Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 497–506 | Cite as

Doing More Good than Harm? The Effects of Participation in Sex Research on Young People in the Netherlands

  • Lisette KuyperEmail author
  • John de Wit
  • Philippe Adam
  • Liesbeth Woertman
Original Paper


Ethical guidelines for research with human participants stress the importance of minimizing risks and maximizing benefits. In order to assist Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and researchers to make more informed risk/benefit analyses with regard to sex research among adolescents, the current study examined the effects of participation in sex research among 899 young people (15–25 years old). Participants completed three questionnaires on a wide range of sexuality-related measures. They also completed scales measuring their levels of distress, need for help, and positive feelings due to their research participation. In general, negative effects of research participation seemed limited, while benefits of participation appeared substantial. Several differences with regard to sociodemographic characteristics were found (e.g., females experienced more distress then males and younger or lower educated participants experienced more positive feelings). In addition, victims of sexual coercion reported more distress and need for help due to their participation, but also experienced more positive feelings. No significant differences were found in relation to experience with sexual risk behaviors (e.g., experience with one-night-stands). Several limitations of the study were discussed, as were implications for future research. Overall, the findings caution IRBs and researchers against being overly protective regarding the inclusion of young people in sex research.


Institutional Review Board Sex research Research participation Research effects Harm Benefits 



The data used in the current study were collected as part of a study on sexual coercion among young people, which was funded by ZonMw (The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development) (Grant number 124260002). We would like to thank Mirre Hubers of ZonMw for reminding us of the importance of addressing the effects of research participation of young people.


