article) were 92 undergraduate psychology majors (27 males,
65 females) enrolled in three sections of a required experi-
mental psychology course at a Mid-Atlantic University.
Students were recruited by their professors, all of whom
taught this course using common course objectives, sequence
of major topics covered, and required assignments.
Materials
After examining the psychological literature on trauma and
identifying common topics of inquiry, the authors developed
a set of 14 items to assess student researchers’ perceptions of
the risks associated with participation in trauma-focused
research. These 14 items were designed to assess percep-
tions of risk for trauma-focused research examining both
current and past traumatic experiences across a variety of
populations of trauma-exposed individuals.
Four items assessed perceptions of the capability of
trauma-exposed individuals to provide informed consent to
participate in research examining their traumatic experi-
ences. Two of the items assessed the capability of individu-
als to provide informed consent to participate in research
examining the effects of a current traumatic event in their
lives (i.e., individuals living with mental illness, individuals
who are homeless). Two of the items assessed the capability
Atkins and LeGrow 539
of individuals to provide informed consent to participate in
research examining the effects of a past traumatic experi-
ence on their lives (i.e., parents who have experienced the
death of a child; individuals who have experienced a crisis
situation). Student researchers responded on a 5-point rat-
ing scale (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = undecided, 5 =
strongly agree) with higher scores indicating higher per-
ceived capability of providing informed consent.
The remaining 10 items assessed perceptions of the
consequences of asking individuals about their traumatic
experiences. Two of the items assessed the potential for
stigmatization (i.e., asking individuals about their crimi-
nal behavior and incarceration, asking individuals about
their experiences with prejudice and discrimination). Six
items assessed the potential for exacerbation of trauma-
related symptoms (i.e., posttraumatic stress disorder
[PTSD] symptoms in combat veterans, unhealthy con-
sumption levels in substance users, suicidal behavior in
depressed individuals, relapse in individuals with addic-
tions, recovery of traumatic memories in victims of abuse,
unhealthy eating and weight loss behavior in individuals
with body image/eating disorders). Two items assessed
potential benefits of asking individuals about their trau-
matic experiences (i.e., discussing traumatic experiences
is more likely to promote healing than cause emotional
harm; reflecting on personal experiences with relationship
violence will be more empowering than emotionally dis-
tressing). These final two items were reverse scored.
Student researchers responded on a 5-point rating scale (1
= strongly disagree, 3 = undecided, 5 = strongly agree)
with higher scores indicating greater perceived negative
consequences associated with asking trauma-exposed
individuals about their traumatic experiences.
Procedure
Student researchers first completed the 14 items at the start
of the course (TIME1), before any course material had been
presented and before they had participated in any ethics
education. Student researchers then completed IRB-
required ethics education. They first read the Belmont
Report and then completed the online CITI ethics education
