The Withdrawal Request and the Disclosure at 6 p.m.
A university lab is running a study on infant emotion regulation. Infants aged 11–13 months sit on a caregiver's lap while an experimenter briefly restrains the infant's forearms for up to 90 seconds; the caregiver may stop the procedure at any time, and the protocol was approved with explicit distress limits. Eleven-month-old Maya completes the session with moderate fussing that resolves within 30 seconds. As the research assistant hands the caregiver the debriefing form, the mother says she wants Maya's data deleted because 'I shouldn't have let her cry.' She then adds, quietly, that her partner 'gets rough' when the baby won't stop crying and that she is afraid to go home today. The data have already been de-identified and merged into the lab file, and the assistant is a graduate student working alone at 6 p.m.
1. Does the mother's request require destroying Maya's data? Explain the reasoning and the correct immediate steps.
Read the worked answer
Start with what the consent form promised, because that is the binding document. Under APA Standard 8.02, the parent as legally authorized representative may withdraw participation at any time, and Standard 8.08 requires that participants be told how to do so; withdrawal may not be penalized or argued with.
The practical answer turns on identifiability. If Maya's record still carries a subject code linked to a master list, deletion is straightforward and should be done the same day, with a file note that the family withdrew. If the data are already de-identified and pooled, the lab may argue it can retain the record because there is no longer any 'her' to remove - but that exception only holds if it was stated in the consent form. If it was not, the safer and more respectful course is to remove her record anyway.
What the assistant must not do is debate the mother's decision, imply she is overreacting, or treat the deletion request and the disclosure that follows as a package to be traded. Thank her, confirm the withdrawal in writing, and handle the disclosure as a separate and far more urgent matter.
2. What is the assistant obligated to do about the mother's statement that her partner 'gets rough' and that she is afraid to go home?
Read the worked answer
This is now the controlling issue. The assistant should not investigate, should not interview the mother for details, and should not promise a secrecy the consent form never offered.
Mandated-reporter statutes generally cover research staff who learn of suspected abuse or risk of harm to a child, and the threshold is reasonable suspicion, not proof. The immediate question is safety tonight: is the partner at home now, is there a weapon, does she have somewhere safe to go, is the infant in present danger. If the answer suggests imminent harm, the assistant calls emergency services and does not send the family home.
Otherwise the sequence is: contact the PI or supervising clinician immediately - a graduate student alone at 6 p.m. should not make this call unilaterally - document the mother's words verbatim rather than a paraphrase, and follow the institution's protocol, which typically routes to child protective services within 24 hours. Give her concrete referrals and a written safety plan before she leaves. Confidentiality limits, incidentally, should already have been disclosed at consent; the failure to plan for this is the lab's problem, not the mother's.
3. Was the forearm-restraint procedure itself ethically acceptable? Identify what the vignette suggests should change.
Read the worked answer
The procedure can be defensible, but the justification rests on the safeguards, not on the mildness of the stressor alone. Infants cannot consent or assent, so permission comes from the caregiver; the real protection is the distress-based stop rule, the caregiver's presence, the 90-second ceiling, and debriefing. Standards 3.04 (avoiding harm) and 8.07 (deception) are not the issue here - the question is whether the distress is transient and whether the caregiver genuinely understands she can stop it.
Two weaknesses show up. The caregiver's remark that she 'shouldn't have let her cry' suggests the permission was not fully informed, or that the stop rule was not made vivid enough in the moment. And the lab clearly had no plan for an incidental disclosure arriving at the front desk.
Reasonable changes: an explicit verbal check-in before starting, a reminder that stopping is free and will end the session without penalty, a written incidental-findings and disclosure protocol, and a rule that no single RA handles a safety disclosure alone after hours.