  1. Ahrold, T. K., & Meston, C. M. (2010). Ethnic differences in sexual attitudes of U.S. college students: Gender, acculturation, and religiosity factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 190–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologist and APA report and code of conduct. Retrieved from
  3. Bakker, F., de Graaf, H., de Haas, S., Kedde, H., Kruijer, H., & Wijsen, C. (2009). Seksuele gezondheid in Nederland 2009 [Sexual health in the Netherlands 2009]. Utrecht: Rutgers Nisso Groep.Google Scholar
  4. Bakker, F., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2006). Seksuele gezondheid in Nederland 2006 [Sexual health in the Netherlands 2006]. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  5. Barter, C., McCarry, M., Berridge, D., & Evans, K. (2009). Partner exploitation and violence in teenage intimate relationships. Retrieved from
  6. Becker-Blease, K. A., & Freyd, J. J. (2006). Research participants telling the truth about their lives: The ethics of asking and not asking about abuse. American Psychologist, 61, 218–226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., & Plotkin, J. (1985). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. American Psychologist, 40, 994–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cromer, L. D., Freyd, J. J., Binder, A. K., DePrince, A. P., & Blecker-Blease, K. (2006). What’s the risk in asking? Participant reaction to trauma history questions compared with reaction to other personal questions. Ethics and Behavior, 16, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Graaf, H., Meijer, S., Poelman, J., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2005). Seks onder je 25 e . Seksuele gezondheid van jongeren in Nederland anno 2005 [Sex beneath 25. Sexual health of young people in the Netherlands 2005]. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  10. de Leeuw, E. D., & de Heer, W. (2001). Trends in household survey nonresponse: A longitudinal and international comparison. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, & R. J. A. Little (Eds.), Survey nonresponse (pp. 41–54). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. DePrince, A. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2004). Costs and benefits of being asked about trauma history. Journal of Trauma Practice, 3, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards, K. M., Kearns, M. C., Calhoun, K. S., & Gidycz, C. A. (2009). College women’s reactions to sexual assault research participation: Is it distressing? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, C. B., Kornetsky, S. Z., & Prentice, E. D. (2007). Determining risk in pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit: Time for a national consensus on the interpretation of federal regulations. American Journal of Bioethics, 7, 5–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Flicker, S., & Guta, A. (2008). Ethical approaches to adolescent participation in sexual health research. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 3–10.Google Scholar
  15. Gavin, L., MacKay, A. P., Brown, K., Harrier, S., Ventura, S. J., Kann, L., … Ryan, G. (2009). Sexual and reproductive health of persons aged 10-24 years, United States, 20022007. Retrieved from
  16. Griffin, M. G., Resick, P. A., Waldrop, A. E., & Mechanic, M. B. (2003). Participation in trauma research: Is there evidence of harm? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 221–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunsalus, C. K., Bruner, E. M., Burbules, N. C., Dash, L., Finkin, M., Goldberg, J. P., et al. (2007). The Illinois White Paper: Improving the system for protecting human subjects: Counteracting IRB “Mission Creep”. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 617–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, L. E., & Benight, C. C. (2003). Effects of trauma-focused research on recent domestic violence survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16, 567–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jorm, A. F., Kelly, C. M., & Morgan, A. J. (2007). Participant distress in psychiatric research: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine, 37, 917–926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kassam-Adams, N., & Newman, E. (2002). The reactions to research participation questionnaires for children and for parents (RRPQ-C and RRPQ-P). General Hospital Psychiatry, 24, 336–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., et al. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuyper, L., de Wit, J., Adam, P., Woertman, L., & van Berlo, W. (2010). Grensoverschrijdende seksuele ervaringen en gedragingen onder jongeren. De belangrijkste resultaten uit het onderzoek “Laat je nu horen!” [Unwanted sexual experiences and behaviours among young people. Key findings from the youth survey “Speak up now!”]. Tijdschrift voor Seksuologie, 34, 90–103.Google Scholar
  23. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Arata, C., O’Brien, N., Bowers, D., & Klibert, J. (2006). Sensitive research with adolescents: Just how upsetting are self-report surveys anyway? Violence and Victims, 21, 425–444.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, R. M., & Renzetti, C. M. (1990). The problems of researching sensitive topics: An overview and introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 510–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mustanski, B. (2011). Ethical and regulatory issues with conducting sexuality research with LGBT adolescents: A call to action for a scientifically informed approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 673–686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Institutes of Health. (1979). The Belmont report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved from
  27. Newman, E., & Kaloupek, D. G. (2004). The risks and benefits of participating in trauma-focused research studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 383–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Newman, E., Walker, E. A., & Gefland, A. (1999). Assessing the ethical costs and benefits of trauma-focused research. General Hospital Psychiatry, 21, 187–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oakes, J. M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research. An evaluator’s guide to the IBR. Evaluation Review, 26, 443–479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Institutional review board guidebook. Retrieved from
  31. Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2008). Share of birth outside marriage and teenage births. Retrieved from
  32. Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Price, E. L., & Byers, E. S. (1999). The attitudes towards dating violence scales: Development and initial validation. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 351–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rojas, A., & Kinder, B. N. (2007). Effects of completing sexual questionnaires in males and females with histories of childhood sexual abuse: Implications for Institutional Review Boards. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 33, 193–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenbaum, A., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2006). Meta-research on violence and victims: The impact of data collection methods on findings and participants. Violence and Victims, 21, 404–409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosnow, R. L., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Ceci, S. J., Blank, P. D., & Koocher, G. P. (1993). The institutional review board as a mirror of scientific and ethical standards. American Psychologist, 48, 821–826.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ruzek, J. I., & Zatzick, D. F. (2000). Ethical considerations in research participation among acutely injured trauma survivors: An empirical investigation. General Hospital Psychiatry, 22, 27–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Savell, J. K., Kinder, B. N., & Young, M. S. (2006). Effects of administering sexually explicit questionnaires on anger, anxiety, and depression in sexually abused and nonabused females: Implications for risk assessment. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 32, 161–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Singh, S., & Darroch, J. E. (2000). Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: Levels and trends in developed countries. Family Planning Perspectives, 32, 14–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stoop, I. A. L. (2005). The hunt for the last respondent: Nonresponse in sample surveys. The Hague: Social and Cultural Planning Office.Google Scholar
  41. Vanheusden, K., van der Ende, J., Mulder, C. L., van Lenthe, F. J., Verhulst, F. C., & Mackenbach, J. P. (2008). The use of mental health services among young adults with emotional and behavioural problems: Equal use for equal needs? Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43, 808–815.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wagener, D. K., Sporer, A. K., Simmerling, M., Flome, J. L., An, C., & Curry, S. J. (2004). Human participants’ challenges in youth-focused research: Perspectives and practices of IBR administrators. Ethics and Behavior, 14, 335–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walker, E. A., Newman, E., Koss, M., & Bernstein, D. (1997). Does the study of victimization revictimize the victims? General Hospital Psychiatry, 19, 403–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Widom, C. S., & Czaja, S. J. (2005). Reactions to research participation in vulnerable subgroups. Accountability in Research, 12, 115–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. World Medical Association. (2008). Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved from
  46. Ybarra, M. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Friend, J., & Diener-West, M. (2009). Impact of asking sensitive questions about violence to children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 499–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Young, A. M., Grey, M., & Boyd, C. J. (2009). Adolescents’ experiences of sexual assault by peers: Prevalence and nature of victimization occurring within and outside of school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1072–1083.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisette Kuyper
    • 1
    Email author
  • John de Wit
    • 2
    • 3
  • Philippe Adam
    • 3
    • 4
  • Liesbeth Woertman
    • 2
  1. 1.Rutgers Nisso GroepUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Social PsychologyUniversity of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.National Centre in HIV Social ResearchUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Institute for Prevention and Social ResearchUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations