CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
ETHICAL DECISIONS BY PRACTICING CLINICAL
PSYCHOLOGISTS:
DO EXTRA-EVIDENTIAL FAC'I'ORS
INFLUENCE JUDGMENTS OF SEVERITY AND SANCTIONS
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Psychology
by
Sharon Joy Haber
May, 1 984
The Thesis of Sharon Joy Haber is approved:
l.ll<
Dee Shepherd-Look, Ph.D.
California State University, Northridge
it,
ii
ACKNOWLEDGHENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Fidell for her time and
assistance as a member of my thesis committee and her
advice regarding the statistics and design of this study.
A special thank you to Dr. Dee Shepherd-Look for her
involvement as a member of the thesis committee, but most
of all for her encouragement, caring and faith in me.
I am most grateful and appreciative of Dr. Patricia
Keith-Spiegel's continuous guidance and patience
throughout this thesis.
Her expertise in the field of
ethics has been of invaluable assistance in the development and completion of this study.
Dr. Spiegel's devotion
to this subject as well as her caring nature has been an
inspiration in my personal and professional life.
I would also like to express my appreciation to my
husband Eli, and my family for all their patience, understanding and moral support.
Finally, a special, special thanks to my dearest
friend, Dagmar Moscowicz, who never stopped believing in
me, and for all her assistance, encouragement and perseverance throughout this study.
~~
'
I
l
rI~ ·
iii
r'l~t'
i
I!
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
.iii
LIST OF TABLES •
.vi
LIST OF FIGURES.
.vii
ABSTRACT . • • •
.viii
•
Chapter
I
1
INTRODUCTION •
Statement of Purpose
1
The Need for Ethical Training.
2
History of APA Ethics Code:
Code
Description and Short-comings.
4
....
Complaint Procedures
10
Levels and Sanctions and Related
Ethical Issues . • • • . • • • • • . . • • 12
Advertisement of Services . • • . • • • 16
Confidentiality • • • • . • • . • • . • 18
Sexual Intimacies with Clients and
Sexual Harassment • • • • • • . • . . 22
•
Theory Related to Ethical Decision-Making • • 24
Person-Perception Theory • • • • • • • .
Equity Theory.
Hypotheses .
II
.
.
.
.
. . . . . . . . . • . • 27
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 34
36
METHOD • •
Subjects
• • 25
..
36
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued
II
METHOD, continued
Design .
36
Measures
37
Procedure.
39
i'!
l
I'
,,i,
!
III
IV
RESULTS.
40
•
DISCUSSION
47
•
F
I
56
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A ,
!
...
62
•
APPENDIX B
69
APPENDIX C
71
APPENDIX D
81
APPENDIX E
83
APPENDIX F
• 111
I
,,
I·
i~
!
\I
~H·
v
!,
I'II:
!
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies .
• • • • .
.
9
2
Levels of Ethical Sanctions and Categories . 14
3
ANOVA Summary Table for Severity by
Infraction, Time in Field and Response . • 41
4
Means and Standard Deviations of Severity
for Infraction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 42
5
Means for the 27 Conditions • • . • • • • • • 43
6
Means and Standard Deviations of Severity
for Each Sanction • . . • • • . • • • • • • 45
7
The Modal Sanction for Each Level of
Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1
Flow Chart of Typical Case Processing by
Ethics Committees . • • • • • . . • • • • . 11
!
ill'l!t
IT
vii
ABSTRACT
E~'HICAL
DECISIONS BY PRACTICING CLINICAL
PSYCHOLOGISTS:
DO EXTRA-EVIDENTIAL FACTORS
INFLUENCE JUDGMENTS OF SEVERITY AND SANCTION
by
Sharon Joy Haber
Haster of Arts in Psychology
This study was designed to investigate the various
factors which might influence the decision-making process
of clinical psychologists in relation to ethical violations.
One of 27 questionnaires containing a vignette of
an ethical violation by a psychologist was mailed to 860
clinical psychologists selected at random from the 1981
APA directory.
Each of these
questio~naires
also con-
tained a rating scale from 1-7 for the levels of seriousness as well as 7 sanctions listed in order of severity.
It was hypothesized that there would be a substantial
relationship between the severity of rating and penalty
imposed.
It was further hypothesized that the severity of
viii
rating of the infraction and the penalty imposed would be
directly related to the various levels of minor, moderate
and severe.
It was also predicted that there would be a
significant difference in judgments imposed on offending
psychologists who showed various reactions (apologetic/
contrite or obstinate/unrepenting) as opposed to those
with no reaction and also that there would be a significant difference in penalties given to offending veteran
vs. novice psychologists and to those with no time in
field specified.
In addition it was hypothesized that the
obstinate/unrepenting, veteran psychologist was expected
to be rated most severely.
From 270 responses it was found that there is a
significant relationship betv1een severity of rating and
penalty imposed.
The severity of rating and the penalty
imposed were not found to be significantly related to the
levels (minor, moderate, and severe) however they were
within the predicted direction.
The three hypotheses
which included vignettes with responses by the offender,
no response given or time in the field specified, were not
substanU,.ated by any significant findings.
ix
:j
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Purpose
Research on the factors involved in decision-making
on matters related to ethical dilemmas, especially with
regards to ethics committees of professional associations,
is almost non-existent.
This study examines some factors
which might influence the kinds of decisions made by clinical psychologists as potential ethics committee members
with regards to ethical violations by practicing psychologists.
Existing guidelines and procedures adopted by
the American Psychological Association (APA) including
levels of sanctions available to ethics committees, history of the code of ethics, and assets and limitations of
the formal ethical judicial process are reviewed.
Because
of the many possible extra-evidential factors involved in
ethical decision-making, various issues and cases are
cited in order to underscore the need for more training in
professional ethical standards.
This study primarily
utilizes the equity and person-perception theories as a
framework for the ethical decision-making process as it
might relate to ethics committee functioning.
l
ji
2
I
li
!--:~,,
Twenty-seven case vignette variations were used for
examining the reactions of psychologists as third-party
observers.
The study varied an "apologetic" and
''contrite'' versus ''obstinate'' and ''unrepenting'' offender
as well as the psychologist who is new in the field as
opposed to the experienced psychologist.
The Need for Ethics Training
Hogan (1979), Simon (1975), Zitrin and Klein (1976),
and Moore (1978) have asserted that self-regulation
procedures in professional psychology need improvement.
Tymchuk, Drapkin, Major, Ackerman, Coffman and Baum (1982)
stated:
Psychologists often face ethical dilemmas
without clear decision-making guidelines
provided by the profession or by society.
Although the APA has established ethical
standards, new and sometimes controversial
clinical and research technologies as well as
increased community concern with the protection
of individual rights continually pose new and
complex ethical dilemmas. (p. 412)
Inconsistent decision-making can result from individual
interpretations in cases for which no guidelines exist.
The research study by Tymchuk et al. (1982) indicated that
psychologists mentioned the lack of clear decision-making
guidelines as an area requiring more attention by the
profession:
Fifty-eight percent of the psychologists
questioned believed that they were lacking in information
about ethical issues in psychology.
Morrison, Layton and
Newman's survey (1978) stated that clinical psychologists
3~F;;.'.'.·.·.
; i
'I
reported more conflict than other types of psychologists
over ethical issues.
Such research seems to indicate that psychologists
are in need of more extensive training in the ethical
decision-making process.
following:
Tymchuk (1981) suggests the
Psychologists currently do have various
options to rely on for achieving ethical conduct such as
value clarification, such as codes of ethics and law.
However these options have limitations.
alternatives are needed.
Therefore other
One possible alternative is to
give psychology students the opportunity during their
regular course of study to get didactic as well as practical supervised experience in ethical decision-making.
Tymchuk further suggests that students need to be trained
to think ethically not only about more common situations
but also when novel situations arise.
Tymchuk, Drapkin,
Major, Ackerman, Coffman and Baum (1979) found that there
was greater disagreement among psychologists when dealing
with newer developments while they were more in agreement
with openly discussed issues.
Beyond that, the same study
showed that 89% of psychologists felt
th~t
ethics training
should be a part of all psychology graduate students'
curricula and recommended courses involving the use of
hypothetical situations and case materials, supervisory
discussion, analysis of professional codes and legal
issues, and values clarification.
~/:',
4
\~1
i
History of the American Psychological Association's Ethics
Code: Code Description and Short-comings
Recent history has dramatically increased the concern
for the protection of individuals in psychological
treatment, especially since the civil rights movement in
the 1950's and 60's, the Kennedy administration's emphasis
on civil rights of the mentally retarded and numerous
Federal Supreme Court decisions on individual rights.
In
order to combat that concern, various mechanisms have been
established by law and within the profession of psychology
to protect the public.
This paper is concerned with the
methods that have been established by the profession.
(If
the reader is interested in a review of other control
procedures, see Hess, 1980.)
Keith-Spiegel and Koocher (in press) note that ethics
codes are developed by professional associations to serve
as a moral guide to self regulation.
According to Tymchuk
(1981), an ethics code contains "rules or guides for
making moral decisions and are based upon the philosophy
or philosophies of thought presuming that where an ethical
code does not cover a circumstance the individual would be
'
aware of the philosophical
tenets to then guide his/her
behavior" (p. 8).
Codes have also been defined as prin-
ciples which specify the rights and responsibilities of
professionals in their relationships with their peers and
the people they serve and as attempts to enforce the
normative values reflecting the consensus of the
5
profession (Keith-Spiegel and Koocher, in press).
The APA's code of ethics is a quasi-empirically
developed document taken from the early critical
incidents supplied by thousands of APA psychologists
(Golann, 1969; Rusch, 1981 ).
The first code of ethics for
the APA was developed in 1953 during a time when there
were dramatic advances in behavior therapy, testing and
technology.
It was also a response to the revelation of
the horrors of Nazi research performed on human beings.
This code was revised in 1959, 1977 and again in 1981.
The more recent version includes principles in the
following areas:
responsibility; competence; moral and
legal standards; public statements; confidentiality;
welfare of the consumer; professional relationships;
assessment techniques; research with human participants;
and care and use of animals.
(See Appendix A.)
The APA
also has several guidelines which contain reference to
ethical conduct besides the code itself.
These include:
Ethical Principles in the Conduct of Research with Human
Participants (1982) and The Standards for Providers of
Psychological Services (1977).
The Ethical Principles of Psychologists (1981)
ideally serves a variety of functions.
Keith-Spiegel
states that a great deal is expected from the APA ethics
code, perhaps too much.
It is the document of reference
used by ethics committees to help determine whether
6
certain acts brought to their attention are unethical.
It
attempts to prescribe the conduct of psychologists with
various training backgrounds (e.g. clinical service
providers and researchers) in diverse work settings.
Moreover it seeks to protect the welfare of a variety of
persons including clients of psychotherapy, students,
supervisees and employees, employers and employing
agencies, human and animal research participants and
society generally.
A code that attempts to cover so much obviously has
to deal with some short-comings.
Ideally these codes
,11
!
should be adhered to by all within the profession, but
realistically can only be enforced if the professional is
also a member of the organization.
In addition critics
point to the internal inconsistencies which could lead to
potential conflict when attempting to apply the code to
some specific situations (Keith-Spiegel and Koocher, in
press).
Furthermore the code suffers from the lack of a
mechanism for change in anticipation of new developments,
after-the-fact enforcement and interpretation variations
(Tymchuk, 1981).
As Rusch ( 1981) has stated:
"A major
short-coming of ethics codes is that they provide only an
outline of what is expected of the practitioner.
Ethics
codes like other abstract principles simply do not dictate
the rectitude of day to day decisions of practitioners"
(p.
20).
!~
7
The Tymchuk et al.
(1982) study suggests that these
standards are only useful to psychologists who are wellversed and knowledgeable about them and how they might be
applied.
When a specific standard is lacking, they have
to rely on their own value systems and interpretations in
the "spirit" of the APA standards which probably leads to
variability in professional decision making.
Barber
(1976), in his study of ethical decision-making in medical
research, found that the rights of the subjects may be
interpreted differently by each individual researcher,
depending on his or her formal training in ethics.
Tymchuk et al. (1979) reported that professionals in
psychology are also characterized by a considerable variation in the format and content of ethics training.
This,
as well as the constricted nature of such training, may
partly be the cause of the variability in ethical
decision-making, especially in newly developed treatment
areas.
As Tymchuk (1981) suggests, it would be useful to
have a broader and more basic decision-making standard in
lieu of rules which are intended to define "right" or
"wrong" behavior.
This standard could encomp<J.ss more
variables and allow for greater flexibility in development
of standards to apply to new situations.
The need for a decision-making model was illustrated
also as early as 1898 by Sharp who complained that his
psychology research was complicated by the lack of
~~.·
8
q
'".·.·.,~....
l
agreement among his subjects as to what they considered to
be moral or immoral.
Forsyth's (1980) taxonomy of ethical
ideologies concentrates on the essential problem of variability typical of moral judgments.
Two individuals, in
agreement about such issues as politics, art, religion and
so on, can still reach opposite conclusions when making
moral judgments.
Forsyth's taxonomy indicates that any
one of four different approaches may be adopted by individuals when making ethical judgments (see Table 1).
Despite the assertions that psychologists are not in
agreement on ethical decision-making and may not be as
well-attuned to existing standards as they perhaps should
be, the fact remains that they are required to make
decisions and take actions about professional ethical
matters regularly.
As Keith-Spiegel and Koocher (in
press) also note, ethics committee members consist largely
of psychologists who volunteer for this duty and demonstration of special expertise in this area is not a
requirement.
Respondents to an ethics charge face their
peers just as individuals in a court of law must accept
the verdict of their fellow ,citizens, none of which may be
knowledgeable about the finer points of the law or judicial process.
I
9
Table 1
Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies
(From Forsyth, 1980)
Relativism
Idealism
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
Situationists
Rejects moral rules; advacates individualistic
analysis of each act in
each situation; relativistic.
Absolutists
Assumes that the best
possible outcome can
always be achieved by
by following universal moral rules.
Subjectivists
Appraisals based on personal values and perspectives rather than universal moral principles;
relativistic.
Exceptionists
Moral absolutes guide
judgments but pragmatically open to
exceptions to these
standards; utilitarian.
10
Complaint Procedures
Complaints of ethical misconduct may be filed with
the APA Ethics Committee, a state or local association's
ethics committee, or a state licensing board.
In some
cases complaints may be filed concurrently with all three.
In more severe cases, civil and/or criminal court action
may be involved.
The general course of events used by
professional ethics committees are depicted in flow chart
(Figure 1).
The detailed rules and procedures used by the
APA can be seen in Appendix B.
National and state complaint and adjudication
procedures are complicated.
state licensing boards, in
addition to regulating qualifications, monitor the conduct
of already licensed psychologists.
In doing so they
generally promulgate the APA ethics code which can lead to
sanctioning at both the state and national level.
Wellner
and Albidin (1981) have documented the great variation
among state regulations in reasons specified for denial,
revocation or suspension of licensure.
None of the
violations of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists
(1981) is sanctioned by every state and many are sanctioned by only a few.
Numerous examples could be cited
which are not illegal but which are considered unethical
by the profession of psychology.
Ethical professional
standards often expect more stringent behavior than
required by law.
It should be noted that certain psycho-
11
Figure 1.
Flow chart of typical case processing by ethics
committees. (Adapted from APA, 1972)
I
(1)
Initiation of
Complaint &
Other input
J-
( 2)
I
Receipt &
Determination of
Acceptance
&
--~-
I No
( 3)
Case
Complaint
~ ofAcknowledgement
....
7
Other
Di SDOS i ti On
I
I
( 4)
Case Closed or
Charges Droppe
nformal Inquir
Preliminary
Investigation
,------,
I
( 5a)
I
In forma 1
Di s po s i t i on
and Sanctions
Imposed by Ethics
Committee
(5b)
1 Invited
1
Ad Hoc Fact
!Appearance :If~----~~~---{------~ Finding
1 Before
1
Committee
Usually !xpulsion
LC2_m~i_!_t~_e __ l
decision contemplated
beyond .t ts point
(7)
No
Decision
To Formally
Charge
Yes _ '-.)
/
t-nMKuc
~~---
I
,--~--,
I
-?------~
( 9)
I
HEARING 1
1 COf1MITTEE 1
- - - -:;~/---
Orqanization Executive Board
( 10)
Final Disposition
I
I
11I
I
12
logists do not have to be licensed.
Thus ethics
committees constitute a peer monitoring system which can
fill the gap for these unlicensed members.
Unfortunately
there are psychologists who are not members nor licensed
who are subject only to criminal or civil law, plus any
rules mandated by their place of employment.
These complaint procedures all attempt to protect
both the complainant's rights and welfare and the due
process rights of the respondent.
However these proce-
dures do have limitations including:
limited assets and
investigatory resources; extended time lapse, usually
almost a year, to complete the investigation and decisionmaking for a given case; and variation over time in
committee quality due to personality, ability, and leadership capabilities of the members (Keith-Spiegel and
Koocher, in press).
The actual working method of ethics committees
consists of collecting data from the complainant,
respondent psychologist, and perhaps other witnesses in
accordance with the operating rules and procedures.
When
the material has been assembled, the committee meets as a
whole and studies the documents provided.
Only rarely are
persons interviewed or questioned in the presence of the
full committee, especially at the national level, unless
the case has been elevated to a formal hearing level which
usually involves the most serious offenses with a probabi-
\
.
1
'
I<'
L
,-,
13
JJ(r!'
lity of a recommendation of expulsion.
discussion, a vote is taken.
seven members.
15 members.
After a full
The national committee has
state and local committees vary from 5 to
Najority vote determines the finding of guilt
or innocence or insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.
l~ajority
vote also determines, in case of a finding
of guilt, what sanction will be imposed.
Levels and Sanctions and Related Ethical Issues
A task force was appointed by APA Ethics Committee in
1981 to attempt to bring more order to the conceptualizations and evaluations of various ethical infractions and
the sanctions warranted by them.
The task force, composed
of Gerald Koocher (Chair), Patricia Keith-Spiegel, and
Lewis Klebanoff, created a six tier system of levels of
sanctions.
