Angela Binder, Psychology
Jennifer Freyd, Mentor
Lisa Cromer, Mentor

What's the Harm in Asking? Participant Reaction to Trauma History Questions Compared to other Personal Questions

Institutional Review Boards frequently pose obstacles to trauma research because of concerns of harm to participants. Previous research, however, has linked writing about traumatic experiences with increased positive cognitive processing and physiological well-being (Park & Blumberg, 2002). Other researchers suggest that not asking about trauma has negative consequences for society, participants and science (Becker-Blease & Freyd, 2003). In the present study we conducted a cost-benefit analysis of asking about trauma compared to asking about other personal questions. Using a measure based on DePrince and Freyd (2003), costs were calculated measuring participants’ level of distress in response to being asked trauma questions compared to their distress to being asked other personal questions such as GPA, SAT score and body image. Benefits were measured by participants’ beliefs about the value of studying the impact of these constructs. These results suggest a contact in which an Institutional Review Board evaluates future trauma research.