This is Why We Have IRBs

A colleague at another university posted this story today, about a young boy used in a psychological experiment in the 1920s:


Many of us (criminologists) have taken psychology courses, so you may be aware of the story of Little Albert, who was conditioned to fear a white rat. The researcher--John Watson--associated a loud "clang" with the rat so that the child learned to fear the rat. He also learned to fear anything generally "fuzzy" or rat-like.

Now, 90 years later, new information has come to light about the plight of Little Albert. According to two researchers looking into this case, he was not the "normal" child presented by the researcher. Rather, he had a neurological condition that likely exaggerated his response to the stimulus (the rat). It is highly likely the researcher knew this.

There are also serious concerns about the mother's role in the experiment. Specifically:

But there may have been less humanitarian reasons for choosing Merritte ["Little Albert"]. The authors write about the baby’s mother, Arvilla, who was a wet nurse at the hospital. Because wet nurses were of low social status, and because she worked for the institution itself, she may have felt unable to turn down a request for her baby to be used in Watson’s experiment. “Voluntary consent, as we understand the term today, was not possible to give or to withhold,” they write. Presumably, most parents, if given a choice, would not allow their babies to participate in an experiment in which researchers terrify them. But Arvilla found herself in a bind. She was dependent on her employer both for her job and for the medical care of her sick baby.

And THIS is why we have informed consent and follow IRB regulations.


Additional Sources for Instructors:

Beck, H.P., Levinson, S. & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 605-614.

Fridlund, A.J., Beck, H.P., Goldie, W.D. & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology (online 1/23/12).

Judge Forces Abortion on Mentally Ill Woman

An interesting abortion story is emerging in Boston about a probate court judge who forced an abortion on a mentally ill woman.  As part of his orders, the judge allowed her legal guardians (parents) to coerce or even lie to the woman to get her to the hospital and sedated.  His orders then permitted a forced abortion and sterilization - both of which she clearly did not want.  Today's Boston Herald provides a nice overview of the story.  Not your typical abortion story but it raises some really interesting issues.

The Ongoing PSU Scandal: Perpetrators, Bystanders, and Rescuers

I have taught classes on genocide at MSU for the past three years. One of these courses (“The Criminology of Genocide”) satisfies a general education requirement in social science, and I try very hard to impart to the students how studying the process of genocide can help them to understand the world around them.

As part of this effort, a substantial portion of all of my genocide courses focus on the behaviors of three groups of people:

Perpetrators: individuals who commit crimes during genocide, whether they play the role of a leader (in class we call these the “big bads”: Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) or those who commit murder, rape, theft, or a multitude of other small crimes during genocides.

Bystanders: individuals who do nothing. They standby and watch events unfold around them but do not become engaged in the violence—neither do they take action to stop or speak out against violence.

Rescuers: Those people who take extraordinary action to help those victimized in genocide. Many famous individuals are members of this group, including Paul Rusesabagina (“Hotel Rwanda”), Oscar Schindler (“Schindler’s List”) and Corrie ten Boom (while not well-known in the U.S., Corrie and her family helped dozens of Dutch Jews escape the Nazis).

While it’s quite easy to identify perpetrators and rescuers, there aren’t many names listed as famous “bystanders”. This certainly makes sense—we remember individuals for their actions (both good and bad), not their inactions.

It’s important to note that failure to act to stop a crime is itself criminal in some states. These types of laws were famously portrayed in the final episode of the sitcom Seinfeld, in which the main characters are incarcerated for failing to stop a robbery (and in fact, laughing about the weight of the victim).

When the Penn State scandal broke earlier this month, I spent time talking to my students about the alleged perpetrators, bystanders, and rescuers in this case. Based on the grand jury testimony, there appears to be one “big bad” perpetrator: Jerry Sandusky, accused of sexually molesting and raping at least eight young boys during his tenure at Penn State (with more victims apparently coming forward, one of whom is a family member).

What about the bystanders? Are they (and should they be) criminally liable? According to their lawyers, they met their due diligence by reporting the issue to supervisors, but who was legally mandated to call the police or child protective services?

As far as I can tell, there were no rescuers in this case. No one had the best interest of the child victims in mind, as far as we’ve heard so far.

Of course, while it is easy to point fingers after the fact, scholars have long recognized that it is easier to be a bystander than a rescuer. Our social norms of non-interference and conformity keep most of us from being rescuers. For example, Paul Rusesabagina put himself and his family at enormous risk by hiding Tutsi refugees in his hotel—how many of us would take that action, realistically? How many of us would risk our own lives—our CHILDREN’S lives—to help strangers? In a sense, it’s abnormal behavior.