See Table 2 for a brief description of each
level of seriousness and the sanction which might be
imposed.
The full document can be seen in Appendix
c.
Nore than one level, and in some cases all levels, can be
applied to each principle.
The present study utilizes the
concepts of "minor," "moderate," and "severe" ethical
infractions and the corresponding levels of sanctions.
Generally speaking, improper advertising of services
is viewed as a minor offense unless the psychologist makes
fraudulent claims by misrepresenting their qualifications.
The typical case, however, involves poor taste and
inappropriate enticements directed towards potential
14
Table 2
Levels of Ethical Sanctions and Categories
(Adapted from Koocher, Keith-Spiegel, and Klebanoff, 1981)
Level
Sanction
Rationale/Mediating
Factors
Level
IA
Educative Advisory
Not clearly unethical,
but in poor taste or
insufficiently cautious,
this offense might fall in
"gray areas" or deal with
newly emerging issues and
problems.
Level
Educative Warning
A "cease and desist"
notice from an ethics
committee might accompany
a finding that a mild or
minor infraction had
occurred.
Level
IIA
Reprimand
A finding of clear ethical
misconduct, when the
psychologist should have
known better, although the
consequence of the action
or inaction may have been
minor.
Level
IIB
Censure
Deliberate or persistent
behavior which could lead
to substantial harm to the
client or public, although
no harm may actually have
accrued.
Level
IliA
Stipulated
Resignation or
Permit Resignation
Continuing or dramatic
misconduct producing
genuine hazard to clients,
the public, and the profession; questionable
motivation to change or
demonstrate concern for
the behavior in question.
May include "no reapplication'' stipulation.
IB
li
'
15
Table 2, continued
Level
IIIB
';0.,,
Expulsion (or
void membership)
Individual clients substantially injured with
serious questions about
the potential rehabilitation of the psychologist
in question.
16
customers.
Thus, an advertising-related infraction was
used in this study to represent a "minor" infraction.
Sharing information based on a fiduciary, professional relationship with others without authorization by
the party holding the privilege (such as a psychotherapy
client) can be a very serious ethical infraction depending
on the circumstances.
However, sometimes disclosing
information shared in confidence is required and at other
times the breach may have represented a moderate level
infraction in that the psychologist should have known
better, but allowed information to inadvertently slip out.
This degree of confidentiality violation is used in this
study to represent a "moderate" infraction.
Sexual intimacy with psychotherapy clients is almost
always seen as a very serious ethical infraction because
it violates the professional role boundaries, and exploits
the power and trust components of a professional relationship.
An incident involving sexual intimacies with
clients is used to represent a ''serious'' ethical
violation.
Each type of infraction is discussed ,in more detail
below.
Advertisement of Services
The APA ethics code has allowed advertising of
services for its members since 1977.
Because psycholo-
gists are fairly new at the practice of
adver~ising,
and
•
,,
'
17
-'i'f'
because they are not typically experienced in commercial
business tactics for the purpose of attracting clients,
minor violations of the restrictions that still apply are
fairly common.
Principle 4 (Public statements) of the APA Ethical
Principles (1981) states, in part:
Psychologists represent accurately and
objectively their professional qualifications,
affiliations, and functions as well as those of
the institutions or organizations with which
they or the statements may be associated.
When announcing or advertising professional
services, psychologists may list the following
information to describe the provider and
services provided: name, highest relevant
academic degree earned from a regional accredited institution, date, type and level of certification or licensure, diplomate status, APA
membership status, address, telephone number,
office hours, a brief listing of the type of
psychological services offered, an appropriate
presentation of fee information foreign languages spoken and policy with regard to thirdparty payments.
In announcing or advertising the availability of psychological products, publications,
or services, psychologists do not present their
affiliation with any organization in a manner
that falsely implies sponsorship or certification by that organization.
Keith-Spiegel and Koocher (in press) cite the example
of the ''all 'purpose'' psychologist.
Robert Hartley received a letter from a
psychology ethics committee after a neighbor
complained of a six foot high sign he had
erected on his lawn announcing his practice of
psychology in four-inch letters. He replied to
the committee on stationery which was even more
interesting than the sign. The stationery was
headed:
"Dr. Robert Hartley, Ph.D. Consulting
Clinical Psychologist and Sexologist." Three
18
color printing ran down the side of the page
listing the services which Hartley offered.
These included:
Psychotherapy
Adults, Adolescents, and Children
Individuals and Group
Hypnosis
Lay Analysis
Psychological Testing
Neuropsychological Evaluation
Personality Assessment
Intellectual Evaluation
Diagnostic Evaluation
Vocational Evaluation
Counseling
Sex and Divorce
Marriage Enrichment Courses
Management Consulting
Executive Leadership, Development, and
Assessment
Personnel Evaluations
Across the bottom of the page, the following institutions were listed:
The Mid-America Hypnosis Clinic, XYZ
Learning Disabilities Center, Sex Counseling Institute,
the Affective Education Foundation, and the Plainville
Marriage Enrichment Center.
Not only did Dr. Hartley exhibit extremely poor taste
with his overly large and colorful sign and stationery, he
also misrepresented his Ph.D. degree, which was not in
psychology but sociology.
Although he did hold a Masters
degree in psychology, he did not present this accurately.
Furthermore the organizations listed across the stationery
were all headquartered in his office and he was the sole
employee of each.
It is not unusual for a psychologist to
be employed by a clinic or corporation while teaching,
consulting or maintaining private practice simultaneously.
19
However, as mentioned above, affiliations are not to be
presented so as to falsely imply sponsorship by or
approval of that organization or agency.
Although Hartley
was found to be truly ignorant of his infractions, he
deceived the public in presenting himself in this fashion.
In this case, the applicable levels of sanctions range
from level IA to IB.
Confidentiality
Since the Tarasoff decision (1976) in California, the
confidentiality issue has received increasing attention
and has been the subject of much controversy (Hare-Mustin,
Mareck, Kaplan and Lins-Levinson, 1979).
briefly summarized as follows:
The case is
A clinical psychologist at
the UC Berkeley campus in California diagnosed a male
student named Prosensit Poddar as a potentially paranoid
schizophrenic.
His judgment was based on the student's
pathological attachment to a female student named Tatiana
Tarasoff who had rebuffed his attempts at a serious
relationship and on Poddar's interest in owning a gun.
The psychologist alerted the campus police and recommended
that the student be committed.
After first taking Poddar
into custody, the police determined that he was rational
k"
and not dangerous and after consulting with the psychologist's superior subsequently released him on his promise
that he would stay away from Miss Tarasoff.
Poddar never
returned to therapy and soon after his release went to
20
Tarasoff's home and killed her.
The victim's parents
brought suit against the University of California, the
therapists and the police on the theory that each had a
duty to warn the woman's family of the potential danger
posed by Poddar.
The process of the Tarasoff case illustrates the
dilemma of breach of confidentiality:
The lower court
dismissed the case which then was appealed to the California State Supreme Court.
The state court ruled that
psychologists had a "duty to warn" the potential victim.
This decision was later withdrawn because of the
tremendous protest by the psychiatric community.
Finally
the court decided to reconsider the case and handed down a
similar decision in 1976 (Rush, 1981; Wise, 1978).
Siegel (1979) advocates that under no conditions, no
circumstances may confidentiality be breached.
Keith-
Spiegel (1977) states that deliberate disclosure should be
made only after the utmost consideration, and psychologists must be able to defend such action.
Critics of the
Tarasoff. decision (Wise, 1978) contend that it is a
judicial intrusion into the therapeutic proce,ss, which can
decrease patients' general trust in the therapists,
discourage patients from discussing feelings for fear of
disclosure and cause patients to leave therapy.
Principle 5 (Confidentiality) of the APA Ethical
Principles (1981) states, in part:
fi
'
2l
Psychologists have a primary obligation to
respect the confidentiality of information
obtained from persons in the course of their
work as psychologists. They reveal such information to others only with the consent of the
person or the person's legal representative,
except in those unusual circumstances in which
not to do so would result in clear danger to the
person or to others. Where appropriate, psychologists inform their clients of the legal limits
of confidentiality.
Information obtained in clinical or
consulting relationships, or evaluative data
concerning children, students, employees and
others, is discussed only for professional
purposes and only with persons clearly concerned
with the case. Written and oral reports present
only data germane to the purposes of the evaluation, and every effort is made to avoid undue
invasion of privacy.
Keith-Spiegel (1977) relates one instance of nonmalicious or unintended breach of confidentiality which had
come to the APA committee's attention.
A psychologist in a small town let out information about a client's physical illness to
another psychologist when the illness in question was being generally discussed.
The client
had considerable anguish over being "discovered," even though most of us would agree that
the problem was not a cause for shame. However,
the second psychologist who was told the information let it out to a more general audience at
a cocktail party that was attended by one of the
client's friends.
The client brought charges
against the first psychologist. (p. 293)
' first psychologist, without any
In this case the
malicious intent and during a professional discussion,
mentioned a client's name and problem.
In order to
resolve this case the APA ethics committee had to decide
the degree of severity of the psychologist's infraction.
Could the discussion with the other psychologist fall
~\
~~l'
~:·.
!§!,-,
\,
ti
!I
'
'\',i
22
under "discussion only for professional purposes,"
"consulting relationships" or "persons clearly concerned
with the case" or was the psychologist displaying
unethical behavior because he used the client's name?
The APA ethics committee does have the previously
mentioned principles and sanctions as a helpful framework
to aid them with decisions like these.
However inasmuch
as every case has its own unique features there is no rule
of thumb.
Keith-Spiegel and Koocher (in press) state that
there are common mitigating factors which can influence
the committee's decision and the application of different
sanctions for similar violations.
These include:
motiva-
tion or intention of respondent, estimated or potential
harm caused by the infraction, number of previous
complaints against the respondent, time and experience in
the field and the respondent's self-initiated attempt or
willingness to remediate the situation.
In the above
mentioned case the ethics committee decided that the
psychologist "slipped" but that a letter of apology to the
complainant and a reprimand were in order.
Sexual Intimacies with Clients and Sexual Harrassment
Other controversial issues are dealt with by Principles 6a (Welfare of the Consumer) and 7d (Professional
relationship) of the APA Ethical Principles (1981).
Principle 6a states:
23
Psychologists are continually cognizant of
their own needs and of their potentially
influential position vis-a-vis persons such as
clients, students, and subordinates. They avoid
exploiting the trust and dependency of such
persons. Psychologists make every effort to
avoid dual relationships that could impair their
professional judgment or increase the risk of
exploitation. Examples of such dual relationships include, but are not limited to, research
with and treatment of employees, students,
supervisees, close friends, or relatives.
Sexual intimacies with clients are unethical.
Sexual intimacy is considered unethical because it
involves a psychologist taking advantage of a client in
ll
some way by abusing their dependency from a position of
trust or authority.
Masters and Johnson even advocate
rape charges against therapists who exploit their power in
order to have sexual intercourse with their patients (Pope
et al., 1979).
Although "sexual intimacies" is a broad
term, Keith-Spiegel states the APA purposefully chose this
term to allow the ethics committees the latitude to make a
judgment based on each individual case.
Principle 7d states:
Psychologists do not exploit their professional relationships with clients, supervisees,
students, employees or research participants
sexually or otherwise. Psychologists do not
condone nor engage in sexual harassment.
Sexual
harassment is defined as deliberate or repeated
comments, gestures, or physical contacts of a
sexual nature that are unwanted by the
recipient.
Keith-Spiegel (1982) cites the following case.
A psychologist admitted to engaging in sexual
misconduct with a client. He added that extreme
pressures within his marriage had caused considerable anxiety, loss of self-esteem, and
ij,
24
feelings of sexual inadequacy. His conduct with
a younger, gentle mannered client was a result,
in his view, of his personal turmoil. (p. 9)
In the level and sanctions guide developed by the APA
task force (1981), Level III always applies to sexual
intimacies with clients but states that, ''mitigating
circumstances could include remediation, self-recognition,
attempts at therapeutic rectification and degree of
physical involvement" (p. 46).
This implies that certain
variables may have an influence on the ethics committee's
decision-making process.
In the example above, the
psychologists's awareness of his anxious mental state and
apparent recognition of the inappropriateness of his
behavior could cause a lighter penalty to be imposed by
the ethics committee.
In Principle 7d which deals with sexual harassment,
Levels IIa to IIIb may be applicable.
The level is
contingent upon the conditions and consequences of the
exploitation or harassment.
In certain cases, ethics committees might have to
decide what constitutes erotic or nonerotic touching.
do they judge alleged non-verbal messages?
How
Keith-Spiegel
(1977) discusses the difficult task the ethics committee
faces in dealing with the dilemma of having to understand
the therapists as people "with rights to their feelings
and emotional expressions on the one hand and protecting
the clients' welfare on the other'' (p. 294).
Pope,
25
'···.!1'1
L:
Levenson and Schover (1979) discuss the APA Task Force of
1975 on Sex Bias in Psychotherapy and the need for
training of therapists to deal with seductive clients and
their own sexual feelings.
Theory Related to Ethical Decision Making
Orientations which may contribute to understanding
the decision-making process for ethics committees are the
person-perception and equity theories.
Due to the lack of
research conducted on ethics committee deliberations,
juror/defendant behavior studies are used here as an
analogue, although the reader should be forewarned that
there are some problems in doing so.
For example, one has
to take into consideration the extensive training in a
specialized field as well as greater educational background of the psychologist functioning as a decision-maker
on an ethics committee as opposed to a typical court
juror.
In addition, ethics committees are not bound by
strict rules of evidence and other formal procedures
required by courts of law.
Perscn-Perception Theory
There had been virtually no experimental research
concerning the influence of extralegal variables on the
social perceptions and verdicts of jurors prior to mid1960's.
According to Izzett and Sales (1981 ), extralegal
variables are generally defined as "those that should have
'I
·:,
.
26
r~'
no bearing on a defendant's judged guilt or innocence, but
which, in fact, can influence that judgment (e.g. race,
age, and socioeconomic status)" (p. 209).
Collectively
:I\
!"~
~t~
'*
! '€
~
the body of literature which has since been concerned with
investigation of variables influencing judgmental
processes of jurors in a laboratory setting has become
known as "simulated juror research."
Simulated juror
research involves experimental investigation of the trial
process with variables likely to influence the verdict and
sentencing tendencies of jurors.
These authors cite such
juror studies which have shown that various juror attributes, and trial processes extraneous to the crime
committed by the defendant can influence the severity of a
given judgment.
This leads into the area of Person-Perception
research which indicates that a number of variables (e.g.
physical appearance, personality, attitudes and social
attributes) influence the impressions we form of others as
well as our behavior toward them.
~lany
studies indicate
the impact that such extraneous variables have on the
decision-making process.
For example, Solomon Asch
published a study in 1946 on how a person forms first
impressions of others.
In one of his most famous set of
experiments he used the terms "warm" and "cold" to demonstrate that under certain conditions these terms become
central traits, around which a general impression of a
I)I•
lin
..
)'r
it/
27
~,
;)i
!l,;
&_
'(~
','\
person is formed.
His experiments also showed that when
positive information was presented before negative infor-
f
~
J
l1
mation, the resulting impression was generally positive
(primacy effect).
He interpreted his findings from a
Gestalt position, that subjects attempt to form integrated
wholes and that traits take on the meaning of the context
which is set for them.
Kelly in 1950.
These findings were supported by
In an even earlier study, Thorndike (1920)
ii
:;:f
'j
showed that subjects tended to see a stimulus person
having one positive trait as possessing many positive
traits.
He defined this as the "halo effect":
a general
tendency to see people as all-good or all-bad and a
tendency which produces quite inaccurate perceptions.
Further research about judgments based on modes of dress,
hair-lengths, the presence of a beard, etc., has shown
that physical characteristics often do lead to inferences
about others (Secord, 1958; Verinis and Roll, 1970;
Dibiase and Hjelle, 1968, and Dion, Berscheid and Walster,
1972).
Schneider (1976) determined that subjects, when
asked to form first impressions of stimulus persons based
on their photographs, assigned more positive traits to the
more attractive stimulus persons.
The research of Byrne
(1961) and Griffitt (1974) assessed the influence of a
defendant's attitudes on jurors and found that perceivers'
responses are attracted more to subjects with similar
attitudes, or as Byrne put it, "similarity leads to
28
attraction'' (Schneider, p. 462).
Equity Theory
Izzett and Sales (1981) define Equity Theory as
follows:
Equity Theory is concerned with the just distribution of outcomes in a social exchange relationship. Whenever two or more people enter
into an exchange, they bring with them certain
investments or inputs. These inputs are as
varied as sex, age, socioeconomic background,
education, job seniority, physical attractiveness, time and effort spent at a task, or
quality of work performed. (p. 211)
These authors further explain that the experience of
rewards and costs is inherent in an exchange relationship.
Rewards fulfill an individual's physical or social-
emotional needs such as health, promotions, raises, or, in
a criminal case, a short prison sentence.
Costs are those
elements that deprive the individual of the abovementioned outcomes.
Not only do individuals try to maxi-
mize their own outcomes, but the society to which the
]:l;
ltr_i
if
j
i
~
'!;
individual belongs develops norms in order to devise an
equitable system for sharing resources and insure that all
participants receive equal relative gains (Walster,
Walster and Berscheid, 1978).
concept of fairness.
'
This is our society's
However, ultimately each individual,
·.r
although taught certain norms, will have a slightly
different concept of what is equitable.
Sales (1981) note:
.-.,
;j
As Izzett and
"different individuals may consider
different inputs as relevant to the attainment of a reward
_!A
~·
~··
I
29
~~
>;s.
•...··•··
't
in different settings" (p. 213).
Equity Theory according to Walster, Walster, and
Berscheid (1978) is comprised of four interlocking propositions:
PROPOSITION I: Individuals will try to maximize
their outcomes (where outcomes equal rewards
minue costs).
PROPOSITION IIA: Groups can maximize collective
reward by evolving accepted systems for
equitably apportioning resources among members.
Thus, groups will evolve such systems of equity,
and will attempt to induce members to accept and
adhere to these systems. PROPOSITION IIB:
Groups will generally reward members who treat
others equitably, and generally punish (increase
the costs for) members who treat others inequitably.
PROPOSITION III: When individuals find themselves participating in inequitable relationships, they will become distressed. The more
inequitable the relationship, the more distress
individuals will feel.
PROPOSITION IV:
Individuals who discover they
are in an inequitable relationship will attempt
to eliminate their distress by restoring equity.
The greater the inequity that exists, the more
distress they will feel, and the harder they
will try to restore equity.
(p. 6)
Walster et al. (1978) state that even a superficial
glance at Equity Theory shows that it must have some
relevance to the legal
proce~s
as it deals with people's
perceptions of fairness and justice.
Therefore they
suggest that the theory might provide some insight into
the reaction of impartial observers such as judges, jurors
and other third party observers.
According to Savitsky
and Sim (1974), equity theory provides " .•• a framework for
30
understanding the mechanism by which apparently irrelevant
variables affect juror's decisions'' (p. 140).
This
directly relates to the present investigation into the
ethical decision-making process of third party observers.
Austin, Walster and Utne (1976) suggested that judges,
jurors, and spectators showed highly differing reactions
to harmdoers that have not suffered as compared to those
who have.
This even applied in cases where the suffering
was caused by unrelated incidences.
Shaw and McMartin
(1973) proposed that the equity principle is operative in
the judicial decision-making process in the sense that,
"Judgmental strictness will be relaxed to the extent there
is evidence that the accident perpetrator has himself
suffered" (p. 239).
Austin et al. and Shaw and McMartin
concur that if the defendant has himself suffered, either
physically or emotionally, observers may conclude that he
has already paid for his wrong doing.
Kalven and Zeisel
(1971) also found that when deciding on a penalty, jurors
definitely take into account the harmdoer's suffering.
This is exemplified by the Walster et al. citing of the
,Watergate trial in the case of ex-Vice President Agnew in
which Elliot Richardson, the United States Attorney
General in the government investigation and prosecution of
charges of bribery and tax fraud, called for leniency on
the grounds that the Vice President had suffered substantially.
Richardson stated:
•
'·
'1
·.;.:
...
.
31
.
.
.
%<·
I am firmly convinced that in all the circumstances leniency is justified. I am keenly
aware, first, of the historic magnitude of the
penalties inherent in the vice president's
resignation from his high office and his
acceptance of a judgment of conviction for a
felony.
To propose that a man who has suffered these
penalties should, in addition, be incarcerated
in a penal institution, however briefly, is more
than I as head of the government's prosecuting
arm, can recommend or wish.
(As reported by AP,
Milwaukee Journal, 1973, cited by Walster et
al., p. 77.)
Agnew was fined only ten thousand dollars and put on
three years probation on only one charge of tax evasion.
All other charges were dropped.
Other factors involved in a juror's decision-making
process which fit into the equity-theory have also been
studied.
Kalven and Zeisel (1971) found that when a
defendant exhibited great remorse, jurors tended to be
more lenient.
Rumsey (1976) determined that harmdoers who
exhibited great remorse were dealt with less severely than
those who did not.
Savitsky and Sim (1974), as well as
Bramel, Taum and Blum (1968), have shown that a sad/
distressed harmdoer might be viewed as offering emotional
restitution to his victim or society which then leads to a
more lenient judgment.
Therefore the "angry/happy
harmdoer" might receive a less favorable evaluation
because he will be perceived as not offering any restitution and thereby not trying to restore equity to the
situation.
;'i
32
Sutherland and Cressey (1966) have stated that,
"Jurymen seldom convict a person they like or acquit one
they dislike.
make a
ju~y
The main work of the trial lawyer is to
like his client or at least feel sympathy for
him •.. " (p. 442).
A consistent finding has been that
jurors are more lenient with defendants for whom they feel
positive affect (Griffitt and Jackson, 1973; Mitchell and
Byrne, 1973; Efran, 1974; Izzett and Leginski, 1974; Landy
and Aronson, 1969).
These studies indicate that the prac-
tical implication for an attorney is to make the defendant
appear likeable.
As Landy and Aronson (1969) suggest:
"A
defendant who is attributed negative characteristics
should arouse more negative feelings within the subjectjuror and from an equity perspective should be seen as
deserving a more negative outcome sentence" (quoted in
Izzett and Sales, 1981, p. 217).
Landy and Aronson's
(1969) findings that a defendant's attractiveness significantly affected the severity of his sentence has been
replicated by Nemeth and Sosis (1973); Dowdle, Gillen and
Miller (1974); Reynolds and Sanders, (1973); and Kaplan
and Kemerick (1975).
Attractiveness, however, is, defined
as a likeable, middle-class upstanding citizen with no
criminal record·and unattractiveness as a person with a
menial job, marital difficulties, and a criminal record.
Moreover unattractive defendants were assumed by the
subjects to have worse drinking habits than the attrac-
({:
irc,
33
i{J
!'
tive ones (Nemeth and Sosis, 1973).
_n
<!i
Physical attractiveness as well seems to have an
impact on third party observers and can be considered
another input into the equity formulation.
,,
j\j
n
According to
Dion, Berscheid and Walster (1972), a physically
attractive defendant elicits a more pleasant response in a
perceiver.
Therefore a juror will feel less motivated to
severely punish the attractive defendant.
Kulka and
Kessler (1973) showed that physically attractive defen-
ri'i
:I
;
dants seem to have received higher settlements in a damage
case than the physically unattractive ones.
Friend and
Vinson's (1974) study demonstrated that even written
descriptions conveying a defendant's physical attractiveness result in more lenient treatment.
Izzett and Sales'
(1981) review of various simulated
juror research indicates that inputs about the defendant,
such as race and socioeconomic status, may influence the
length of sentences given.
Characteristics of the jurors themselves also appear
to have some bearing on their decision-making process.
Gerbasi, Zuckerman and Reis,'
( 1977) review of jury
research revealed that, "Status, measured by either
occupational or educational level, and sex are
consistently related to the amount and kind of comments
that a juror makes during the process of deliberation" (p.
326).
Green's (1967) findings suggest that jurors are
~
~~'
34
influenced more by whether or not they identify with
defendants and less by the circumstances of the case.
Reed (1965) documented differences between guilty and nonguilty votes as a function of juror birthplace, previous
jury duty, and socioeconomic status.
Jurors who were
experienced and jurors born in Anglo Saxon Northern
Louisiana gave more guilty verdicts than did inexperienced jurors and jurors born in the Southern French part
of Louisiana.
Sealy and Cornish (1973) found that even
the juror's age made a difference in their deliberation
behavior.
In general jurors under 30 were found to be
more lenient than older jurors.
It is suggested that, although third-party observers
(i.e., members of an ethics committee) to an inequitable
exchange between a harmdoer and a victim will be motivated
to restore equity, and although society attempts to
provide the observer with norms for any given situation,
the concept of what is equitable will vary with each
individual situation.
Although the present research does
not attempt to include all of the variables associated
wtth decision-making and outcomes in simulated juror
research, a main purpose is to ascertain whether or not
some of the same kinds of trends may arise when
professionals judge the conduct of, and impose a penalty
on, their peers.
))_'
r:
35
'
I
:,')'
Hypotheses
Hypotheses 1 through 5 will be tested:
1.
There will be a substantial relationship between the
severity of rating and the penalty imposed.
2.
The severity of rating will be high for the severe
infraction, moderate for the moderate infraction and
low for the minor infraction.
3a.
The apologetic/contrite psychologist will be rated
less severely than the control group with no
response.
b.
The control group will be rated less severely than
the obstinate/unrepenting psychologist.
4a.
The new in the field psychologist will be rated less
severely than the control group with no time
specified.
b.
The control group will be rated less severely than
the veteran psychologist.
5.
The obstinate/unrepenting veteran psychologist will
be rated most severely.
'
I,./
<·
'
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Subjects
One of 27 variations of a brief questionnaire was
mailed to 860 clinical psychologists selected at random
from Division 29 (Fellows and Members) in the 1981 APA
directory.
There were 326 respondents; 61 did not
indicate their sex and 56 were randomly deleted.
Out of
the final sample of 270 subjects there were 63 females and
146 male respondents ranging in years of professional
experience from 3 to 50.
A cover letter described the
purpose of the study and offered feedback (see Appendix
D) •
Design
The design was a 3 x 3 x 3 between subjects
factorial.
The between subject variables were degree of
severity of the infraction (minor, moderate, severe),
length of time practicing as a psychologist (veteran, new,
time not specified) and response of the psychologist who
committed the infraction to the ethics committee
(apologetic/contrite, obstinate/unrepenting, and no
response included).
The dependent variable was subjects'
36
~,.
37
judgment of the level of severity of the activity
described.
Copies of each of the 27 variations of the
questionnaire are included as Appendix E.
Measures
Vignettes describing ethically offensive behavior and
the reaction of the respondent to an ethics inquiry were
created.
Each respondent was asked to rate the degree of
severity of an infraction.
These were rated on a scale
from 1-7 where 1 was "not severe" and 7 was "extremely
severe."
In addition, the psychologists were asked to
select the sanction considered most appropriate for the
case description provided.
These again ranged from a low
of 1 to 7 in severity.
The ethical infractions described in the vignettes
were purposely developed to reflect three levels of
seriousness.
These initial determinations of mild,
moderate, and serious were developed in consultation with
Dr. Patricia Keith-Spiegel based on her experience of
serving for two terms on the APA's Committee on Scientific
and Professional Ethics and Conduct.
The "minor"
infraction was a slightly inappropriate advertisement
which could be construed as playing on the anxieties of
consumers and promising positive results.
Content of
services are proscribed by the Ethical Principles of
Psychologists (1981) and the stimulus advertisement did
violate these provisions.
The "moderate" infraction
q
38
involved a violation of the provisions of the Ethical
Principles concerning confidentiality of information
shared in confidence.
Although inappropriate, the
violation was not an extreme one likely to cause damage to
the client.
The "severe" infraction involved sexual
intimacies with a psychotherapy client which is considered
to be a serious ethical impropriety by the profession and
typically carries the most severe sanctions.
As an initial check of the severity judgment, three
sets of questionnaires were mailed which included only the
infraction which was to be judged and a penalty imposed.
The "moderate" and "serious" infraction checked out with
little variability in each range.
But the "minor" condi-
tion required two additional revisions to assure that the
infraction itself was judged as minor by respondents.
These control conditions serve as a base-rate from which
to compare the influence of the other variables included
in the other conditions.
As another condition length of time in the profession
was studied.
One group received vignettes describing the
psychologists as "veterans" (that is indicating they had
15 years or more of experience in the profession).
A
!
~:
J.
second group received vignettes where the psychologist
involved in the infraction was described as new to the
profession (that is, less than 1 year as a psychologist).
.;
A
,j
:~
A third group received vignettes in which the length of
],
~ l ::,'~;
39
time in the profession was not given.
The third condition in the design was the response of
the offending psychologist to the ethics committee.
One
group received vignettes where the response was not
described.
The second group received vignettes in which
the offending psychologist was apologetic and appeared
contrite over committing the infraction.
A third group
received vignettes where the offending psychologist
responded in an obstinate and unrepenting manner as a
response to being charged with an infraction.
For a
complete factorial design refer to Table 5 in the Results
section.
Procedure
All together, 860 questionnaires were mailed out and
a total of 326 responses were received.
Each respondent
received one of the 27 different vignettes containing a
hypothetical brief description of a complaint.
Each
respondent rated the level of severity of the infraction
and selected a penalty to be imposed.
Out of the 326
responses, 56 were randomly deleted from each condition in
order to obtain 10 responses per cell.
final sample size of 270 subjects.
This created the
I
~·
'
')1(oC
CHAPTER III
RESUL1.'S
The level of severity responses were used in a 3x3x3
(Infraction x Time in Field x Response) between subjects
design analysis of variance.
All analyses were performed
using SPSS computer progr·ams.
presented in Appendix F.
presented in Table 3.
The subjects raw data are
The results of the analysis are
The means and standard deviations
of severity for Infraction are presented in Table 4, and
the means for the 27 different conditions are presented in
Table 5.
The main effect due to the Infraction factor was
found to be significant, F (2,243)
= 124.69,
p < .001.
There were not significant main effects due to the Time in
Field (F (2,243) = 0.319, p > .05) or the Response (F
(2,243) = 2.006, p > .05) factors.
The two- and three-way
interactions were not significant, p > .OS, see Table 3.
The Tukey method for post-hoc specific comparisons was
used to examine the difference between the mean of Minor
Infraction (x=3.51 ), Moderate Infraction (x=4.17) and
Severe Infraction (x=6.53).
There were no significant
differences between any combination of means, Q=3.34,
p
> .05.
40
~/
r
41
Table 3
ANOVA Summary Table for Severity by Infraction,
Time in Field and Response
Source
DF
ss
HS
F
p
Infraction
Response
Time in Field
2
2
2
454.941
7.319
1 • 1 63
277.40
3.695
___0. 581
124.69
2.006
0.319
• 001
• 137
.727
Infraction by
Response
4
12.970
3.243
1. 777
• 13 4
Infraction by
Time in Field
4
3.762
0. 931
0. 511
.728
Response by
Time in Field
4
6.215
1 • 554
0.852
.494
Infraction by
Time in Field by
Response
8
6.696
0.837
0.459
.884
Error
243
443.300
1 • 824
Total
269
936.330
3. 841
,
l!
42
Table 4
Table of bleans and Standard Deviations
of Severity for Infraction
Variable
blean
Severity
4.732
1 • 545
Infraction
blinor
bloderate
Severe
3. 511
4.167
6.533
1 • 545
1 • 581
0.722
Standard Deviation
43
Table 5
Table of Means for the 27 Conditions
Veteran
New
Time Not Specified
Minor Moderate Severe Minor Moderate Severe Minor Moderate Severe
QJ
3 .l 0.
4.50
3.40.
6. 80
3.70
6.40
3.10.
4.20
6. 70
U1
z0
<=
0
Cl.
I
U1
QJ
.._
'
"'
u
·~
+' QJ
OJ+'
01·~
I
:
13.40 .
3.90
. 6.20
3.40· 4.10
. 6.70
2.70. 4.60
. 6.30
3. 70 .
3.80
. 6.40
4. 40 . 4. 30
. 6.60
4.40. 4.40
. 6.70
0<.
~
0
+'
c
"-0
co::u
"'
.._,;::
QJ·~
+' +'
"'c
c QJ
·~
+'
Cl.
QJ
Vl <.
.DC
o:::>
I'
-1~
i;
Jf
;J!%'
IU~
::'.'
'
44
&:-:
Analyses were also performed on the level of severity
response using the Sanction imposed, Years in Field and
Gender factors.
A Chi-square analysis was used to compare
severity and three combinations of sanctions.
Sanctions 1
and 2 were combined, 3 and 4 were combined and 5, 6 and 7.
The combinations were made both on the basis of criteria
for expected frequencies not being met on the 7 by 7 Chisquare and on the patterns of means and standard deviations of severity for each sanction (see Table 6).
This
pattern suggested that it was reasonable to combine these
categories on the basis of dispersion in the use of
categories.
Out of the 270 cases 6 were missing values
resulting in 264 subjects for the Chi-square.
of Chi-square analysis were significant, x 2 (12)
The results
246.54,
p=O, indicating an association between severity rating for
infraction and penalty imposed.
The means and standard
deviations of severity for each sanction are presented in
Table 6.
The modal sanctions for each level of severity
are presented in Table 7.
The level of severity across Gender was analyzed
using at-test and found to be nonsignificant, tcrit=1.96,
t=0.35, d.f.=207, p > .05.
Finally, the level of severity
across a categorization of the Years in Field factor (less
than 15 years vs. 15 or more years) was tested using the
t-test and was found to be nonsignificant, tcrit=1.96,
t=0.30, d.f.-268, p > .05.
45
Table 6
The Means and Standard Deviations
of Severity for Each Sanction
Sanction
Mean
Standard Deviation
1
2.545
1.503
2
2. 871
0. 914
3
4.361
1 • 291
4
5.226
1 • 1 46
5
6.469
0.767
6
6.667
0.485
7
6.905
0.301
.1:
'
46
.·
.
k'~-;'
Table 7
The Modal Sanction for Each Level of Severity
Severity
i~',
•
Modal Sanction
N
1
1
8
2
2
22
3
2
22
4
3
21
5
4
14
6
5
13
7
5
30
li
~{:
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The findings supported hypothesis 1 which predicted
that there would be a substantial relationship between the
severity of rating and penalty imposed.
However, it is
interesting to note that most of the respondents who gave
the infraction an extremely severe rating of 7, only gave
a moderate to severe sanction of 5.
This may indicate
that, although they considered the offense to be very
serious, they chose to give a penalty which involved
censure rather than stipulated resignation or the even
stronger requirement for expulsion.
This relationship
between severity of infraction and sanction for
infraction, at least at the severe end of the
distribution, is not in line with the levels and sanctions
as proposed by the Task Force on Ethics System Procedures
,(APA, Koocher, Keith-Spiegel and Klebanoff, 1981 ).
One plausible explanation for the respondent's
selection of lower penalty for a high severity rating
could be attributed to the respondent's hesitation to
impose the most severe penalty on the basis of such a
briefly described infraction.
Table 7 (The Modal Sanction
47
~
!
Itt
""'
48
for Each Level of Severity) shows a decrease in Modal
Sanctions for all but the minor infractions (Severity
Levels 1 & 2) by one point up to Level 6 and by 2 points
in Level 7.
Regarding the severe sanctions, respondents
may have felt that before they could, in all good
conscience, suggest a sanction that would cause the individual considerable personal and financial hardship, they
would need to know more.
However, since the lesser
penalties have no real impact on the individual's life and
work, a brief description may have been sufficient in
order to feel more confident and/or comfortable in assigning the mild sanction.
In addition, it should be noted
that the survey did not reflect the actual working method
of the ethics committees where comprehensive data from the
complainant and the respondent, and perhaps even other
witnesses, are gathered and evaluated prior to issuing a
verdict and imposing a sanction.
Another possible explanation for the difference
between severity rating and assignment of sanction could
be that clinical psychologists simply do not agree with
the relationship between levels of sanctions and levels of
severity as prescribed by the APA Task Force (1981 ).
It
is also possible that practicing psychologists are aware
of how easily one can get drawn into an ethically questionable situation and, therefore, are hesitant to impose
a severe penalty on their peers.
It is even possible, of
49
course, that some of the respondents have actually engaged
in the same or similar actions as described in the
vignettes.
In those instances where this behavior has
occurred, their ratings of sanctions for ethical
infraction may have been biased downward.
Another motivating factor for the respondents' hesitation in imposing the severest penalty (expulsion) may
have been their awareness that once a psychologist is
expelled from the APA, the ethics committee no longer has
any control over the individual.
That is, many may have
known that the APA can continue to monitor the indivi-
!,i
i't
dual's conduct through mandated supervision if, and only
if, he or she is allowed to remain a member of the organization.
The means and standard deviations of severity for
each sanction (see Table 6) showed greater deviation in
the minor (Sanctions 1 & 2) and moderate (Sanctions 3 & 4)
than in the severe sanctions (5, 6 & 7).
Forsyth's (1980)
Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies indicates the essential
problem of variability typical of moral judgments and
categorizes them into four different approaches
(Situationists, Absolutists, subjectivists, and Exceptionists; see Table 1) which may be adopted by individuals
when making ethical judgments.
The deviations of sane-
tions may lie in the possibility that the respondents do
not agree with the levels of sanctions as proposed by the
! ! !'
F
50
APA task force which are stated in a rather absolute form.
If one believes more in other forms of moral judgments,
then a "reprimand," for instance, could be considered more
serious by some than by others.
This would especially
hold true for the minor and moderate infractions where the
consequences are not as great and respondents might have
been inclined to judge more impulsively.
In addition
there is no large differentiation among the lower sanctions, such as "educative advisory" (2) and "educative
warning" (3).
In this context, a plausible explanation
for the fact that there is much less deviation under the
more severe sanctions may be that respondents have a
clearer concept of wrongdoing for the higher levels of
infraction severity.
Hypothesis 2 states that the severity of infraction
rating will be high for the severe, moderate for the
moderate, and low for the minor infractions.
Even though
there were no significant differences between the groups
using the Tukey method the results were in the predicted
direction.
For hypotheses 3a and b, the subject's responses
revealed no significant differences in judgments imposed
on offending psychologists who were presented as showing
various reactions (apologetic/contrite or obstinate/
unrepenting) as opposed to those with no reaction.
There
were no significant differences for hypotheses 4a and b in
,
1
.
51
.
if.%i
'1}(
penalties given to offending veteran vs. novice psychologists, nor to those with no time in the field specified.
Hypothesis 5, which states that the obstinate/ unrepenting
veteran psychologist will be rated most severely, was also
unsupported.
It is a possibility that the lack of significant
results in the attempt to assess extra-evidential effects
is due to the fact that a hypothetical situation on paper
could have a less personal effect on a subject's decisionmaking process than when placed in an actual situation
wherein a "real" person's fate was at stake.
As demon-
strated in person-perception theory, directly observed
emotional reactions have a strong impact on the observer.
Serious offenses which involve the probability of
expulsion require the personal presence of the committee
members and the offender.
This suggests the need for
further research in a personalized setting.
For example,
the viewing of video taped simulations of ethics hearings
may elicit a greater use of extra-evidential factors in
reaching decisions.
A real person, behaving in a contrite
manner with wringing hands and a sad facial expression,
may have elicited feelings that
~10uld,
in turn, influence
judgments in a direction more favorable to the violator,
or an obnoxious, ranting, arrogant violator, who behaved
offensively towards the decision-makers, may have elicited
feelings that would lead to more harsh judgments.
52
Neither sex nor experience in the field appeared to
have any bearing on the respondents' decisions, although
it should be noted that 63 out of the 270 respondents
chose not to reveal their sex.
However, this study was
not designed to include sex differences in ethical
judgments among respondents.
Further research on sex
differences between respondents might show different
results.
As mentioned in the introduction, it has been implied
through simulated juror research (which involves experimental investigation of the trial process) that extraevidential variables are likely to influence both the
verdict and sentencing of jurors.
As previously stated, a
main purpose of this study was to ascertain whether or not
some of the same kinds of phenomena may arise when professionals judge the conduct of and impose a penalty on their
peers.
The insignificant results in hypotheses 3a through
5 indicate that judgments might be different for psychologists, as they have more training in a specialized field
as well as a stronger educational background than the
typical court juror.
The fact that the respondents judged
the infraction on its own merits without taking into
account any extra-evidential factors may reflect the
sophistication gained from advanced educational training.
The responses might also indicate that clinical
··i!i
psychologists are more aware and knowledgeable of the
'!!
.
53
!
•
::_'f&'·
ethical issues concerning a complaint than has been
previously suggested (Tymchuk, 1979 and Barber, 1976).
The respondents may be indicating that extra-evidential
factors do not have a bearing on the judgments of a
defendant's judged guilt or innocence.
As equity theory
holds, whenever two or more people enter into an exchange,
they bring with them certain investments or inputs and try
to maximize their
o~m
outcomes.
According to this theory
it is in the in.terests of respondents to insure that the
developed norms of their profession are upheld regardless
of any mitigating circumstances, that is that every
psychologist's best interests are upheld when their
colleagues maintain professional standards and the
public's trust by behaving in an ethical manner.
Each
infraction, especially those that are made public, erodes
the attitudes of consumers toward psychologists.
monetary issues may be at stake.
Even
That is, to the extent
that unethical behavior affects attitudes of one or more
consumers, potential clients may go to another type of
mental health professional for services.
Malpractice
insurance rates are also tied directly to the incidence of
psychologists' misconduct.
Tymchuk (1981) points out that a broader and more
basic decision-making standard would be useful in order to
encompass more variables which appear necessary in novel
situations.
.iih:
Research on the typical court juror has shown
.·
1
.>
54
tff(
(',,
that extra-evidential factors do have an influence on the
decision-making process in the most common cases.
The
current study was designed as a first step to see whether
or not the same holds true for clinical psychologists when
they judge the conduct of their peers.
Therefore the
infractions in this study were purposely chosen for their
salience.
It would be interesting to see if extra-
evidential factors have more influence on judgments when
offenses are less common._and not as clearly defined.
In the introductory sections, it was implied that
clinical psychologists may not be as sophisticated as they
should be in ethical decision-making relative to
professional standards because little training exists to
assist them.
This implication requires some comment since
the data cannot substantiate the assertion others have
made.
This study was not intended nor designed to measure
this assertion directly since respondents were not
assessed as to their level of expertise in ethics-related
matters.
However, it is possible to make some comments
relative to the issue and findings.
First, as noted, the
infractions were salient ones that most psy•chologists are
probably aware of and they were presented in a simple and
uncomplicated way.
Thus, "sophistication in ethics" may
not have been relevant to the method of study used.
Second, of course, is the possibility that those who have
asserted that psychologists are less aware of ethical
55
issues than they should be are simply wrong.
Most of the
scant existing research has used graduate student subjects
rather than practicing psychologists.
These inherent
weaknesses in the methodology (e.g., the aforementioned
paper-and-pencil technique, scant information offered,
etc.) may have precluded valid assessments of decisionmaking.
Finally, some amount of "social desirability" may
have been operating.
The technique itself neither
deceived nor concealed the study's purpose.
Although the
full design was not revealed, respondents may have easily
gleaned that many variations would be involved.
Thus,
they may have stuck close to the infraction as the primary
feature to attend.
This last possibility may have
affected the study's outcome in other ways too, especially
in consideration given to extra-evidential factors.
The fact remains that although clinical psychologists
have to confront ethical issues on a regular basis,
whether in daily practice or as a volunteer on an ethics
committee, virtually no research has been done to ascertain how they deal with them.
For this reason, research
on ethical decision-making factors is warranted.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. Flow Chart of Typical
Case Processing By Ethics Committees of state
Psychological Associations. Washington, D.C.: APA,
1972.
American Psychological Association. The Standards for
Providers of Psychological Services. Washington,
D.C.: APA, 1977.
American Psychological Association. Enforcement - By Laws
of the American Psychological Association.
Washington, D.C.: APA, 1980.
American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of
psychologists. American Psychologist, 1981, 1£, 633638.
American Psychological Association. Ethical Principles in
the Conduct of Research with Human Participants.
Washington, D.C.: APA, 1982.
Asch, S. E. Forming impressions of personalities.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946,
258-290.
ilr
Austin, w., Walster, E., & Utne, M. Equity and the law:
The effect of a harmdoer's "suffering in the act'' on
liking and assigned punishment. In L. Berkowitz & E.
Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1976.
Barber, B. The ethics of experimentation with human
subjects. Scientific American, 1976, 234 (2), 25-31.
Bramel, D., Taub, B., & Blum, B. An observer's reaction
to the suffering of his enemy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, ~' 384-392.
Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude
similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1961, 62, 713-715.
56
! !
57
Dibiase, W., & Hjelle, L. Body-image stereotype and bodytype preferences among male college students.
Perception and Motor Skills, 1968, £2, 1143-1146.
Dion, K.K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. What is
beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1972, l!, 285-290.
Dowdle, M., Gillen, H., & Miller, A. Integration and
attribution theories as predictors of sentencing by a
simulated jury. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 1974, 1 (1), 270-272.
Efran, M. The effect of physical appearance on the
judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction and
severity of recommended punishment in a simulated
jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974,
~. 45-54.
Forsyth, D.R. A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, }2_, 175184.
Friend, R., & Vinson, M. Leaning over backwards- jurors'
responses to defendants' attractiveness. Journal of
Communication, 1974, 24, 124-129.
Gerbasi, K.C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H.T. Justice needs
a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research.
Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84 (2), 323-345.
Golann, S.E. Emerging areas of ethical concern.
Psychologist, 1969, 24, 454-459.
American
Green, E. The reasonable man: Legal fiction of psychosocial reality? Law and Society Review, 1967, ~,
241-257.
Griffitt, W. Attitude similarity and attraction.
In T.L.
Huston (Ed.), Foundations of Interpersonal
Attraction. New York: Academin Press, 1974.
Griffitt, W., & Jackson, T. Simulated jury decisions:
The influence of jury-defendant attitude similaritydissimilarity. Social Behavior and Personality,
1973, l, 1-7.
Hare-Mustin, R.T., Mareck, J., Kaplan, A.G., & LinsLevinson, N. Rights of clients, responsibilities of
therapists. American Psychologist, 1979, l!, 3-16.
58
Hess, H.F. Enforcement: Procedures, problems, prospects.
AASPB Newsletter, 1979, 5-14.
Hogan, D.B. The Regulation of Psychotherapists (vol. 1).
Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1979.
Izzett, R., & Leginske, W. Group discussion and the
influence of defendant characteristics in a simulated
jury setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974,
21· 271-279.
Izzett, R., & Sales, B. Person perception and jurors'
reactions to defendants: An equity theory interpretation. In B. Sales (Ed.), Perspectives in Law and
Psychology: The trial process (Vol. 11). New York:
Plenum, 1981.
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. The- American Jury, with the
collaboration of Thomas Callahan & Philip Ennis.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Kaplan, M., & Kemmereck, G. Juror judgment as information
integration. Combining evidential and non-evidential
information. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1975, 1Q, 493-499.
Keith-Spiegel, P. Violation of ethical principles due to
ignorance or poor professional judgment versus
willful disregard. Professional Psychology, 1977, ~.
288-296.
I
Keith-Spiegel, P. Moral conundrums, shibboleths and
gordian knots: Current issues in ethical standards
for psychologists. Presidential Address to the
Western Psychological Association, Sacramento,
California, 1982.
,'ii
Keith-Spiegel, P., and Koocher, G.P. Ethics in Psychology:
Standards and Cases. Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley, in press.
Kelley, H.H. The warm-cold variable in first impression
of persons. Journal of Personality, 1950, ~. 431439.
Koocher, G.P., Keith-Spiegel, P., and Klebanoff, L.
Levels and Sanctions. Unpublished report of the APA
Task Force on Ethics Systems Procedures, 1981.
~!
l
!\
,Pl
'!
!
iii
59
Kulka, R., & Kessler, J.
Is justice really blind? The
influence of physical attractiveness on decisions of
simulated jurors. Paper presented to the Annual
Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New
York, November, 1973.
Landy, E., & Aronson, E. The influence of the character
of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of
simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1969, 2, 141-152.
Mitchell, H., & Byrne, D. The defendant's dilemma:
Effects of jurors' attitudes and authoritarianism on
judicial decisions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 123-129.
Moore, R.A. Ethics in the practic.e of psychiatry-origins, functions, models and enforcement. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 1978, 135, 157-163.
Morrison, J., Layton, B., & Newman, J. Ethical conflict
in clinical decision-making. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Psychological Association
convention, Toronto, Canada, August, 1978.
Nemeth, c., & Sosis, R. A simulated jury study: Characteristics of defendant and the jurors. Journal of
Social Psychology, 1973, 2Q, 221-229.
Pope, K., Levenson, H., & Schover, L. Sexual intimacy in
psychology training: Results and implications of a
national survey. American Psychologist, 1979, 34
(8), 682-689.
Reed, J. Jury deliberations, voting and verdict trends.
Southwest Social Science Quarterly, 1965, 45, 361370.
Reynolds, D., & Sanders, M. The effects of defendant
attractiveness, age, and injury on severity of
sentence given by simulated jurors. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Western Psychological
Association, San Francisco, April 1973.
Rumsey, M. Effects of defendant background and remorse on
sentencing judgments. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 1976, £, 64-68.
Rusch, P. An empirical study of the willingness of
Psychologists to report ethical violations (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California,
1981).
.'
60
Savitsky, J., & Sim, M. Trading emotions: Equity theory
of reward and punishment. Journal of Communication,
1974, ~. 140-147.
Schneider, D.J. Social Psychology. Reading:
Wesley Publishing Company, 1976.
Addison-
Sealy, A.P., & Cornish, W.R. Jurors and their verdicts.
Modern Law Review, 1973, ~. 496-508.
Secord, P. Facial Features and inference processes in
interpersonal perception. In R. Taguiri and L.
Petrullo (Eds.), Person Perception and Interpersonal
Behavior, Stanford, California: Stanford University
Press, 1958.
Sharp, F.C. An objective study of some moral judgments.
American Journal 6fPsychology, 1898, 9, 198-234.
Shaw, J., & McMartin, J. Effects of who suffers in an
automobile accident of judgmental strictness.
Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, 1973, 1, 239-240.
Siegel, M. Privacy, ethics, and confidentiality.
Professional Psychology, 1979, 10, 249-258.
Simon, G.C. Professional psychology and the public
interest. Unpublished manuscript, 1975.
(Available
from the American Psychological Association, 1200
Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036).
Sutherland, E.H., & Cressey, D.R. Principles of
Criminology. New York: Lippincott, 1966.
Thorndike, E.L. A constant error in psychological
ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1920,
29.
±,
25-
Tymchuk, A., Drapkin, R., Major, S., Ackerman, A.,
, Coffman, E., & Baum, M. Psychology in action. Survey
of training in ethics in APA-approved clinical
psychology programs. American Psychologist, 1979 l i
(12), 1168-1170.
Tymchuk, A.J. Ethical decision-making and psychological
treatment. Journal of Psychiatric Treatment and
Evaluation, 1981, 1, 507-513.
! !
!
61
Tymchuk, A., Drapkin, R., Major-Kingsley, s., Ackerman,
A., Coffman, E., & Baum, M. Ethical decision making
and psychologist's attitudes toward training in
ethics. Professional Psychology, 1982, 12 (3), 412421 .
Verinis, J., & Roll, s. Primary and secondary male
characteristics. The hairiness and large penis
stereotypes. Psychological Reports, 1970, l£, 123126.
Walster, E., Walster, G.W., & Berscheid, E. Equity Theory
and Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978.
Wellner, A.M., & Abindin, R.R. Regulation/enforcement/
discipline of professional practice in psychology:
Issues and strategies. Professional Practice of
Psychology, 1981, 1, 1-1~.
Wise, T.P. Where the public peril begins: A survey of
psychologists to determine the effects of Tarasoff.
Stanford Law Review, 1978, 31 (1), 165-190.
Zitrin, A., & Klein, H. Can psychiatry police itself
effectively? The experience of one district branch.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 1976, 133, 653-656.
'
j
:;i
-------! !
.
i
; '
63
Ethical Principles of Psychologists
ethnic, socioeeonomic, or other K~Cial groups. Iu publishing reports of their work, they never suppress disf'sych.olog4ts rel"J)ect tlw- dignity and WO'fth of the (n· confirming data, and they acknowledge the uistcn~ of
dividual and strive for the preservation llnd protectWn alternative hypothese'S and n.planations of their fi,loling~
of funda~tal human rights. They are committed to Psychologists take credit only for work they ha'"c J.C\L!<tliY
tnCTtCl$ing knowledge of human behcu>fcr tmd of peo· done.
b. Psychologists clarify in advance with all appropripie's understanding of themselves ond otMTs and to
the utlli:.atWn of such knou•ledge jOT the promotWn of ate persons and agenci~ the expectations for sharing and
human welftlrt. While pum~ing these objectives, they utilizing research data. They avoid relationships that may
make eoery effort to protect the ~/fare of those wha limit their ob;e.ctivity or create a conflict of int.:~·:~l In·
terference ~ith the milieu in which data are coll-~tcd
seek their sen>ices"-cufd of tJi:e resttlr~h·.partlcipants that
may 1K the object of study: They 'Ust-·their sh/h only is kept to a minimum.
c. Psychologists have the responsibility to :~tte•T•tll to
/Clr pu~se.s consistrot u'ith these values and cW not
prevent distortion, misuse, or suppre1.Sion of psydw!og·
Jmowingly JWrmit their misuse by ot~s- Whdt" tk·
mondmg for thenuelves freedom of inqutry and com- i~l findings by the institution or agenc)" of which they
municctton, psychologiSts 11eupt the ruponsibility this are emplo)·~.
d. As members of governmental or oth('t crgnnizafreedom requires: competence, ob}ecltvity in the appli·
C4tton of d:i/IJ, t1nd conce-rn for the besl Interests of lional bodies, psychologists remain accountabl~ :u inciiclienll, colleagues, student,, reuarch parUcipant~. and viduals to the highf."St standards of their prvfe""...sion.
~ty. ln the pursuit of thett idtals, psychologiSts sube. As teachers, psychologists recogni:z.e their primary
~be to prinCiples in the follou.:1ng arttU; 1. Respcnobligation to help other;,. acquire knowledge 11.nd skill.
ribility, 2. Compete'nct, 3 Mo-ral and Legal StancL:mb, The)· maintain high standards of schol•rship b)· pre4. Public Stattments, 5. Confitkntiality, 6. Welfare of senting psychological information ob}ective!y, fully, and
the Conronw, 7. Profes$i.OrUJI Rtlatiomhips, 8. Asu&.~­ &ct'urately.
mtnt Ttchniques, 9. Research With Human Part1Cif. As practitionen, psychologish know that the)· bear
J><'"'-• aMI J0 Cart and Uu: of Animals.
a heavy social r~ponsibility bec.awe their recom<"ncn·
Acceptance of membf:.rsh1p in the AnttTican Psycho- dations and pro£e1.Sional actions may alter the li'"'" of
logical .'hsoeiatWn comm1ts the member to adherew::e others. They are alert to personal, s.ocial. org.1r.ir<tional,
to these princ-iples.
financial, or political situations and pressures that might
PsycJwlogi.sts cooptTate with duly constituted com· lead to miswe of their influence.
mittees of the American Psi;chological Assodlltkm, in
parhcular, the Committee on Sdt'ntific and Profes· Thilv~nion of tk Etf11cal Pnl'>l:ipl~:i of Psychvl·.-~:m d'xmer!)·
no-na/ Ethics and Conduct, by responding to inquiries enti!led Ethical St~ndards of PJycholog•ml was adc,pte-1 by th~
promptly and completelv. Meml:lt"n also respond Am~rican Psychologrcal Assocralion's Council of R~presenla·
promptly and completely to inquirU~ from duly con- livn on Januar} 24, 1981 The revised Ethical Princirlt< <"·>OJt:tlin
ltituttd state cusociation ethia committees and profes- both substantiv~ and grammatical change-s in each ol ;:~.: ;:i!lt
t'thical pril'>l:iple-s constituting the Ethical Sr~:ubroi< d Ps;··
tUmal ttandards r#'t>Uw committees
chologi,u pr~viowly adopted by the Council of Rt-1'··-~~·.rt:~t!ves
PREAMBLE
Principle 1
RESPONSIBILm
ln providing urvi.ces, psvchologuts maintain the high·
est standtlrds of their professio-n. They acupt responnbiflly fo-r the consequn~Ces of thnr acts and make
every effo-rt to ensure that their sen1(Ces are used ap·
propriatelv.
a. As scientists, psychologists accept responsibility for
the selection of their research topics and the methO!h
used in investigation, an•lysis, and reporting. They plan
their ri!Search in ways to minimize the possibility that
their findings will be misleading They provide thorough
discus.sion of the limitations of their data, ~pe-cia!ly
where their work touches on s.ocia[ policy or might be
constr\led to the detriment of pc:r5-0ru in specific age, se~.
Vol. 36, :o\o. 6. 633-638
!1;i
f
,,
h
in 1979. plo! J, i'l(."W \~nth principle ~lltitJed Ca,re W,o[ !Jj..t 0/
Animals Inquirie-s concerning the Ethical Prin<'•rles of Psy·
chologuts should be addrtuc'd to the Admill!Str .. h•e Offr~r lor
Ethrcs. American Psychological Auociahon. 12C1) $," ''lteenth
Str~t. N W., Wuhinglon. 0 C 2()()(16
These r~vised Ethic.al Prmciplcs appl)· to j"....l~~l':,:!v;-:ists, to
1tud~nts of psychology. and to otheu who do we..- I<. of a psychologrcal nature under the 1upervision of a ps}chologr·' They
are aliiO mtended lor the guidance of nonm<"m~n of.:.,· \s·
S<,Xiation who are ~ngaged in ps}chological res.e.:..rrh m pr3CI!(~
All)' compbmts of unethrcal conduct file..l after ;~~·\•~ry 2-t.
1981. shall be go•erned by thi1198l rensron Hv•.• t•·cr .. ,;nduct
(al compl;ul'l<"d about aft<"t January 24, 198L but y,IJich OC·
cur red prior to that date, and (b) not coru•dered unethrcal under
prior versions of the principle-s but considered un<"thrc~l under
the 1981 revision, ahall not be dt:"e"med a "iol .. hon ,,f .-rhrcal
princrplcs Any complaints pending as of J~rl'Jar~ 2~. 1~:;;. ~hall
be governed either by th~ 1979 or by til<' 1981 .~r~i :> ,,f th<"
Ethical Principle-s. at tk iiOund discretion of tlw ( ..,muu::~~ on
Scientific and Proft"U•onal EthiC'S and Conduct
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOCIST • jl"M. J9b.i • 63:3
~--.
'!
!
;!:
64
Principle 2
COMPETENCE
HVC! to pt"evalltng ccmmunityllancUJrds and to th.t pos·
nble imPQCt that ccnformity to or devlatwn from these
Jtand4rd.s may have upon th.t qua/tty of their pt>rfor·
T/u> mainte-nance of high standards of compete-nce Is monee as psvclwlofJI-SU Psychologl&t& art also aware of
a respr>n:nlnlity shared by all psychologuts m tM fn- the possible impact of their public behavior upon the
Urest of tM publiC and the profess!QrJ as a whole. Psy- ability of colleagues to perform their professional ducholoiJI-Sl$ recognize tlu> boundarle& of theu comP<tmce ti.e.s
a ..-\s te;chers. psychologists art> aware of the {;ct that
and tM limitations of their techmque&. They onlv prot-uie sewices and only use techn:ques f&r whiCh t/u>y their per.sonal values rna~· affeet the selt><"tion and prt>·
are qtUJ/ified by training and experience. In those areas sentation of ins1ruc-tional m;terials. When dealing with
tn u:hi.ch recognized standards do not ~~ e:ti.st, psy- topic-s that may give off erne, the-y reeognize and respe<"t
chologiSt& take wMtet>er precautions are necessary to the dh·erse attitudes th;t students may have towud such
protect the welfare of their clients. They maintain materials.
b. A! employees or emp!oyc-~. psychologists do not
knou:ledge of curre-nt setrot1fic and professional in for·
C'ngage in or condone practic-es that are inhumane or that
mation related to the sert.'i.ce& they re-nder
a. Psychologists accuratt'!~ represent their compe- result in il!c-g;l or unjustifiable actions. Such pra"ctices
tence, education. training, and e~perience The~ cla1m include, but ar~ not limited tO. thost based on consid:
as ev1dence of C'ducational qualillcat1om only those de· erations of race. handicap. agt'!'. gend~r. SC'~u01! prefer·
grees obtained from institutions ;cceptable under the enc-e, religion, or national origin in hiring, promotiOn.
B) laws 01nd RuiC'~ of Council of the American Psycho- or training.
c. In their profC'Uional roles. psychologi~ts avoid anr
logical Associ;tion.
b. As teachers, pS) chologists perform their duties on action that will ~·iolate or dimim~h tht'!' legal and Cl\ d
the bam of careful preparation .so that their instruction right~ of clic-nts or of others who ma~ ~ affected b~
tht>ir actions
is accuratC', current, and ~holarlr
d. As practitioners and rC'searcht>rs. psychologists ;ct
c. Psychologists rC'cognize the nee-d for continuing educ;tion and are open to nC'w procedures and changes in in accord with Association stand;rds ;nd gu1dt'lint>s re·
lated to practice and to the conduct of research >~ llh
expectations and values over timt'.
d Psrchologists recognize difft>rences among people, human beings and anim;Js. In tht'!' ordinary course of
such as those that m;~ bt- associat!'d with age. se~. so- event~. psychologi$tS adhere to relevant govl'rnmental
Cioeconomic, and ethnic badtgrounds. When nt'<"~ry, laws and institutional regulations When ft>deral. statt>.
they obtam training. expent>nce. or counsel to assure provmcia!. organi.UIIlJOnal. or imtitutional la"'·s. rf'gul~­
tions. or practices arc- 111 C"OnD!ct with 4.ss.ociation stancompetent servi('(' or research relatinc to such per.sons.
e Psychologists responsib!t> for df'CISIOns involving m- dards and guidelines. psychologists m01ke known tht>ir
diqdu;ls or policies based on te-st results h<~vC' an un- commitmc-nt to Aw.Jciation standards and gu1delmesand.
wherevt>r poMiblc-. ~~~o·ork toward a resolution of the con·
derst<~nding of psychological or educational mC'asure·
6ict Both practitionNs and rt'!'starchers are concc-rned
mc-nt. \·alidalion problems. and test rese;rch
f. Psychologists reeognize that personal problC'ms and with the dewlopment of ~uch lt>ga! and quasi· legal reg·
ulations as best st-n·e tht> publ1c mterest. and tht>y work
conflicts m;y mterfc-rC' with professional effecth-C'ness
According!), they rdrain from undertaking any ;cti\·ity tow;rd changing existing rc-gu!atiom that are not ben·
in which their per.sonal problems are likely to lead to eficial to the public interest
inadequate' performanc-e or hum to a client, collc-;gue,
!tudent, or research participant If e-ngaged in such ac·
tivity when the-y berome aware of their per.sonal problc-ms, they seek compett>nt profC'SSional as.:sistance to de·
Principle 4
termme whethC'r thev should suspend, tc-rminate, or limit
PUBLIC STATEME,;Ts
the ~ope of their pr~fessional and/or scientific activitie5
Principle 3
MORAL AND LEGAL STANDARDS
P.svchologi.sts' rJl.(JTa/ ond ethical .standards of behavior
are a p4"rsonal mattC'r to the samt' degru 03 they are
for any other cili:.en, except tl3 tMH• may compt"oms.sc
the fulfillment of the-ir professional responsihllities &r
reduce the public trust in psvc/wl(lgy and psychologists
Regarding their ou·n bchavtor, psychologuts are st'TISi·
634 • jUNE 1981 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
Public statements, annOtlncements of serv~us. aduer·
ti.sing, and promotional activities of psychologists uroe
the purpose of helping the public make inf&rmed judg.
ments and choices Psycholog~Sts reprt"sent accun~tely
and objectwely then professional qualifications. affi!J.
ations, and functions. as well as those of thl" lnst1tutions
&r &rgani:..ations 11.1th u:h1ch they or tht' statements may
be ass~tt'd. In public statt'mmu pronding psycho·
logical information or prof~swnal opimons en prat-'1d·
lng information about the availability of psycholo~r~cal
prodtuts, publications, and sen-iCes. psvcholo{JlStS bau
their statenunts em scientifically acc('ptable psycholog·
65
'
.
t
.'
{t,;:
'i;;i'
leal findings and t~chnique3 u.>Jth full ,.~cognition of du
limits and uncntainltes of 'uch evld~u.
a. When announcing or advertising prof~iorn~l servicM. p$)Chologisl$ mav list the following information
to describe- tht' pto\·id~r and ~rvi~ providffi. name,
hight"St relevant academ1c dt'gree urn~ from a regionall~ accrt:'dited institution. date, type. and level of c-er·
tification or licensure, diplomat<' status, AP:\ me-mbership status. addre!>S. tt'lephone number, office hours. a
brief hsting of the type of ps~chological servicM offer~.
an appropriate presentation of fee information, foreign
l01nguages Sp<lken, and polic-y with regard to third-party
payments Additional relevant or important consumer
information mar bC" mc!uded if not prohibited b~ other
!ot'ctiom of th~ Ethical Principles
b In announcing or ad•·ertising_ the availabilit): of
psycholog1cal. p'roduCfs, publii.iiiOrls. of *r-~;jc~s.:,.psy::··
chologuts do not prt'Sent thrir affiliation ~fth' any or·
ganiution in a manner that falsely implies spon~rship
or ~rtification by that organiz.ation In particular and
for e.lample. psychologists do not state APA mt'mbenhip
or fdkw status in a ""a) to suggest that such status im·
plies speetah:z.ed prof6$ional competence or qualifica·
tioru. Public statements include, but are not limited to,
commumcation by means of prriodical. book. hst. directory, television, radto, or motion picture. They do not
contain (i) a false, fraudulent, misleading. deceptive, or
unfair statement: (ii) a misinterprrtation of fact or a
statement lilrly to mislead or deceive bt'cause in conte~t
it makes only a partial di~lruure of relev'ant facts, (iii)
a testimonial from a patient regarding the qu.ality of a
psychologists' services or products: (iv) a statemrnt intended or likely to create f01lsr or unjustified expeetations
of favorable results: (v) a statement implying unusual.
unique, or one-of·a·kind abiltti~. (vi) a statement in·
tended or like!> to appral to a client"s fears, amirties,
or emotions conC'C'rning the po!-Stble results of failure to
obtain the offrred services. {vii) a statement concerning
the compo~rative deslTOibilit> of offered srrvices, (viii) a
statement of direct solicitation of individual clients.
c. Psychologists do not comprmate or givto anything
of value to a representative of the press. radio, television.
or other communication medium in antlcipo~tion of or
in retum for professional publicity in a news item. A paid
advrrtisemrnt must be identified a.s such. unless it is apparent hom the context that it is a paid advertisement.
If communicated to the public by use of radio or television, an advertisement is prerecorded and appro,·ed
for broadcast by the psychologist. and a recording of the
actual transmission is retained by the psychologist.
d. Annount'f!ments or advertisements of '"personal
growth groups," clinic-s, and agencies give a clear state·
ment of purpose and a dear description of the e~peri­
en~s to be provided. The education, training, and e~­
perience of the staff members are appropriately specified
e. Psy<"hologists aSSOC"iated with the 'development or
promotion of psychological devi~. books. or other prod·
ucts offered for commercial sale make rea.sonable efforts
to ensure that announcements and advertisements are
pr~nted in a professional. scientificall) acceptablr, and
fa<"tually informative manner.
{. Psy<"hologists do not participate for personal gain
in commercial announcements or advertisements rec·
ommending to the public the purchase or use of proprietary or single-source products or serviC'C's when that
participation is based s.olel)· upon their identification as
psychologists
g. Psychologists present the science of ps)·cholog~ and
offer their services, products. and publications fairly and
accurately, avoiding misrepresentation through srns.ationalism, exaggeration, or superficiality. Psychologists
are guided by the primary obligation to aid the publ1c
in developing informed judgments, opinions. and choices
h. As teachers.' psychologists ensure that statements in
catalogs and course outlines are accurate and not misleading. particularly in terms of subject matter to be
covered, bases for evaluating progress. and the nature
of course e~periences. Announcements, brochures, or
advertisements describing workshops, seminars, or other
educational programs a<"curately describe the audience
for which the program is intended as well as e!igibt!ity
requirements, educational ob_iectives. and nature of the
matl:'riab to be covered These announcements als.o ac·
curately represent the education, training, and experience of the psychologists presenting the programs and
any fees involved.
i. Public announcements or ad,·erlisemrnts soliciting
research particlp<~nts in which clinical sen·ic-es or other
professmnal services are offered as an inducemrnt make
clear the nature of the ~n·ices as well a.s the costs and
other obligations to be accepted by participo~nts in the·
research.
j. A psychologist a~epts the obligation to com•-ct others who represent the psychologist"s professional qua!ihcations, or associations with products or ~rvices. in a
manner incomp<~tible with these guidelines.
k. lndi,·idual diagnostic and therapeutic ser,·i~s are
provided only in the context of a professional psychological relationship. When personal advice is given by
means of public lectures or demonstrations, newspo~per
or magazine articles, radio or television programs. mail,
or similar media, the psychologist utilizes the most current relevant data and e'ercises the highest le•·el of
professional judgment.
I. Products that are described or presented by meam
of public lectures or demonstrations, newspaper or mag·
azine art1cles, radio or television programs, or similar
media meet the same recognized standards as e~i~t for
products used in the conleKI of a professional relationship.
Principle
5
CONFIDESTI.,LITY
PsvchologUts have a primary obligation lo re~cl the
conjidentl41ity of infonntUlon obtained from pemms
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • JL~!"E 1981 • 635
,.,.
1..,:
!
!
b··
66
t'\1
1
r, :;:cm
In t~ course· of thnr work
tU psvchologi$ts. TMy rroeal
ruch tnfomwtien to othns cmly urlth the conunt of the
pnson Of the ~non's /~gal repres;entattvt', except in
thos~ unusual e1rcum.stances In uJhil:h not to do :o
would r~sult in clear dangN to the pn-scm Of to otMrs.
Where apprOf'rlate, PJIJChologiSts infQ1"ffl thdr clients
of the /ega/limits of confidentiality.
a. Information obtained in clinical or consulting r~­
lationships, or evaluative data concerning children, stu·
den!$, ~mployees, and others, is discuued only for profes·
sional pur~ and only with persoru clearly concerned
with theca~ \\'ritten and oral reports presenl only data
germane to the purposes of the e\·a!wtion, and ev~r)"
~ffort is made to avoid undue invasion of privacy.
b. Psychologist$ who pr~nt personal information obtained during the course of profes.sional work in writings,
lectures, or other public forums either obtain adequate
prior coruent to do so or adequat~ly disgui~ all identi·
fying information.
c. Psychologists make pro\·isions for maintaining con·
£i.dentialit}· in the storage and dispos.:~l of records.
d. When working with minors or other persons who
are unable to give voluntary, informed consent, psy·
chologists take special care to protect these persons' best
interests.
Principle 6
'WELF Al\f; OF THE COI'<SUMER
Psychologists respect the integrtty and protect tM wei·
fare of the Jll'ople and groups with whom they work.
When conflicts of interest arise between clie-nts and
psychologists' employing institutions, psychologiSts
clarify the nature and direction of the-lr loyalties and
responsibilihes and keep all parties infonned of tMir
commitments PsychologiSts fully infln'm consumtTs as
to the purpose and nature of an eua!uahoe, treatment,
educational, or training procedure, and they freely ac·
lmouAedge tlwt climts, students, or participants in re·
tearch Jwve frudom of choue u;tth regard to partici·
patwn.
a. Psychologi5t5art: continually cognizant of their own
needs and of their potentially influential po$ition vis-avis persoru such as clients, Jtudents, and subordinates
They avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of such
persons. Psychologists make every effort to avoid dual
relatioruhips that could impair their profes.sional judg·
ment or increa~ the risk of exploitation. Examples of
such dual relationships include, but are not limited to,
research with and treatment of employees, students, su·
pervisees, close friends, or relatives. Sexual intimacies
with clients are unethical.
b. When a psychologist agrees to provide service-s to
a client at the request of a third party, the ps)chologist
as.sumes the responsibility of cbrifying the nature of the
relationship~ to all part1es conc-erned.
c. Where the demands of an organiz.ation require psy·
636 • jL'I"E 1981 • AMERIC!•N PSYCHOLOGIST
chologisU to violate these- Ethical Principles. psychologists clarify the nature of the confiict tM:-tween the de·
mands and these principle-s. They inform all parties of
psychologUts' ethical responsibilities and take appropri·
ate "action
d. Psychologists make advance financial arrangements
that safeguard the~~ intere-sts of and are clearly under·
stood by their clients. They neither give nor receive any
remuneration for referring clients for professional ser·
vices. They contribute a portion of their services to work
for which they receive little or no financial return.
e. Psychologists te-rminate a clinical or consulting re·
lationship when it is re-a.s.onabl} clear that the consumer
is not benefiting from it. They offer to help the consumer
locate alternative 50urce:s of assistance.
Principle 7
PROFESSIO!'<AL RELA TIO:\SHIPS
PsychologiSts tu·t·with due regard jOf tM nee~. ~cwf
competcncit'.i, and obligations 'of {heir colleagues in
JUIJChology and otMr professions. They respect the pre·
T08atives and obligations of the institutions or orga·
ni:ali01'1$ u..1th which these other colleagues are a.sso·
ciated.
a. Psychologists understand the areas of competence
of related professions. They make full use of all the
professional, technical, and administrative r~urces that
serve the ~t interests of consumers. The absenc-e of
formal relationships with other professional workers dot'"5
not relieve psychologists of the tt!$ponsibility of se<>unng
for their clients the best pos.sible professional service, nor
does it relit've tht'm of the ob]jgation to exercise fore-sight.
diligence, and tact in obtaining the complementary or
alternative assistance needed by clients
b. Psychologists know and take into aceount the Ira·
ditions and practices of other professional groups with
whom they work and coo~rate fully w1th such groups
If a person is receh·lng similar service-s from anotht'r
professional. psychologists do not offer their own services
directly to such a per50n. If a psychologist is contacted
by a person who is already receiving sim1lar s.erv1ce-s
from another professional, the psychologist careful!) con·
siders that professional relationship and proceeds with
caution and sensitivity to the therapeutic issues as well
as the client's welfare. The psychologist di~us.ses these
is.sues with the client so as to minimize the risk of con·
fusion and conflict.
c. Psychologists who employ or supervise other profes·
sionals or professionals in training accept the obligation
to facilitate the further professiojlal development of these
individuals. They provide appropriate working condi·
tions, timely e\·aluations, constructive consultation. and
experienC'e opportunities
d Psychologists do not exploit their professional re·
lationships with clients. supervis.ees. students. emplo~«'S,
or research participants se~ually or otherwise Psycho!·
67
ogists do not condone or engage in sexual harassment
SC'xual haraMment is defined u deliberate or repeated
comments. gestures, or physical contacts of a sexual na·
ture th.at are unwanted by the recipient.
e In conducting r~arch in institutions or organiza·
lions, psychologUts se-cure appropriate authorization to
conduct. such r~arch. The~ are aware of their obliga·
tions to future research workers and ensure that host
institutions receive adequate information about the re·
search and proper acknowledgment of the1r contribu·
tions
f Public;tion credit is a~igned to those who have
contributed to; publication in proportion to their profes·
sional contributions MaJor contributions of a profes.sional
character made by several per~ms to; common project
are reeogni%ed by jomt authonhip. with the individual
who made the principal contribution listed first. Minor
contributions of a professional char;cter <~.nd e~tensive
clerical or similar nonprofession;I·<~.S.Sistance may be a.c·
lmo.,.,ledged in footnotes or iil an introductory statement.
Ackno .... ledgment through specific Citations is m;~de lor
unpublished as wdl as published material that has di·
recti} influenced the re5earch or writing. Ps~chologists
who compile and edit material of others for publication
publish the material in the name of the origmating group.
if appropriate, with their own name appearing as chair·
person or editor All contributors ;are to be acknowledged
a.nd named
g When psychologists know of an ethical violation by
another psychologist, and it S«ms appropriate. they in·
formally attempt to resolve the issue by bring~ng the
behavior to the attention of the psychologist. If the mis·
conduct is of a minor nature and/or ;~ppe;us to be due
to lack of sensitivity, knowledge, or t:tperience. such ~~~
informal solution is usually appropriate. Such informal
corrective efforts are made .... ith seruhivity to any rights
to confidentiality in~·olved. If the violation does not ~fl)
amenable to an informal solution. or is of a more ~now
nature. psychologists bring 1t to the attention of the appropriate local, state, and,'or national '"mmittee on
professional ethics and conduct.
Principle 8
ASSESSME!\T
TECH~IQUES
In the dei:>l'lopment, publication, and uti/i:ation of psy·
chologJcal assessment techniques, psychologiSts mGke
every effefft to promote the u;e/fare and ~st interests
of the client. T/u>v guard against the mtsuu of assess·
ment results. Thry respect the client's right to know
the results, the lnlerpreta/iom made>, and the- ba.ses for
their conclusions and recommendations. Psvchclogists
make eotrlj effart to rrn1mta1n the St'C11rity of tests and
other assessment uchniques IL'Ithin limits of leg(l/ rrn1n·
dates. They str1oe to ensurt the appropnate use of IJ.S·
sessment techniques by others.
a. In using asses.sment techniques, psychologists re·
spect the ri"ght of clients to have full e~planations of the
nature and purpose of the techniques in language the
clients can understand, unlffi an explicit exc-eption to
this right has be-en agreed upon in advance When the
explanations are to be provided by others, psychologists
establish procedures for ensuring the adequacy of these
explanations.
b. Psychologists responsible for the development and
standardization of psychological tests and other asses.s·
men! techniques utilize established scientifi< procedures
and observe the relevant APA standards,
c. In reporting asses.sment results. psychologists indi·
cate any reservations that exist regarding valid it}· or re·
liabilit} beeau5e of the circumstance$ of the ar.sessment
or the inappropriateness of the norms for the person
tt'$ted. Psychc-logists stnve to ensure that th~ results of
assenm~nts and the1r Interpretations are not misuS("d b}
othen.
d. Psychologists recogni%e that asses.sment results may
become obsolete They make e\·ery effort to a~·o1d and
pre,·ent the misu5e of obsolete measures.
e. Psychologists offering S<'Oring and interpretation
serv1res are able to produce appropriate evidence for the
validity of the programs and procedures used in arrivmg
at interpretations The public offering of an autom~ted
interpretatiOn 5-en·ice is considered a profe,ssior.. tcr
profes.sional consultation. Ps~cholog1sts make ever:• ef·
fort to a\·oid m1suse of asses.sment reports
f. Psychologists do not encourage or promote the use
of ps)'chological as.ses.sment techn1ques by inapprcr
priatel) tramed or otherwise unquoJ.lified persons through
tt:aching, sponsorship, or SUpE'f\·ision
Principle 9
RESEARCH \\'JTH
HU~tA~
PARTICIPA:-.;TS
The decu10n to undertake reuarch rests upon a con·
s1dered fudgment by the mdit'1dual psychologist about
how best to contribute to psychological sCience and hu·
rrn1n welfare. Having rrn1de the deC1Sion to conduct re·
search, the p~ychologut considers alternative directloru
In which research energies and resources mtght br In·
vested. On the basis of thi.s consideration, the psycho/·
agist carries out the tnwsligalion t~-'fth rtsptct and car1·
cern for the dignity and IL·elfare of tho> people u:ho
partlC'ipate and tdth cogni:ance of federal and state
regulations and professional standards got<errting the
conduct of research 1dth human participants
a In planning a stud), the investigator has the:' re-·
sponsibi!it~· to make a careful evaluation of its ethical
acceptability To the e:dent t!•at the weighing of scien·
lific and human \'alues suggests <1. c<!mpromise of an~
principle, thr investigator incurs a correspondmgl~ s.e·
rious obligation to se-ek ethical ad~·ice and to absent"
stringrnt s.afeguards to protect the ughts of human par·
ticipants.
b Considering whether a participant in a pl.annl'd
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • Jl'~E !981 • 63';'
,I,
~'
F:·
t'
68
,,,,
:/··
. :_;,
' s:
II
:·1
study will be a ''subject at ri~k" or a "subte<-t at minimal
risk." according to rc-cognlu-0 standards, is of pnmary
ethical conct'rn to the investigator.
c The investigator always retains the responsibility
for tonsuringt'thical practice in Tt"S('arch. Thr inv~tigator
is a\!.0 respons1ble for tht> t'lh1cal tre.atment of r~arch
~rhcipants by collaboraton. assistants, students. and
em!Jioyees. all of whom, ho.,.,heL incur sim1l.H obliga·
11om
d E~cept tn minimal-ns\.: research. the investigator
estabhshe~ a clear and f.m agreemt>nt with research par·
tlc1p.<nts. pnor to their part1C'1pat1on. that claribes the
obhgatJOns and responsibditJe~ of each. The investigator
hastht"obJ,g~tJon to honor aU prom1~sand commitments
induded m that agreement The JO\·estigator inform~ the
partictpants of all aspecu of the research that might rea·
sonabl:- he e~pecte<l to influ!:'nN." w·tllingnes.s to participate and ~,platn~ all other aspects of the research about
which tht- partictpants mqum· Fai\urr to mak~ lull disdosuroe- pnor to obtaming informt<d consent requires ad·
dit10na\ ~ft-guards to prot~ct tht> wt-lhr~ and digrut> of
t ht' rt'st'arc h p.u\lcipants. Resedrch "'ith childre.I!"Cir with
parttctpants who haH impairnienu "th;i\ ....:OUla'lir'nit un·· .
derst,~nc!mg and or communicatton require-s spe-cial 1ale·
guarding procedure-s.
e ~lethodological requirt'ments of a study may make
the ust' of con~:llment or dect'ptkn n('('es.s.ary. Before
conductmg such a stud~, the inve-stigator has a special
responsibilit~ to {il determine .... h!:'ther the use of such
techntques is )USttDed by the stud~ ·s prospe<:tive s<-ientil:ic. e-duc-ational. or applio:-d value: \ul determine whether
alternative procedures are a1·atlable that do not US(' con·
cealment or dt'(ept\On; and (iii) ensure that the partie·
tpanh are prov1dt"d with sufbcit'nl explanation as soon
as posstble
I The mvestigator respe<:ts the indwtdual's frt"t'<lom
to d<."dwe to parttopate tn or to wtthdraw from thereS('arch at an~ ttme Th!:' obligation to prote-ct this freedom
requttt"S cart"fulthought and ~·considt'ratton when the in·
vesll~ator is H1 a post\ ton of .aut horit~ or influence over
thf" p~rtic1pant Such posttlons of auth0nt} include, but
are not limited to. <IIU3ttons in whi..:h research par\ici·
palion is required .. s p3Tt of emp!o)ment or in which
the participant 1! a ~ttJdent. chent. or employee of thf"
invt>St1gator
g The mvestigator protects the participant from phys·
ka\ and mental dtscomfort. harm. and danger that may
ame hom reJ.earch procedure~ If risks of such conse·
qut'nces e,t~t.the investtg;,tor informs the ~rticipant of
that !.act. Rel.f'.:uch procedures likely to cau$e serious or
lastmg h.arm to a participant are not used unles.s the
lai!urt' to u~ these procedures mtght expose the partie·
tpanl to mk of greater harm. or unless the research has
grNt pot~nllal hene6t and full> informed and voluntar)·
cons..>nt 11 obtained from ~ach parhcipanl. The ~rtici·
pant should he inlorme'jl of procedures for rontacting
the 111\e~t1gator withtn a reasonable time period follow·
tn~ pdrltctpatton should stres.s. potential harm, or related
qut'sttons or concerns arise.
63.':> •
jt .... E 1981 •
AMERICA~ P~)'CHOLOCIST
h. After the data are rolleeted, the inve-stigator provide-s the pa-rticipant with information about the nature
of the study and attempts to remove any miSC'Onceptioru
that may h;ve arhen Where scientific or humane values
just if) delaying or withholding thi~ informal ton. the in·
ve-stigator incurs a special responsibihtr to monitor the
re5earch and to ensure that there are no damagmg con·
~uenN"s for tht' p<articipa.nt
i. Where research procedure-s result in undesirablt'
consequences for the indiv1dual partiCipant, the inves·
tigator has the responsibility to dete-ct and remuve Or
correct theS(' consequences, including long-term effe-cts
j. Information obtamed about a research part1c1pant
during the course of an investig;~.tion b confidential unle~
otht'r .... iS(' ;~.gred upon in advanct' When the possibtlit~
exisU that others may obtam acces.s to such informatton.
this pos.stbtlity, tog~ther with the pb.ns for protectmg
conDdentt.ality, is upl;~.med to the participant as part of
the procedure for obtaining informed roru.ent
Principle 10
CARE A:"\D USE OF
A~IMALS
An int>t"stlgator of animtJI bchat.-,or slrit-.es to adl-.ance
understanding of basic bcluwioral prinCiple$ and/or to
contribute to the improuement of humt1n health and
welfare In seeking these tnd5, the tnvest1gatOT ensures
the u.~lfare of antmt1~ and treats them humt1nely. Lau-s
and regulatiOns notu>tthstandmg, an ammaf"s 1mme·
diaJC protect (On depends upon the scientist's own con·
Scif'nCe.
a The acquisition. care, use, and dispm;t-1 of all ;~.m·
mals are in compliance with current federal, st;~.te or
provincial. and local laws and regulations
b. A psycbo!og1st tr;~.ine<l in research methods and
e~perienc-ed in the care of l:i.boratory ammab closely
supervi5t'S all procedures in"oking animals and is responsible for ensuring appropriate constderalion of the1r
comfort. hc3lth. and hum01nt' treatment
c. Psycholog1sts ensure that alltndividu;~.]s u~mg ani·
mals under thetr supervision have receive<! e~pHcit m·
struchon in experimental methods and in th!' care, mam·
tenance, ;~.nd handling of the spe·C!es being uS('d
Respomib1litiesand acth·ilies of individuals p.artlcipating
in a rese01rch proje-ct are ronmtent with their respe-ct1'e
competencies.
d. Psychologists make every effort to minimize dis·
comfort, illness. and pain of animah. A pro«"dure subjeCting animals to pain, stres.s. or pri"atton is used only
when ;~.n alternative proce<lure is unavailablt' and the
goal is justified by its prospecth·e scientific, education;~.\,
or apphed v01lue Surgtcal procedures .are performed un·
der appropriate anesthesia. techniques to avoid inft"Ctton
and m1n1milt' pain are followt"d during and after sur·
gery
e. \\'hen it is appropriatt" that the ammal's life ~
terminated, it 1s done rapid!) and p.atnles.sl~
r
APPENDIX B
ENFORCEMENT:
BYLAWS OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION (1980)
t
70
ENFORCEMENT
Bylaws of the
American
Psycholo~icol
Associat1.on
(1980)
Article II
18-20
18 A
member m3y. be dropped from membership or oth·
erwsse disciphntd for conduct which tends to InJUre the Au.o·
ciat1on. or to llfl'ect adverse!)· llS reputation. or which is con·
trar~ to or destructive of its object. Allcgatioru of inJurious
conduct shall be submitted to the Comrniuee on Scientific
and Profess1onal Ethics and Conduct {hereinafter "Ethics
Committee"). The Ethics Committee Wall investigate the
conduct of any member which rai~ a question of a violation
of the Ethical Standards of the Auociation. whether or not
specific allegations an: submitted. and determine whether the
matter sh~o~ll be dropped or di$posed of informalty (su~:b u by
the establishment of a period of probation under fil'>ed terms
agreed to b) the member~ or whether fonn;~l charaes d!all
be filed.
If the Ethics Committee detennines tO file fonnal charges,
a copy of the chaft!:es and the recommendation of the Ethir;,
Commiuee 5hall be ~t to the member and to the President
of the Auociation. Withm thirty day1 after the member re·
cetYes il cop~· uf the chuses agatnst him, he hu the right to
notify the Pre$ident or the Au~X:iauon requestins a hearina
on the ch~r!lc5. If, within the thiny-<la)' period. the member
do~ request .. hcarins. the President d!allselect a panel of
not fe,.cr than 5even members of the Auociation, none of
whom shall have had any prior connection with the case..
from whom the member shall choose a Hearins Committee
of five to hear the charges agamst him. Prior to the hcarins
the member shall be proYidcd with copie~ ofal! document~ in
full and the name-s of all witnCM¢S that will be offered in support of the charses. At the h~ring before the Hearing Com·
mittce the evidence in support of the charges shall be
pres.cnted by a representative of the Ethics Committee and
the member shall have full opportunity to answer the charges
and to be repre-sented by counseL The h~rins rna>· be 11d·
joumed as neces~r) and the Ethics Committtf! may inttoduce rebutlal evtdence. The members of the Hearing
Comminc-c shall not discuu the cue with anyone associated
with the Ethics Committtf!, other than at the formal h~rin@.