course, a standard research ethics training course used by
numerous institutions around the world (Braunschweiger &
Goodman, 2007). Student researchers were required to
score 80% or higher on each course module to receive a
completion certificate. After earning a completion certifi-
cate, approximately 6 weeks after TIME1, student research-
ers again rated the same items (TIME2). Student researchers
then worked on course-required research projects. They
were involved in the informed consent process, data collec-
tion and analysis activities, and debriefing of research par-
ticipants. At the end of the course, after all student
researchers had completed their research projects, they once
again rated the same items (TIME3), approximately 6
weeks following TIME2.
Results
Capability to Provide Informed Consent
Average ratings were computed across the four items
assessing the capability of trauma-exposed individuals to
provide informed consent. Single-sample t-tests were used
to examine whether these average ratings were significantly
different from a neutral rating (M = 3.00) at TIME1,
TIME2, and TIME3. Results of these t-tests indicated that
when considering the ability of trauma-exposed individuals
to provide informed consent, student researchers’ average
ratings were significantly higher than neutral at TIME1,
t(91) = 3.67, p < .001, M = 3.25; were not significantly
different from neutral at TIME2, t(91) = −1.05, p < .30, M
= 2.93; and were not significantly different from neutral at
TIME3, t(91) = 1.49, p = .14, M = 3.10.
A repeated-measures MANOVA was used to examine
change in student researchers’ perceptions of trauma-
exposed individuals’ capability to provide informed con-
sent across TIME1, TIME2, and TIME3. Results of the
MANOVA indicated a significant change in perceptions of
trauma-exposed individuals’ capability to provide informed
consent across time, F(2, 90) = 9.28, p < .001. The aver-
age ratings for TIME1, TIME2, and TIME3, and results of
the pairwise comparisons are presented in Figure 1 and
show that there was a significant decrease in average rating
between TIME1 and TIME2 (p < .001), a significant
increase in average rating between TIME2 and TIME3 (p
< .05), and a significant decrease in average rating between
TIME1 and TIME3 (p < .05). Thus, student researchers
perceived that trauma-exposed individuals were less capa-
ble of providing informed consent after completing the
CITI ethics education (TIME1 to TIME2). Perceptions of
the capability to provide informed consent then increased
between the completion of the CITI ethics education and
the end of the course (TIME2 to TIME3), but remained
significantly lower at the end of the course compared to the
start of the course (TIME1 to TIME3).
Average ratings were computed for each of the four
items assessing the capability of trauma-exposed individu-
als to provide informed consent at TIME1, TIME2, and
TIME3. Single-sample t-tests were used to examine whether
the average ratings for each item were significantly differ-
ent from a neutral rating (M = 3.00) at TIME1, TIME2, and
TIME3. Average ratings for each item and results of these
t-tests are presented in Table 1 and show that at the start of
the course, parents who experienced the loss of a child,
individuals living with mental illness, and individuals who
experienced a crisis situation were perceived as capable of
providing informed consent. Perceptions of the capability
540 Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 13(5)

Figure 1.  Average ratings across Capability to provide informed consent items × Time.
Note. Pairwise comparisons of means.
TIME1 (M = 3.25) vs. TIME2 (M = 2.93) – Significant Decrease (p < .001).
TIME2 (M = 2.93) vs. TIME3 (M = 3.10) – Significant Increase (p < .05).
TIME1 (M = 3.25) vs. TIME3 (M = 3.10) – Significant Decrease (p < .05).

Table 1.  Capability to Provide Informed Consent × Time (Item Means/Standard Deviations).

Participant type TIME1 TIME2 TIME3

H
Individuals with mental illnesses 3.26 (0.89) 2.98 (0.90) 3.27 (0.90)H
Homeless individuals 3.07 (1.03) 3.00 (1.03) 2.98 (0.97)
Bereaved parents 3.37 (0.92)H 2.89 (0.93) 3.05 (0.99)
Experienced crisis situation 3.29 (1.02)H 2.85 (1.03) 3.10 (1.01)

Note. H = average rating significantly higher (p < .05) than neutral (M = 3.00); L = average rating significantly lower (p < .05) than neutral (M = 3.00).

of homeless individuals to provide informed consent were
neutral. After completion of the CITI ethics education, per-
ceptions of the capability to provide informed consent
dropped to a neutral level for all four groups of trauma-
exposed individuals. At the end of the course, perceptions
of the capability to provide informed consent remained neu-
tral for all groups except individuals living with a mental
illness who were once again perceived as more capable of
providing informed consent.
Stigmatization/Exacerbation of Symptoms
Average ratings were computed across the 10 items assess-
ing the consequences of asking individuals about traumatic
experiences. Single-sample t-tests were used to examine
whether the average ratings were significantly different
from a neutral rating (M = 3.00) at TIME1, TIME2, and
TIME3. Results of these t-tests indicated that when consid-
ering the consequences of asking individuals about their
traumatic experiences, student researchers’ ratings were not
significantly different than neutral at TIME1, t(91) = −1.30,
p = .20, M = 2.94; were significantly higher than neutral at
TIME2, t(91) = 4.55, p < .001, M = 3.25; and were signifi-
cantly higher than neutral at TIME3, t(91) = 2.82, p < .01,
M = 3.17.
A repeated-measures MANOVA was used to examine
change in student researchers’ perceptions of the conse-
quences of asking individuals about their traumatic expe-
riences across TIME1, TIME2, and TIME3. Results of the
MANOVA indicated a significant change in perceptions
across time, F(2, 90) = 18.66, p < .001. The average rat-
ings for TIME1, TIME2, and TIME 3 and results of the
pairwise comparisons between the average ratings are pre-
sented in Figure 2 and show that there was a significant
increase in average rating between TIME1 and TIME2 (p
< .001), no significant change in average rating between
TIME2 and TIME3 (p = .11), and a significant increase in
average rating between TIME1 and TIME3 (p < .001).
Thus, students researchers’ initial neutral perceptions of
the consequences of asking individuals about their trau-
matic experiences increased after completing the CITI
Atkins and LeGrow 541

3.3 3.25

Sgmazaon/Exacerbaon of Symptoms
3.25
3.2 3.17
3.15
3.1
3.05
3
2.94
2.95
2.9
2.85
2.8
2.75
TIME1 TIME2 TIME3
Time of Measurement

Figure 2.  Average ratings across Stigmatization/symptom exacerbation items × Time.

Note. Pairwise comparisons of means.
TIME1 (M = 2.94) vs. TIME2 (M = 3.25) – Significant Increase (p < .001).
TIME2 (M = 3.25) vs. TIME3 (M = 3.17) – No Significant Change (p = .11).
TIME1 (M = 2.94) vs. TIME3 (M = 3.17) – Significant Increase (p < .001).

Table 2.  Stigmatization/Exacerbation of Symptoms × Time (Item Means/Standard Deviations).

Traumatic experience TIME1 TIME2 TIME3

H H
Criminal behavior/incarceration 3.20 (1.02) 3.55 (0.97) 3.30 (1.04)H
Prejudice/discrimination 2.80 (0.87)L 3.38 (0.82)H 3.30 (0.90)H
Combat experience 3.75 (0.92)H 3.93 (0.80)H 3.74 (0.89)H
Substance use 2.03 (0.83)L 2.50 (1.05)L 2.54 (0.94)L
Depression 2.39 (0.83)L 2.87 (0.98) 2.70 (0.94)L
Addictive behaviors 2.54 (0.83)L 2.97 (0.94) 2.93 (0.98)
Victim of abuse 3.28 (0.88)H 3.46 (0.87)H 3.30 (0.94)H
Body image/eating disorder 2.92 (0.94) 3.16 (1.00) 3.21 (0.99)H
Trauma 3.15 (0.81) 3.24 (1.03)H 3.17 (0.91)
Relationship violence 3.28 (0.84)H 3.46 (0.86)H 3.46 (0.84)H

Note. H = average rating significantly higher (p < .05) than neutral (M = 3.00); L = average rating significantly lower (p < .05) than neutral (M = 3.00).

ethics education (TIME1 to TIME2). Perceptions of the
consequences of asking individuals about traumatic expe-
riences did not significantly change between completion
of the CITI ethics education and the end of the course
(TIME2 to TIME3), but remained significantly higher at
the end of the course compared to the start of the course
(TIME1 to TIME3).
Average ratings were computed for each of the 10 items
assessing the consequences of asking individuals about
their traumatic experiences at TIME1, TIME2, and TIME3.
Single-sample t-tests were used to examine whether the
average ratings for each item were significantly different
from a neutral rating (3 = undecided) at TIME1, TIME2,
and TIME3. Results of these t-tests are presented in Table 2
and show that that for five of the 10 trauma-exposed groups,
student researchers’ perceptions remained unchanged
throughout the course. Specifically, they perceived that ask-
ing individuals about criminal behavior/incarceration, com-
bat experiences, abuse, and relationship violence was likely
to result in stigmatization and/or exacerbation of trauma-
related symptoms, while asking individuals about their sub-
stance abuse was unlikely to result in these negative
consequences, throughout the course.
For the remaining five trauma-exposed groups, student
researchers’ perceptions changed significantly during the
course. For four of these trauma-exposed groups, student
researchers’ perceptions of risk were higher after completing
the CITI ethics education. Specifically, asking individuals
about their addictions was perceived as unlikely to lead to
relapse at the start of the course. Perceptions of risk then rose
542 Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 13(5)
to a neutral level after completion of the CITI and remained
neutral at the end of the course. Student researchers were
neutral in their perceptions of whether asking individuals to
discuss traumatic experiences would cause emotional harm
at the start of the course. Perceptions of risk then rose after
completion of the CITI. Having individuals discuss their
traumatic experiences was now perceived as more likely to
cause emotional harm. Perceptions of risk returned to a neu-
tral level at the end of the course. Asking individuals about
their depression was perceived as unlikely to lead to suicidal
behavior at the start of the course. Perceptions of risk then
rose to a neutral level after completion of the CITI. At the
end of the course, perception of risk had dropped so that ask-
ing individuals about their depression was once again per-
ceived as unlikely to lead to suicidal behavior. Asking
individuals about their experiences with prejudice/discrimi-
nation was perceived as unlikely to be stigmatizing at the
start of the course. Perceptions of risk then rose to an ele-
vated level after completion of the CITI. Asking individuals
about their experiences with prejudice/discrimination was
now perceived as likely to be stigmatizing, a perception that
remained consistent at the end of the course.
For one of the trauma-exposed groups, student research-
ers’ perceptions of risk remained unchanged after comple-
tion of the CITI ethics education but had changed by the end
of the course. Specifically, student researchers were neutral
in their perceptions of whether asking individuals about
their body image/eating disorders would lead to unhealthy
eating behaviors/weight loss at the start of the course.
Perceptions remained at a neutral level after completion of
the CITI. However, at the end of the course, perceptions of
risk rose, and asking individuals about their body image/
eating disorders was now perceived as more likely to
increase unhealthy eating behavior/weight loss.
Discussion
In examining student researchers’ perceptions of the risks
associated with trauma-focused research, the present study
showed that their perceptions of the capability of trauma-
exposed individuals to provide informed consent and per-
ceptions of the risk of stigmatization and/or exacerbation
of trauma-related symptoms changed significantly
throughout a required Research Methods course experi-
ence. In addition, as predicted, the results showed that stu-
dent researchers perceived greater risk for trauma-exposed
individuals participating in trauma-focused research after
they had completed the IRB-required CITI ethics educa-
tion training.
At the start of the course, student researchers perceived
minimal risk for trauma-exposed individuals participat-
ing in trauma-focused research. Overall, the student
researchers perceived trauma-exposed individuals as
capable of providing informed consent and were neutral
in their perceptions of the risk for stigmatization or exac-
erbation of trauma-related symptoms. Given that none of
the student researchers had ever conducted nor partici-
pated in any prior trauma-focused research, these results
provided a solid baseline for comparison with their per-
ceptions of risk at later points in the course.
After completing the IRB-required CITI ethics educa-