However, while we may hesitate to do the right thing in the spur of the moment, we must realize that it’s never too late to call and report suspected criminal activity to the police.

If there is any positive aspect to the Penn State fiasco, perhaps people in similar roles who might otherwise act as bystanders take action and rescue those in need.

Gendered Subtext to the Penn State Scandal?

The Penn State scandal is as sickening as they come, and understandably has inspired much anger and disgust.

I don't want to insert any more controversy into this situation than already exists, but...I have been thinking a lot about one aspect of this story and wanted to pose my ideas here. Lately I have been contemplating whether the actions of the PSU coaching staff and administrators would have differed had the victims in this case been girls rather than boys.

Consider this: imagine if Mike McQueary had walked in on Sandusky having sex with a 10-year old girl. Do you think he would he have acted differently? I think it is possible that the answer is yes, for two reasons. First, short of incest, man-boy sexual interactions are perhaps the most taboo in our society. I wonder about the extent to which there were concerns not just about potentially outing Sandusky as a pedophile, but as a gay pedophile. Second, male-on-female assault fits our mental image of "rape" much better than male-on-male assault. In a scenario involving Sandusky engaging in penile-vaginal penetration of a young girl, it would be difficult to imagine any eyewitness interpreting that as anything other than RAPE. But I think it is possible that the fact that Sandusky was with another male overrode the obvious and far more alarming fact that he was engaging in penile-anal penetration of a child. To be clear, I am not in any way, shape, or form excusing or defending McQueary's inaction. Instead, I am proposing that the concept of Sandusky "fooling around" with young boys may have been easier for people to dismiss or downplay (in the context of gay stereotypes and assumptions, and therefore outside the context of sexual assault) than the concept of him "fooling around" with young girls. Putting these two observations together, I can't help but think that there is a gendered element to this story that is not being discussed. I may be way off base, but I don't think so.

Either way, I have tried to find at least something positive in this sordid, appalling situation by discussing it in my classes and using it to teach students about the great complexity in how we perceive and report "crime" -- particularly acts of this nature.

An Open Letter to Penn State "Protesters"

Dear Penn State Students,

On Wednesday night, November 9th, many of you protested/rioted because your football coach was fired before he could end his career “with dignity” after his last home game. You probably think this signals to the world how much you love your school and support your athletic program. Or, maybe you aren’t caring much about what others think.

Either way, let me give you an outsider’s perspective on how your actions are being interpreted by others.

Your social protest makes it appear that you care more about your football program that the young children who were raped at the hands of a sexual predator. While you may not think that Coach Paterno is guilty of anything (having done his legal due diligence), there are several facts you may want to consider before lodging another protest:

According to the Grand Jury testimony, a graduate assistant--current assistant coach Mike McQueary--walked into the Penn State locker room in 2003 to find Jerry Sandusky anally raping a 10-year-old boy. Do you understand what that means? He was sodomizing a fifth grader.

Think back to what you were doing when you were 10. In fact, if you are currently a freshman in college, you were 10 years old in 2003. You were probably in 5^th grade, enjoying being one of the older kids in elementary school, looking forward to recess with your friends, hoping that maybe your mom would let you watch SpongeBob after school. Now imagine being that kid, and being raped by a middle-aged man. Are you having second thoughts about your actions yet?

Now, after McQueary saw Sandusky anally raping a young boy (I want to say it again, so you don’t forget), he walked out. The next day (yes, he waited until THE NEXT DAY), McQueary told Coach Paterno a watered-down version about Sandusky “fondling” a young boy, and Paterno passed the story along to the Athletic Director, Tim Curley.

Two weeks later, Sandusky had to turn in his keys to the locker room.

Let me say that again…

TWO WEEKS after he raped a 10-year-old boy, Sandusky was punished by having to turn in his keys to the locker room.

No arrest. No jail time. Continued access to young victims.

Your “protest” tells the world that you condone sexual violence against children. Failing to act when a child is victimized is almost as bad as committing the act in the first place. Almost.

You believe that Coach Paterno should be allowed to coach one last game “out of respect”, even though he had knowledge that an assistant coach was sexually assaulting young boys and never even told the police. Your coach might have met his legal obligations, but he failed the more important moral obligation of being a decent human being.