If the HC<~.ring Committee reeommends that the member
be expelled or othetWlde disciplined, or that the member be
penni ned to resign. the matter shall be referred to the Board
of Dtrectors After the HearinB Committ« has submitted ltl
recommendlltion~ to the Board of Directors. the Board shall
tender 1ts decision withtn a period of two months after the
next ref!:ular\y scheduled meeting of the Board. The member
shall be enutled to file a written statemetll wnh the Board of
Directors, ;~.nd 1f he does $0, the EthiC$ Committee may file a
responswe statement. After consideration of the record and
the recommendatton of the Hearing Committee and any
statements that ma:r be filet!, the Boan:i of Directors sh11ll
adopt the tt'ommcndatton of the Hearing Commiu« unlcu
lo) the Ethic~ I Standlltds of the Association haYe been incor·
recti~· applied. {b) the finding of facts of the Hearinf!: Commlltee are not supporlcd by the evtdence or, (c) the procedures followed were m serious violation of the Bylaws of the
AS$0Ctation. H. withm thirt) da~s. the member doc~ not
rcquc~t a hearins before a Hearmg Committc-c. the matter
shall be referred to the Board of Directors and the rccom·
mendatton of the Ethtcs Committee shall be treated a~ the
recommendatton of a HC<~.ring Committee.
The Board of Directof" shall mform the member ~nd. m
1\S dtscretion. m11~ inform the compl11tn~nt of tts linal action.
and it shall repon annu.ally and m uecutiYe SC'5Ston to the
Council of Representatives the nilme~ of the members who
haYe been allowed to resign or who huve b«n dropped and
the ethte<~l principles involved. The Bo:.&rd of Oire,tors sh;.~ll
report annu~ll:r and in ..:onfidc:n<.'C tu the mcmh<.!rship the
names uf members who haYe been drupped illnd the ethical
princtples invo\Yed. When the Board of Dtrectors deems tl
necessary for the protection of the Association or of the pub·
lie. or when it deems it nete$S.Ir:· to maintain the nandards
of the mem~hipofthe Association. it s~laJso notify af·
filiated state and regional associations, the American Board
of Professional Psychology. and state/local licensing and
certificauon boards of itS final action. Other interested pat·
ties may be notified of final acuon when. in the optnton of the
Board of Directors, notification is nece-ssary for the protec·
tion of the public.
19. A. person who has been dropped from membership or
permitted to rcsipt under the conditions del.Cribed in Stttion
18 may reapply for membership only After fiye years haYe
.. elapm:Urom the date of the temnnation of his membership
·and-Upoii showing that he is ec.hically a.s well as tcchnic:~Hy
qualified for membership. His rupplicauon shall be constd·
crcd tint by the Committee on Scientific and Profmion~l
Ethics and Conduct, which shall make rccommendatton to
the Mcmbershtp Committee.
20. R.eaignations or members may be accepted only by the
Board of Directors. Tbe Board of Directors may. tn its discretion, rcfu&e to accept a resignation tendered by a member
apinsc whom a fonnal charge is pending pursU<tnt to Article
11. Section IR of the Bvlaw~.
.;
,it
~'l
'l
h
I
.'
' _.;;,
;) XIGN3:ddll
72
PROPOSED SY THE TASK FORCE ON
ETHICS SYSTEM PROCEDURES
(APA)
LE\~LS
Septet:'lber, 1981
& S~~CTIONS
Gerold Koocher
P. Keith-Spiegel
Lewis Klebonoff
Level I
This level would deal essentially with malu~ prohibitum offenses;
that is to say, behavior ~hich is wrong because it is proscribed in
the code of ethics as contrasted to behavior wh!~h is inherently evil
or involving ::oral turpitude.
·
Category IA would involve behavior which might be in poor taste,
involve an arguable
point~
or simply be
11
Stupid" in light of prevail-
ing standards. No malicious intent c~n be ascribed to the psychologist
in question. and CSPt;C can ·respond by educating the individual or suggesting better manners, etc., as· needed.
Category IB carries !A a step further in the sense that the behavior
is unquestionably inappro?riate and offensive in some sense. Still.
CSPtC has the sense that the offense is a relatively minor one, that the
individu~l in question may not fully have realized ~he nature of the
problem, and that a solely educative stance is still warranted. This
might .include advertising infractions, inappropriate public statements
of some sort, mild uncolleagiality, etc. A 11 cease and desist" notice
clearly identifying the fact that th!s could lead to a more serious finding if continued ~auld be sent ~ith the educative letter of !A.
Level II
I
This level ~nd level III involve malum in se offenses, that is to
say, beha\•ior "Which is in itself unethi'Ca"l"invie.... of the professional/
scientific co~unity. this category is reached only ~hen CSPEC findsthat a substantive ethical violation did indeed occur. In level li
offenses the practicioner or scientist clearly should have "kno'".rn better"
although the action or inaction did not result in any substantial harm
beyond remedy. "Reprimand" is the more mild sanction and "Censure" the
more severe.· Each should be applied with an appropriate educational or
remedial dCtion when indicated.
"''
Mediating factors might include the seniority of the psychologist
(e.g. a very junior member of the profession might be regarded ~ith more
tolerance than a veteran), the individ~al's motivation (i.e., ignorance,
carelessness, or intent to harm), history of prior complaints, attitude
of respondent, and whether or not the respondent has initiated remedial
action him/herself.
Remedial steps assigned by CSP!C might include financial restitution, supervision, referral for psychotherapy, .mandated apology, or even
':f!'
ll
73
'
11
~omework
assignments" or assignments to specific continuing education
courses.
Level lli
This level involves substantial ha~ to others as a resuit of the
respondent's behavior. The same mediating factors noteq above would tend
to portray the respondent as less prone to rehabilitation or the offense
as more serious and injurious to the public. In some cases it would be
appropriate to permit resignation with stipulations, while in other cases
expulsion may be invoked as the ultimAte -sanction. 'these Sallctions may be
used educatively when appropriate by the use of "stayed" or "suSpended''
sanction. For e,;ample, an ind;vidual might be told that their "expulsion"
will be recommended, but that this will be stayed for a period of time
while they demonstrate their sincere good faith in remediating the situation as specified.
A stipulated resignation might include provisions for reinstatement
as part of the stipulation. For example, "you will be pernitted to resign
if you do X and Yill not be permitted to re-join APA until you have done Y
and z·." Stipulated resigna'tion is preferable to expulsion for some individuals since, under current procedures only those "expelled" are made kno"'-n
to the full APA membership.
These levels are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1
; i
Levels of Ethical Sanctions and Categories
Sanction
Rationale/Mediating Factors
Educative Advisory
Not clearly unethical, but in poor
taste or insufficiently cautious, this
offense might fall in "gray arens" or
deal Yith newly emerging issues and
problems.
Educative Warning
A "cease and desist 1' notice frcr.1 CSPEC
might ac~ompany A find~g that a mild or
miner infraction had occurred. This might
include advertising infTuctions and minor
or unintentional cisrepresentation.
'
r
74
Jf··::!
r
r
r
Table l
r
Levels of Ethical Sanctions and Categories
{continued)
r
~
Sanction
FO~'~L
r
Rationale/Mediating Factors
DISAPPROVAL !MPLltS LtvtLS II OR Ill
Level
r
~!
IIA
Reprimand
A finding of clear ethical misconduct, ~hen the psychologist should
have kno~~ better, ~lthough the
consequences of the action or
inaction may have been minor.
Censure
Deliberate or persistent behavior
which could lead to substantial harm
to th~ client or public, Although
no harm ~ay actually have accrued.
Stipulated
Continuing or dramatic misconduct
producing &enuine hazard to clients,
the public, and the profession; questionable ~otivatian to change or
demonstrate concern for the behavior
in question. May include "no reapplicat1o~11 stipul!tion.
<•
><'
~:
~:
r
c:
{
... [
level
IIB
0:!
r
LeVel
IliA
Resign~tion
Level
liiB
Expulsion
(dropped from
membership)
lndividual clients substanti~lly
injured vith serious questions about
the potential Tehabilitation of the
psychologis< in question.
tri'ELS AND SANCTIONS R:ELA'l'l:D TO TilE 1981 E'l'HICAL PRINCIPLES
It is understood that there may be in any particular case circumstances
These circurnstences could include the psychologist's remorse and attempts at rehabilitation, the potential for harm of
the alleged offense, the possible maliciousness of the action, insanity.
~hich may be mit18At1ng.·
Turther 1 while this document "ddresses the s~nction OT range of
sanctions related to specific infractions, it must be reaembered that the
w
[1;',•
~
75
r
;
!1
~
~,,
;;r,v
'"!:
non-acceptance by the psychologist of an offered sanction in an informal
resolution by the Committee could move the possible sanction to a higher
(more severe) level.
In Summary form, the Levels are as follows:
Level I
Educational Remedy (!A-Educational Advisory;
IB-Educational Warning)
Level l i
"Remedy" of Formal Disapproval (!!A-Reprimand i
liB-Censure)
Level lll - Resignation/Dropping frorn Membership (IliA-Stipulated
Resign.!."t'iori'r IIIB-recommendation for dropped
membership)
PTear.1ble
Lack of Coooeration vith the Committee
Level IB
Principle l -- R!SPONSIBILI!Y
I.a Does not suooress dataj differentiation
between IIA and liB made on the basis of
the degree of suppression and the intent.
Does not take credit for other's Work
-Legitimate dispute vith colleagual
consult.
-Dispute without effort to resolve
-Plagarism -- amount plagarized, and
degree of malice determines difference between the two levels.
Level ll
Level IB
Level IIA or IIB
Level II or Level III
I.b Does not misuse data (or questions of
ownership of data or of data collection
techniques)
Little harm done
Harm or potential harm
Level IB
Level IIA
I.e Does not distort/suppress data; differ-
entiation between Level IB and IIA
depends upon the amount of damage which
is done
I.d This is a "loophole closer"i infractions
could go the entire range of Levels;
elaborated more in Principle III.d
Level IB or Level IlA
L
76
I.e Teacher responsibility
First Offender (level moves up Yith
repeated offenses)
I.f Social ResPonsibilitv (The degree of
damage determines the level)
-Types/degrees of damage: loss of
acade~ic credit, mental anguish,
loss of job/school enrollment.
poor treatment/referral or inappropriate hospitalizationt loss of
child custody/vi~itation, death of
r
Level IB
Levels IIA to IIIB
I''
patie~t.
I
Principle II -
'I
COHPE!ENCE
i
11
Preamble; "Recognize areas of competence/
qualifications -- use a 11 cease and de:sist
letteru or more severe Level depending
upon the degree.
li.a Accuratelv ·rePresents ed'n/trn/etc.
-Naive, inadvertant misrepresent~tion
-Malicious or dissembling representation (could, if continued, be~
Level IB
Level IIB
Level III).
II.b Does not teach ~ithout adeouate/
·scholarlv preoaration
II.c
in Continuin2 Education
(besically unadjudicatable )
Enga~es
Level IB
Level IA
ll.d Recognizes ind/cultural/S.E./sexual
differences and, ~hen necessary,
obtain training; Level depends on
the degree of da~age
Level IA to IIB
II.e Testing Competence; Level depends oo
degree of public harm (minpr damage
to lethality)
Entire Range of Levels
ll.f "Sick Docto!' 11 ; Level depends on tbe
consequences and the intention.
Entire Ranse of Levels
Principle Ill -- MORAL AND LEGAL
S!~~DARDS
Preamble
Entire Range of Levels
III.a Tel'!.chers' \"alues and "taste"
Level IA or Level IB
..
/!.'
l
77
III.b Does not enRage in inhumane, illegal
or unjustifiable practices (violation
of hiring/firing/promoting); there
may be rare cases where there could be
a level III sanction)
Level IA to Level IIB
III.c Does not engage in Civil Rights
violations; Level determined by
degree of naivite or maliciousness
Entire Range of Levels
t
III.d Practitioner/researcher follovs APA
Guidelin·es and Governmental Regulations.
This is a "loophole c:1oser 11 and is
non-adjudicatable.
Principle IV -- PUBLIC
STATE~~NTS
Preamble and all aections except IV.k
Level lA to liB
IV.k Diagnostic/therapeutic services
through the media could go to Level III
for repeated offenses
Level IA to liB
Principle V -- CONFIDENTIALITY
Preamble and all other sections. Level on
first offense depends upon the intent and
severity of the offense. For repeated
violations, the Level could become a
Level Ill.
Level IB to Level liB
·:1
Principle VI -- WELFARE OF THE CONSUMER
Level IA to liB
Preamble
VI.a Does not enRage in dual relationships.
exploitation. sexual intim.
-exploiting trust and dependency,
e.g~, professor making "sel'fs"
out of students. Level depends
on nature of the exploitation.
-Dual Relationship-IA is raTe; Level
on the differential degree of
exploitation by the psychologist
or the psychologist's amount of
impaired judgement (if any) as a
function of the dual relationship
Level IB to level IlB
· Entire Range of Levels
.... ___ ,
[!!
!I
78
-Sexual Intimaciesj while these cases
r
Level III
are always Level III, mit{gating
circumstances could include
remediation, self-recognition,
attempts at therapeutic rectification, and degree of physical involvement.
\'l.b Third Partv
Clarific~tion;
could have more
Level IA or Level IB
severe sanction if repeated
VI. c Takes actioft when or2ani·Zational dem.mds
reguire th~'t the Ethical Pr~:-~ci?les be
abridged. This is probably a 11 loophole
Level IB or Level llA
closer" and for the use of the psychologists themselves.
.;
'
·
VI.d Clarification of fees and does not engage
in fee-splitting. Could be a liB if it
were persistent.
Level IA to level IIA
Vl.e
Level IB to Level !!B
Ter~inates non-productive treatment and
mal<es referral.
Principle VII -- PROFESSIONAL RELA!IONSH!PS
Preamble
Level IA to Level l!A
VII.a Recognizes comoetence of related
profession
Level !!A (inadvertant)
Level liB (intentional)
VII.b Recognizes traditions of Other
Professions; "client stealin2";. Could
Level IA or Level !B
be a Level !!A or Level liB if there
is active, intentional belittling
or disparaging of others
VII.c Provides 8deguate Supervision/
working conditions
Level lA to Level liB
Vli.d Does not engage in exoloitation,
sexual or otherwise, or sexual
harass~ent.
Level depends upon the
conditions and consequences of the
exploitation or harassment.
Level IIA to Level IIIB
Vll.c Secures Research Authorization; on
rare occasions could be a IIA
Level IA to Level IB
f!.!
'r
79
'
.
w
VII.! Approoriate publieation credit is given;
could go to more severe level if per-
Level lA to Level IIA
sistent.
VII.g.Tal(s to possible comolainees about
infractions.
...
Principle VIII -- ASSESS~IO:! !ECll.'llQUES
PreaMble:
client
Level IA
Pror.:ote '•'elfare/best in_terests of
~ of client to know results
(See V1,11.al
Level IA to Level I1B
-maintain confidentiality/security
-guard against misuse of results. The
Level depends on the severity.
Level Ill would relate to repeated
or recalcitrant behavi~rs
Level lA to Level IIA
Level IB to Level liB
Vlii.a Right to have exolar.ation of test
Level IA to Level IlA
~
Vlll.b Scientific basis for test develooment
Level lA to Level llA
Vlii.c QualifyinR statements regardin2 tests
_and guard aeainst misuse bv others.
Level IA to level liB
VIII.d Cse of Obsolete ~!easures (in extreme
cases could go to a Level llA)
Level IA to Level IB
VIII.e Scoring and
Inter~retative
Services
VIII.f Encouraein2/Promotine testing by
inaopropriate persons.
Level IA to Level IB
Level lA to Level IB
Principle IX -- RESEARCH ~l!H HU}~ PART1C1PA.~S
Preamble
Level lA to Level l!A
IX.a Research protects human values and is
ethically acceptible
Level IB
1X.b Determination of "at risk" level; may be
higher Level where some risk actually
occurred.
Level lA to Level liB
IX.c Responsibilitv for all resea·rch colleagues
This is a "loophole closer 11 and not used
by itself.
1·~,..:·1
80
J
IX.d Has reseaTch contract 1 honors it 2
and debriefs
Level lA to Level l!S
lX.e AE£ropriate use of concealment
Level IA to Level IlA
IX.f Individuals have right to decline to
,E.articioate
Level IA to Level Ill
lX.g Protects S 1 s from Ehvsical/mental
disco~fort, har~, or danger.
Level IB to Level Ill
IX.h Debriefin£ and assuring no darna2in2
consecuences. Level depends upon the
degree of damage.
Level lB to Level 111
IX.i Responsibilitv to detect and remove
undesirable conseouences. Level is
dependent upvn the degree of unrlesirable conseQuences: (Level IB if they
should and are willing to make efforts
to detect and remove; Level 11 or Ill
if they refuse to respond or if ~fforts
are inadequate).
Level lB to Level II
lX.j Con!identiali tv of research informa-
Level IA to Level
l~B
..ti.£!1
Principle X -- E:ARE AND l'SE OF ANU!ALS
Preamble -- general rhetoric and stage
setting.
X.a Follows local lat.•s (Level Ill would be
Level IA to Level liB
appropriate if there were a felony
eonvie~ion).
X.b Consideration of animals' health, corn-
Level IA to Level llA
fort, and hu:-nane treatment. (Could be
Level l!B if persistent.) Also covered
under Competence and ResPonsibility
Principles (Principles I and Ill
X.c Responsibilitv for supervision of
elT.nlovees.
This is a "loophole clause"
'
X.d
discomfort, illness and oain;
n.b., there are two separate issues
here, one of research usage and the
other of general care.
Mini~izes
X.e Terminates animals rapidlv and painlesslv; s Level 111 here would be
~ated with a repeated offense Dnd
associated with a violation of
Principle X.C.
Level IB to Level III
Level IB to Level III
\
(!:3:J.J.:3:'1 <!:3:1\0;)
a
XIGN:!IddV
I
.
82
)~:·
c
CAUFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. NOR1HRIDGE
Norlhridg<1. Cal"omia 91330
Department o! Psychology
(213) 885·2827
January 26, 1983
Dear Colleague:
Increasing interests in and concerns about ethica1 infractions and
decision-making are emerging among professional psychologists. I
have chosen this subject for my thesis research and would greatly
appreciate your assistance. Your name has been selected at random
from the 1981 APA Directory. The questionnaire takes less than five
minutes to fill out.