tion training, student researchers perceived significantly
more risk for trauma-exposed individuals participating in
trauma-focused research. Overall, student researchers per-
ceived trauma-exposed individuals as less capable of pro-
viding informed consent and at higher risk for
stigmatization or exacerbation of their trauma-related
symptoms after completing the CITI. While these results
would appear to show that completing the CITI caused an
increase in student researchers’ perceptions of risk, the
study did not include a control group, and therefore, the
changes in perceptions of risk cannot be solely attributed
to the CITI ethics education. Other events occurring in and
outside of their Research Methods course (e.g., class dis-
cussions of ethical issues in research, exposure to new
information about trauma-exposed populations in other
psychology courses, involvement in community-based
programs working with trauma-exposed individuals) may
have also contributed to the increase in student research-
ers’ perceptions of risk following completion of the CITI
ethics education.
At the end of the course, student researchers’ percep-
tions of the risk associated with the informed consent pro-
cess had diminished, and they were once again neutral in
their perceptions of the capability of trauma-exposed indi-
viduals to provide informed consent. It may be the case
that their personal experiences with developing informed
consents and managing the informed consent process for
their class research projects affected their perceptions of
risk and resulted in less concern regarding the capability
of trauma-exposed individuals to provide informed con-
sent. It is important to note, however, student researchers’
final ratings still reflected a significantly lower perceived
capability of trauma-exposed individuals to provide
informed consent at the end of the course as compared to
at the start of the course.
By contrast, student researchers’ perceptions of the risk
for stigmatization or exacerbation of trauma-related symp-
toms had not diminished by the end of the course. Student
researchers still perceived trauma-exposed individuals to be
at risk for these potential negative consequences of partici-
pating in trauma-related research. Furthermore, final ratings
of the student researchers reflected a significantly higher
perceived risk of stigmatization or exacerbation of trauma-
related symptoms at the end of the course as compared to at
the start of the course.
While student researchers’ perceptions of risk changed
significantly throughout the course, it should be noted
Atkins and LeGrow 543
that the overall level of perceived risk was relatively low
at all points of measurement, which supports prior
research on trauma-focused research (Cromer et al., 2006;
Jaffe et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2006). Even though
many of their overall average ratings for the perceived
capability of trauma-exposed individuals to provide
informed consent (Time1 = 3.25, Time 2 = 2.93, Time3
= 3.10) and perceived risk of stigmatization or exacerba-
tion of trauma-related symptoms (Time1 = 2.94, Time2
= 3.25, Time3 = 3.17) were significantly different from
“neutral,” these average ratings tended to hover around a
“neutral” level of perceived risk. While student research-
ers’ ratings may reflect their agreement with trauma
researchers that participation in trauma-focused research
presents minimal risk for most trauma-exposed individu-
als, it is more likely that their ratings reflect the percep-
tions and uncertainty of new researchers with no prior
foundation in research ethics or knowledge of the empiri-
cal evidence regarding the effects of participation in
trauma-focused research.
While student researchers’ overall perceptions of the
risk associated with trauma-focused research, as well as
their perceptions of risk for specific trauma-exposed pop-
ulations, changed significantly at various points during
the course, there were some individuals for whom partici-
pating in trauma-related research was perceived as pre-
senting more than minimal risk throughout the entire
course. Specifically, asking trauma-exposed individuals
questions about their experiences with criminal behavior/
incarceration, relationship violence, combat, and abuse
was perceived as likely to result in stigmatization or exac-
erbation of trauma-related symptoms throughout the
course. Given that society views these trauma-exposed
populations as some of its most vulnerable, and that stu-
dent researchers had no prior exposure to the empirical
literature on the effects of participation in trauma-focused
research, it is possible that student researchers were influ-
enced by these societal perceptions when forming their
personal perceptions of risk for these specific trauma-
exposed populations.
Future research should continue to explore student
researchers’ perceptions of risk for research examining
additional traumatic experiences (e.g., terrorism, work-
place violence, job loss, divorce, bullying). Risk percep-