Coach Paterno and Mike McQueary should be hanging their heads in shame. They should be crying themselves to sleep, and thanking the good Lord above that Sandusky never preyed on their children (or grandchildren).

Perhaps someday, Penn State rioters, you will be older and wiser. Not likely, but maybe. Perhaps someday you will have children of your own, and know what many of us are feeling right now—the anger and frustration that an innocent child was harmed beyond belief and potentially scarred for life (physically and mentally) due to the actions of a selfish, amoral rapist.

The horrible truth is that Coach Paterno allowed this to occur on his watch. He knowingly allowed a sexual predator to remain on his coaching staff and have contact with children. And (say it with me), he never called the police.

Your protest over the “disgrace” of Joe Paterno signifies that your moral compass is just as broken as his is. I suggest you start protesting the true miscarriage of justice—the rape of young children, rather than the end of a football legacy.

Very sincerely,

Christina DeJong

Associate Professor

School of Criminal Justice

Michigan State University

P.S. Just so you have no doubt about what to do if you see a child being sexually assaulted:

1. Try to stop it if you can.

2. If you can’t stop it yourself, yell and scream to get the attention of others.

3. Call the police. Immediately.

UPDATE: Here's another piece on this issue focused on the survivor viewpoint.

New Loan Program Encourages Irresponsibility

President Barack Obama recently (October 26, 2011) announced a new federal initiative to make college more affordable. Under the President’s proposed plan, student loan payments would be capped at 10 percent of discretionary income and students would be responsible for payments for a maximum of 20 years. Any remaining debt after 20 years would be “forgiven” by the loan holder. Under his plan, that is us, the American taxpayer. The White House has argued that such a program will make college more affordable and provide those with loans some financial relief all the while resulting in additional costs to the American taxpayer. This is one of those, as it seems, no brainers that all should be able to rally behind.


Who, however, are the real “winners” with such a national policy? There is little doubt that reducing monthly payments for student loans and limited the liability period to 20 years will result in a net savings for many. The value of rewarding those who take on more debate than they can afford may be open for debate, but this relief is really merely a secondary “benefit.” The real winners are private universities and colleges, their presidents, and their boards of trustees. There have been rumblings for years in private universities that the costs are simply getting too high. That the consequences of student loan payments will simply make private universities far too inaccessible for far too many, a fear that may cause a day of reckoning within those institutions to make tough choices about what is really important. President Obama’s recent announcement provides a tremendous relief for all of this institutional soul searching. The President, for example, has promised that the federal government will, in essence, underwrite the costs of private universities. I am sure there are university presidents all over the country now taking huge sighs of relief.

If I am a high school senior who now has a choice to go to a private institution, student loan will now drop down on my list concerns. In the end, who really cares if one assumes $25,000, $50,000, $100,000, or even $200,000 in loans? One’s financial liabilities are fixed under this plan. Arguably such a plan penalizes those who opt for a more “affordable” institution as those who take on more student loans clearly benefit more from this program. Two graduates, one with $25,000 and the other with $100,000 in loans who graduate making similar salaries will essentially be on the hook for similar maximum monthly payments.

Had the President really wanted to make meaningful change to the student loan system, a few more modest changes might be advisable. First, expand the use of subsidized student loans that do not accrue interest while a student is in school. As someone who spent more than a few years combined in both my undergraduate and graduate programs, I was shocked and dismayed to see the impact of interest to my total student loans when they were consolidated. Second, cap interest rates in a way that both generates income for the American taxpayer for their generous support but also communicates to students and their families that education is important to the American people. Finally, consider creating a “federal max” for student loans that will force students and their families to make tough decisions about the value of education.

It is dangerous to communicate to younger adults that they should not be concerned about what financial obligations they commit to; that the government will simply “bail you out” if you borrow irresponsibly. Bail outs breed irresponsibility, at the corporate or individual level. This program will do nothing to reduce the costs of higher education. That is something the marketplace needs to figure out. Someone should explain to the President that there is a real “cost” to forgiving student loans, a cost that gets paid by taxpayers. Good or bad, this cost is real and must be acknowledged. As one of the chumps who is 10 years into a 30 year student loan repayment schedule, back to work to pay off those loans. Like many Americans, however, I am thankful someone took a chance on my education.

A Question for Kay Bailey Hutchison

A bipartisan congressional review of the criminal justice system is unconstitutional, but feeding Texas inmates only twice a day on weekends to cut costs is not?