tions should also be reassessed as students proceed through
the psychology curriculum and have had additional oppor-
tunities to conduct research and take courses that include
discussion of research examining experiences of trauma-
exposed individuals and the related ethical issues. Given
the exploratory nature of this study, future research should
explore the generalizability of the results to student
researchers in other disciplines involved in the study of
traumatic experiences and the social problems related to
trauma exposure.
Best Practices
The present study showed that student researchers’ per-
ceptions of the risk associated with trauma-exposed indi-
viduals’ participation in trauma-focused research changed
significantly over the course of their first research train-
ing experience as psychology majors, a required Research
Methods course. This change in student researchers’ per-
ceptions of risk over time highlights the fact that for both
researchers and IRB members, ethical perceptions of
research should remain flexible and allowed to be shaped
over time by exposure to new information and experi-
ence. Since ethical perceptions are developed and modi-
fied over time, ethical development should remain an
important component of professional development for
both researchers and IRB members throughout their
careers.
The present study also showed that student researchers’
perceptions of risk for trauma-focused research varied sig-
nificantly over time based on the specific populations of
trauma-exposed individuals being evaluated. These per-
ceived differences in perceptions of the risk faced by spe-
cific populations of trauma-exposed individuals highlights
the need for ethics education on trauma-focused research
to provide content and guidance that is more population-
specific rather than presenting trauma-exposed individuals
as a homogenous group who are equally vulnerable and
who require the same protections when participating in
trauma-focused research. Population-specific content and
guidance should also include information regarding how
the nature of the trauma experienced (e.g., severity,
recency) and the methodology used to ask individuals
about their traumatic experiences (e.g., surveys, inter-
views, focus groups) affects the level of potential risk faced
by different trauma-exposed populations. By providing
more population-specific content and guidance, student
researchers would be better able to assess the extent to
which their assumptions, beliefs, and initial perceptions
accurately reflect the current empirical evidence regarding
risks associated with trauma-exposed individuals partici-
pating in trauma-focused research.
Research Agenda
One of the main purposes of the study was to examine
the effect of the CITI ethics education on student
researchers’ perceptions of risk for trauma-focused
research. Due to the limitations of the research design
used in the present study, the increase in student
researchers’ perceptions of risk following completion of
the CITI could not be solely attributed to this ethics edu-
cation. To conduct a more experimental test of the effect
of the CITI on perceptions of risk for trauma-focused
research, the design of the present study would need to
be revised to include the following: standardization of
544 Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 13(5)
classroom experiences, inclusion of an equivalent con-
trol group, opportunity for student researchers to quali-
tatively discuss the reasons behind changes in their
quantitative ratings of perceived risk, use of a more
established and psychometrically sound measure of risk
perceptions, and assessment of student researchers’
exposure outside of the study to information regarding
trauma-exposed individuals.
There are many additional lines of research worth
examining regarding the ethical perceptions of student
researchers in the discipline of psychology. Future
research should continue to explore student researchers’
perceptions of risk for research examining additional
traumatic experiences (e.g., terrorism, school/workplace
violence, long-term unemployment, divorce, bullying).
Research should also examine the relationship between
career orientation (i.e., clinical vs. experimental psychol-
ogy) and perceptions of risk for trauma-related research.
Such research would allow for a comparison of risk per-
ceptions between students with a scientist orientation ver-
sus students with a practitioner orientation. Perceptions
of risk should also be reassessed as students proceed
through the psychology curriculum and have had addi-
tional opportunities to conduct research and take courses
that include discussion of research examining experi-
ences of trauma-exposed individuals and related ethical
issues. Finally, given the exploratory nature of this study,
future research should explore the generalizability of the
results to other student populations, ethics education pro-
grams, and other disciplines involved in the study of trau-
matic experiences and the social problems related to
trauma exposure.
Educational Implications
For both student researchers and IRB members, one of the
most important phases in the development of one’s ethical
perceptions of research is when one transitions from eval-
uating research on the basis of assumptions and personal
beliefs to evaluating research on the basis of acquired
knowledge of empirical evidence. The acquisition of
empirical knowledge is, therefore, critical to this transi-
tion. Those responsible for the training of student
researchers (e.g., course instructors, research supervisors)
can help them acquire this empirical knowledge through a
variety of traditional teaching strategies including lec-
tures, discussions, readings, and the review of the empiri-
cal literature on trauma and trauma-exposed populations.
Additional teaching strategies could include having stu-
dent researchers observe a staged debate on ethical issues
associated with trauma-focused research and using Skype
to allow students to have face-to-face conversations with
researchers who study trauma and individuals with expe-
rience working with trauma-exposed populations.
There are also many methods by which IRBs and their
members could acquire empirical knowledge of the risks
associated with trauma-focused research. One method
would be to require researchers who submit trauma-focused
protocols to include a detailed description of the most cur-
rent and relevant empirical evidence regarding the level of
risk their populations of interest have experienced when
participating in similar research studies. Additional meth-
ods could include providing continuing education on
trauma-focused research for IRBs and their members, selec-
tion of researchers with trauma-focused research experi-
ence for membership on IRBs, selection of members of the
community with experience working with trauma-exposed
populations to serve as community members on IRBs, and
attendance at conference sessions on trauma-focused
research and the related ethical issues at conferences
devoted to research ethics by IRB chairs and selected IRB
members.
Regardless of the methods used to help student research-
ers and IRBs acquire empirical knowledge regarding the
risks associated with trauma-focused research, efforts
should be made by course instructors, research supervisors,
and IRB chairs to collect information from student research-
ers and IRB members regarding change in their perceptions
of the risks associated with trauma-focused research and the
teaching/training strategies that they perceive to have been
most effective in changing their perceptions to more accu-
rately reflect the current empirical evidence on the risks
associated with trauma-exposed individuals participating in
trauma-focused research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Melissa S. Atkins https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5251-6629
References
Becker-Blease, K., & Freyd, J. (2006). Research participants tell-
ing the truth about their lives: The ethics of asking and not
asking about abuse. American Psychologist, 61, 218-226.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.218
Brabin, P., & Berah, E. (1995). Dredging up past traumas:
Harmful or helpful? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2, 165-
171. doi:10.1080/13218719509524863
Braunschweiger, P., & Goodman, K. (2007). The CITI pro-
gram: An international online resource for education in
Atkins and LeGrow 545
human subject’s protection and the responsible conduct of
research. Academic Medicine, 82, 861-864. doi:10.1097/
ACM.0b013e31812f7770
Brown, V. M., Strauss, J. L., LaBar, K. S., Gold, A. L., McCarthy,
G., & Morey, R. A. (2014). Acute effects of trauma-focused
research procedures on participant safety and distress.
Psychiatry Research, 215, 154-158. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.
2013.10.038
Chu, A., DePrince, A., & Weinzierl, K. (2008). Children’s per-
ception of research participation: Examining trauma expo-
sure and distress. Journal of Empirical Research on Human
Research Ethics, 3(1), 49-58. doi:10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.49
Cromer, L. D., Freyd, J. J., Binder, A. K., DePrince, A. P.,
& Becker-Blease, K. (2006). What’s the risk in asking?
Participant reaction to trauma history questions compared
with reaction to other personal questions. Ethics & Behavior,
16, 347-362. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1604_5
Cromer, L. D., & Newman, E. (2011). Research ethics in victim-
ization studies: Widening the lens. Violence Against Women,
17, 1536-1548. doi:10.1177/1077801211436365
Dalenberg, C. (2013, Fall). Trauma research and the Institutional
Review Board. Trauma Psychology Newsletter, pp. 43-48.
Retrieved from http://traumapsychnews.com/wp-content/
uploads/2016/01/newsletter_2013_fall.pdf
DePrince, A., & Freyd, J. (2004). Costs and benefits of being
asked about trauma history. Journal of Trauma Practice, 3(4),
23-35. doi:10.1300/J189v03n04_02
DePrince, A. P., & Chu, A. (2008). Perceived benefits in trauma
research: Examining methodological and individual differ-
ence factors in responses to research participation. Journal of
Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(1), 35-47.
doi:10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.35
Elliott, D. (1997). Traumatic events: Prevalence and delayed recall
in the general population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Practice, 65, 811-820. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.65.5.811
Felitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D., Spitz, A.,
Edwards, V., . . . Marks, J. (1998). Relationship of childhood
abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading
causes of death in adults: The adverse childhood experiences
(ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14,
245-258. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
Hebenstreit, C. L., & DePrince, A. P. (2012). Perceptions of partici-
pating in longitudinal trauma research among women exposed
to intimate partner violence. Journal of Empirical Research on
Human Ethics, 7(2), 60-69. doi:10.1525/jer.2012.7.2.60
Herman, D., Susser, E., Struening, E., & Link, B. (1997). Adverse
childhood experiences: Are they risk factors for adult home-
lessness? American Journal of Public Health, 87, 249-255.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.87.2.249
Jaffe, A. E., DiLillo, D., Hoffman, L., Haikalis, M., & Dykstra, R.
E. (2015). Does it hurt to ask? A meta-analysis of participant
reactions to trauma research. Clinical Psychology Review, 40,
40-56. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.004
Kessler, R., Sonnega, A., Bromet, E., Hughes, M., & Nelson,
C. (1995). Post traumatic stress disorder in the National
Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52,
1048-1060. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950240066012
Legerski, J., & Bunnell, S. L. (2010). The risks, benefits, and
ethics of trauma-focused research participation. Ethics &
Behavior, 20, 429-442. doi:10.1080/10508422.2010.521443
Newman, E. (2008, May). Assessing trauma and its effects with-
out distress: A guide to working with IRBs. APS Observer,
21(5). Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/
observer/assessing-trauma-and-its-effects-without-distress-a-
guide-to-working-with-irbs
Newman, E., & Kaloupek, D. (2004). The risks and benefits of partici-
pating in trauma-focused research studies. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 17, 383-394. doi:10.1023/B:JOTS.0000048951.02568.3a
Newman, E., & Kaloupek, D. (2009). Overview of research
addressing ethical dimensions of participation in trau-
matic stress studies: Autonomy and beneficence. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 22, 595-602. doi:10.1002/jts.20465
Newman, E., Risch, E., & Kassam-Adams, N. (2006). Ethical
issues in trauma-related research: A review. Journal of
Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(3), 29-46.
doi:10.1525/jer.2006.1.3.29
Newman, E., Walker, E. A., & Gefland, A. (1999). Assessing
the ethical costs and benefits of trauma-focused research.
General Hospital Psychiatry, 21, 187-196. doi:10.1016/
S0163-8343(99)00011-0
Ruzek, J., & Zatzick, D. (2000). Ethical considerations in research
participation among acutely injured trauma survivors: An
empirical investigation. General Hospital Psychiatry, 22, 27-
36. doi:10.1016/S0163-8343(99)00041-9
Saxon, A., Davis, T., Sloan, K., McKnight, K., McFall, M., &
Kivhahan, D. (2001). Trauma, symptoms of post traumatic
stress disorder and associated problems among incarcerated
veterans. Psychiatric Services, 52, 959-964. doi:10.1176/
appi.ps.52.7.959
Schwerdtfeger, K., & Nelson-Goff, B. (2008). The effects of
trauma-focused research on pregnant female participants.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics,
3(1), 59-67. doi:10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.59
Yeater, E., Miller, G., Rinehart, J., & Nason, E. (2012). Trauma
and sex surveys meet minimal risk standards: Implications for
Institutional Review Boards. Psychological Science, 23, 780-
787. doi:10.1177/0956797611435131
Author Biographies
Melissa S. Atkins is an assistant professor of Psychology at
Marshall University. Dr. Atkins conducts research in developmen-
tal psychology, and teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in
experimental psychology, statistics, and developmental psychol-
ogy. Dr. Atkins was one of the instructors who taught the courses
from which these participants were drawn.
Christopher Legrow is a professor of Psychology at Marshall
University and also serves as the chair of the Behavioral and
Social Science IRB at Marshall. Dr. Legrow conducts research in
industrial-organizational and paranormal psychology, and also
teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in those fields, as well
as undergraduate experimental psychology and statistics. Dr.
Legrow was one of the instructors who taught the courses from
which these participants were drawn.