My thesis chairperson, Dr. Patricia Keith-Spiegel, and I are cooperating
on this mailing. Dr. Keith-Spiegel has a special interest in psychology
and the media. A systematic survey of psychologists' opinions of advice
given via media channels has never been undertaken. This brief questionnaire is also enclosed (and is not related in any way to my form).
A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience to
expedite return of both questionnaires. If you could get the completed
questionnaires back~us ~~~possible, it would greatly facilitate
our work.
Thank you so much in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
JhON!Yl /JctfW,
Sharon Haber
Graduate Student
Psychology Department
SH/j en
P.S.
Please contact us if you would like a summary of the results of
either or both research studies. These should be available by
1ate Spring 1983.
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGES
~
.II
SNOiiliVI~VA
LZ dO
3: XIGNS:ddV
\.
'
iliSI~
84
\'
Sex:
Male
___Female
Years of professional experience_ _
Jm!ICS DECISION MAKING SURVEY
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an ethics coumittee. ~suming
that the conduct described actuall occurred, please rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and select the sanction yOu.betieve is the moat appropriate
based on the information supplied.
An
ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist placed an
ad in a local newspaper which read, "If you are depressed or anxious, I
may be of help."
The ad was construed
?Y
the complainant as a violation
of the ethical responsibilities regarding client solicitation.
I.
On a scale from 1•7, circle the D:Jlttlber that represents your judgement of
the level of seriousness of the activity described.
1
2
not at all
aerioos
3
4
moderately
aericoa
5
6
7
extremely
aerious
Il'. Following is a list of 7 deciaions representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological Atsociation ethics committee listed in order of
severity. Please~ the aanction you consider most appropriate for the
case description noted above.
1.
C&se does not warrant any further action or sanction.
2.
Educative-advisory: Educational information sent to psychologist advising
more appropriate waya of handling the 1ame situaticm. next time.
3.
Educative warning: Same as above but would include a clear warning which
could lead to a =ore serious finding if the activity continaed.
4.
Repri=and: A letter sent to the psychologist stating that psychologist
1hould have known better. Copy placed in the paychologist's file.
5.
Censure: Similar to above but might ~lso include offering financial re·
stitution to complainant, mandated supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments or assign·
=ents to specific continuing education cocrses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: Rec~ndatiou that psychologist be dropped from
APA membership. May include provisions for reinstatement after a specified
amount of time.
7.
Expulsion: Recommendation that psychologist be expelled from the APA.
individual members and state licensing boards notified of action.
All
~~f
85
'
\I
~I
Sex:
_ _ _Male
Female
Years of professional experience
ETI!ICS DEC IS ION MAKING SURVEY
--
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an ethics commit~ee. A3snming
that the conduct described actually occu~~~~' please rate the seriousness of
the infraction and select the sanction you believe is the moat appropriate
based on the information supplied.
An ethics conmittee received a complaint that a psychologist had
placed an advertisement in a local newspaper which read, "If you are
depressed or anxious, I may be of help."
complain~nt
The ad was construed by the
as a violation of the ethical responsibilities regarding
client solicitation.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the:psychologist was
~
outraged over the charge, sau nothing wrong with the ad, and claimed that
how one promoted business was no one else's business.
I. On a scale from. 1-7, circle the number that repretenta: your judgement of
the level of seriousness of the activity de$cribed.
1
2
not at all
serioas
3
4
moderately
eerioas
s
6
7
extremely
serious
Ir.
Following is a list of 7 decisions representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological Association ethicS committee listed in order of
eeverity. Please~ the sanction you consider meet appropriate for the
case description noted above.
1.
C&ae does not warrant any further action or sanction.
2.
Educative-advisory: Educational information tent to psychologist advising
more appropriate ways of handling the same situation next time.
3.
Educative warning: Same as above but would include a clear warning which
could lead to a more eerioaa finding if the activity continued.
4.
Reprimand; A letter sent to the psychologist stating that psychologist
should have known better. Copy placed in the peychologist•a file.
S.
Cenaure: Similar to above but might also include offering financial restitution to complainant, mandated supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments or aasignmenta to specific continuing education courses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: Recommendation that psychologist be dropped from
APA membership. May include provisions for reinstatement after a specified
~t of t~.
7.
Expulsion: Recommendation that psychologist be expelled from. the A:PA.
individual members and state licensing boarda notified of action.
All
86
Sex:
_____Male
_____Female
Years of professional experience_____
!TIIICS DEC IS lOll MAltiNG SURVEY
Below 1• a brief deacriptioa of a complaint to an ethica committee. ~scming
that the conduct described actua11 occurred, ple .. e rate the aeriousnesa of
t e
raction and aelect the aanccion YOU'believe it the UI08t appropriate
I
bued on the information au.pplhd.
An ethics co;n."":littec received a complaint that a psychologist had
placed an advertisement in a local newspaper \<thich read, "If you are
depressed or dnxious, I may be of help .. "
c~plainant
The ad was construed by the
\i
as a violation of the ethical responsibilities regarding
l
client solicitation.
Upon b£>ing contacted by thC'
co~ittee,
the psychologi.<:t apologized
'~auld
for the tone of the acl and promi5cd that this
never happen again.
I. Oa. a ecale from 1·7, circle the Dlllllber that repruenu 1oar judsaa.o.t of
tbe laval of eerioaauee• of the &ctivity ducribed.
,
l
2
oot at all
eerioaa
3
4
5
6
IOO<Ieratoly
11riou.1
7
axtr-ly
aeriou•
Following 11 a lilt of 7 deci.liOM repr .. entins the actual ODU available
to the ~rican Peycboloaical Aeaociation ethic• committee lilted in order of
eeverity. Plu.Ja .:.!!:£.!! the lan.ctioa you cOOJider .aet appropriate for thtl
cue ducriptioa aoted above.
Il".
1.
Cue doe1 not warrant any further action or I&DCtion.
2.
!ducative-advuory:
.ore appropriate
3.
ldacative warning: Same u above but voald iDclude a clear waraius: which
could lead to a aore aariou. findina: if the activity continued.
4.
bprimand: A letter aent to the paycholoailt atatiua: that paycholosiat
ahould have kn0V11 bettor. Copy placad in tho peycholosiot'a fila •
.5.
Cenaure: Siailar to above hut aiaht al.lo inclade offerina fiD.aDCial ra•
atitution to complainant, •ndated 1apervbion, referral of paychotoght
for paychotherapy, a maudated apoloay or homework aaaianmenta or aa1i;n•
•nta to apacUic coatinuing adacatioa coareu.
6.
infonu.tion 10nt to paycholo&iat advuiq
w.,.. Educational
of handliaa tbe ea.e lituatioo oext time.
Stipulated ruign.&tion: l.ecCX~~~DeUdatioa that paychologiat be dropped froca.
May iDcluda proviaiOM for rai.nlt&tement after a •pacified
UA Mmberabip.
..aunt of time.
7.
&xpalaion: B.acc:x~~Mndatioo. that peycbologilt be expelled from th• APA.
individual member• and atate licen.eina boar~ notified of a.cticm.
All
!'!
87
Sex:
___Male
___Female
Years of professional experience_ _
!TlllCS DEC IS IOII IIAONG SURVEY
Below it a brief detcription of a complaint to an ethict committee. Assumins
that the conduct described actuall occurred, ple .. e rate the aeri~neet of
t e
raction and telect the tancctonYOO'believe 1a the tl08t appropriate
baaed on the tnformation tupplied.
An ethics cor:l!:"littce received a complaint that a psychologist "'ho had
be;~n
in private practice for 15 years had placed an advE'.rtisement in a
loc.al nev:spap~~ which read, "If you ar.e depr_essed or anxious, I may be of
h-:-lp, 11
!hC' ad ,,•as construE'd by the complainant as a violation of the
nthical responsibilities regarding client solicitation,
OG a tcale from 1•7, circle the D:mber that reprumu JOQr judaemant of
tho level of aeriooonata of the activity d&acriba4.
I.
,
2
1
4
3
DOt at all
5
6
IIOCiaratoly
aer:l.oaa
aerioua
7
extr... ly
aerioul
following it: a lUt of 7 deciaiont repr81enting the actual oa.u available.
to the American Paychological A4sociatioa ethic• committee liatad 1n order of
Ir..
••verity.
Pleua
~
the aanctioa yoa COQ.Iider aoe t approprUte for the
caae deecriptioa aoted above.
1.
Cue do.. not warrant any further action or aanction.
2.
Edacetive•a4viaory: E4acational in!Ol'lll&tian aent to paycboloaiat adviaiq
eore appropriate •111 of handltna tbe aame aitutioa naxt tt.a.
3.
ldacative warning:
Same u
above but voa.ld lDc:lude a clear warning wbicb
could laad to a .ore aeriout finding if the activity coatiaaed.
4.
bprimand: A letter aent to the paycboloaiat atating that psycholoat.t
abauld have known bettor. Copy placed in the paycbaloaut'a file.
'·
Cauure:
Sia.U.ar to above. but ai&ht alao include offarina finan.cial ra•
atitutioa to compl.&i.u.nt, •nd&tad lapervbion, referral of peyc.holoa11t
for ,-ychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework a11i;nmenta or asaianMnta to apeci.fic caatizmina aclucatioa courae1.
6.
Stipolato4 rui-tiOD: l.ee......n4atiaa that paycbologiat be 4rOJ>ped from
UA lliembenbip. May f..Dclude proviaioo.a for ra:Lnatatement after a apacifiad
- t of tt-.
7.
Expa.lsicnn llecoaaend&tioa that paycbolosiat be expel lad. froca tha APA.
t.ndivid.ua.l membara and atate licena1.n.g boardll notified of action.
All
!'!
'
88
~'
lll•
Trtl
;!~\
Sex:
_ _ _Male
___Female
YeArs of professional experience
!TIIICS DEC IS lOll MAKING SURVEY
-
Below la a brief detcriptioo of a complaint to an ethic• committee. Aasuming
at the conduct described actually occu~!..~. • pleaae rate the aarioaanest of
e infraction and aelect the sanction you
1• the moat appropriate
ba~ad. on the Wormatioa
An ethics com::nittee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
only recently completed training and licensure had placed an advertisement
in a local ne\~.~paper \·.!hich read,
be of help.
11
If you are. depressed or anxious, I may
The ad ~.·as construed by the complainant as a violation of
0
the ethical responsibilities regarding client solicitation.
I. Oil a Ieala frOIIIi 1•7, circle the QWIIber that repr .. enta your ju.daemant of
the level of aerioaaa..• of the activity daacribe4.
1
'
2
oot at all
••riCKJI
3
4
1104erataly
1erioaa
'
6
7
extr-l;r
1eriou1
Ir.. Following 1.1 a lilt of 7 deciliooa repreaeuting the actual oau available
to the American Paychological Aeaoc1at1oa ath~S committee liate4 in order of
aaverity. Please ill.£.!! the l&netioa 7oa COG.Iider DOlt appropriate for the
cue ducriptioa DOted above.
1.
Cue doee not warrant any further action or l&oetiOil.
2,
!dacative•advuory: Educational inlor'llllltion aont to paycholoaiat advUiD&
.ora appropriate ,.,.. of handling the tame li~tioa next tiae.
3.
ldocative varuiug: Same aa above but would include a clur w.rnina: which
could laad to a -r• aorioa.o UndiD& it tha activity contimad,
4.
loprl.mand: A letter oent to the peycholoaut otetiDg thet paycholo1i1t
ohould hevo known bettor, Copy placed in tho po;rcholo1iat'a fila,
5.
Cauura: Siailar to above bat ai.ght alao iaclade offer:f.ns finaacial reJtitution to coazpUinant 1 Mnc!ated aupervilioa 1 refer.Tal of paycholoaiat
for paychotharapy, a mand&ted apology or homework aa•ianmentl or aa•ian•nta to apecific coatiDOira& aducatioo coaraea.
6.
Stipolated ruianation: lecoaaend.atioo that piJChologiat be dropped from
ARA IM!IIber•hip. May include Proviliooa for reia.ltatemea.t after a apecified
- t of tiae,
7,
Expullion: locOIIliiiOnd&tioa thet poychologiat be axpellad froca tho UA,
individual me:dlera &IUi ttata liceuina boardl notified of action.
.Ul
I
89
'
'
'
-~w
Sex:
_ _ _Male
Female
Years of professional experience_____
ETillCS DEC IS ION HAUIIG SURVEY
Below b a brief description of a cDU~pl.&int to an ethics committee. Assuming
that the conduct described aetuall oecurred, ple .. e rate the terioa.nell of
t e
raction and aelect the aanction YOO believe it the moat appropriate
baaed on the information eupplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
only recently co:npleted training and licensure had placed an advertisement
in a local
ne~.o.•spaper
The ad was construed by the co;plainant as a violation of
be of help.''
thr ethical
which read, ''If you are depressed or amdous, I may
responsibilitie~
regarding client solicitation.
Upo:1 being contacted by the cor:mlittec, the psychologist apologized for
::.he ton{; of
th~
ad and p:-onised that this "'ould never happen asuin.
I. Oo a acale from 1·7. circle the awaber that repr .. enta your judaement of
the level of aeriouanua of the: activity ducribed.
1
'
2
DOt at all
aerioua
3
4
W>duataly
aeriaa..
5
6
7
extra.aly
aarioua
xr. following 11 a liat of 7 deciaioaa rapr .. entins the actual oo.u avail.&ble
to the ~rican Paycholoaical Aaaociatioa ethicl committee liated in order of
aeverity. Pluae ill:.!! the: aao.ctioa yoa conaider moat appropr1ate for the
cue ducriptioa DOted above.
ii1,:
I
1.
Cue doee not varrant any further actioa or l&netion.
2.
!dacative•advuoey: Edacational information aeat to paycholo&iat aclvuiaa
IIOrt appropriate •11 of haadll.a& tbo ,..,. oituatioa aext tilDe.
3.
Educative varning'1 Saae u above but would lDclude a clear warning wbicb
could laad to a ~re aeriOGt finding if the activity coatinaed.
4.
l.eprimaad: A letter aeut to the paycholoat.t atating that p,eycholoai•t
ohould have knOWD hatter. Copy placed in tho poycholoaiot'• file •
.5.
Ceuure: Siailar to above bat adght alao inclade offerina; finaa.c:ial re•
ltitution to comp~tnant • .andated auperviaioa. referral of paycholoaiat
for paychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework uaianmeuta or aaaian·
•nta to apecUic coatinuin& educ&tiCXl courau.
6.
Stipglatod ruianation: llec-datioo that poycholosi•t he dropped from
APA tllrlhlberabip. May include provi.aiona for reinatatement alt•r a tpecifiad
- t of tilDe.
7.
Expohiot~:
llacOOIIIODdatiotl that plycholosht he expelled from tho ~A.
ind1viclual -=bert and Jt&te liceuaing boardJ notified of action.
.Ul
90
Sex:
Hale
___Female
Years of professional experience____
I!TIIICS DECISlOII IIAitlHG SUP.VEY
Jelov U a brief detcriptioa of a complaint to an athicl coamittee. Aatn!!dga
~hat the conduct deacribed actuall oc~~~. ple&~a rata tha aarioaane•• of
t
e
raction and aelect the aauccion yoa believe ia the
~t
appropriate
baaed on the informatioa auppU.ad.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
only recently completed training and licensure had placed an advertisement
in a local newspaper which read, "If
be of help. 11
~ou
are depressed or anxious, I may
The ad was construed by the complainant as a violation of
the ethical responsibilities regarding client solicitation.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was outraged
over the charge, saw nothing wrong with the ad and claimed that how one
promoted bUsiness was no one else's business.
I. 0.. a ocala fr011 1·7, circle the - • r that ropruone. :roar judaeunt
tho level of oori.,...,...o of the activity ducrl.hed,
1
2
oot at all
aerioaa
'
4
5
6
IIOCioratol:r
l&rli)Qa
ot
7
extr... lJ
aerioul
rolloviAS l.a a U.at of 7 docl.ai- roproooutiAS tha actual available
to the Aml.ri.can hycholoaical Aaaoci.atioa ethic~ cocmd.ttae li.atad 1D order of
a . .erity. Pluae circle tbe aanctiCG JOU caoaider .oet appropriate for the
cue ducriptiCG ~above.
II".
1.
ca. . clou oot """'ant uq further action or oanction.
2.
!dacatho•advl.aory:
.or• appropriate
I.Dfo...ation oont to poycholo&iot advl.oi.D&
w.,.. !ducati.OG&l
of handU.a.a tbe ea.e aituatiOD aext
t~.
3,
ldacativo varDias: s - u above bat voold I.Dcltado a clear -min& vhich
could load to a 110ro oori.,... fl.ndiAS U tho activity conti.Dilod,
4.
a.prt-nd: A latter oont to tha poycholo&l.at otati.D& that poycholo&iot
obould haft know. bettor. Copy placed in tho poycholo&iot '• fila,
5.
Conouro: Sl.loilar to abOYO but aiaht aloo I.Dcltado offoriAS fl.nancial ro•
atitutioa. to coaplaiD&nt, .audated tapervU ion, refenal of pi)"Choloaht
for paychotharapy, a II&Qd.ated apoloay or hCXMVOrk uaipmente or uaip•
Mnta to apecitic coat:f.md.na ack&catioa coa.rau.
6.
Stipalatod ruipation: hc-dotioa that poycholoaiat be dropped from
!lay I.Dcltado provl.ai.,... for rol.notat-nt after a opocl.fU4
- • of tiM,
I.PA -erohip,
7.
!xpall:f.on: laco nad•tioa that paycholoailt be expelled fr0111 the UA.
l.ndividaal - • r a and atato U.cono~.n& boardo ootifl.od of action.
411
I "'
9l
Sex:
_ _ _Male
_ _ _Female
Years of professional experience ·
!TIIICS DECIS lOll MAn!IG SURVEY
Below 1a a brief deacriptioo. of a complaint to an ethict cocza.ittae. Auumiqg
that the conduct daacribed actually occu~~~~. pleaae rate the aeri~n••• of
tbe Infraction and aelect the aanccioa you believe 1a tbe aa.t appropri&te
baaed oa the information euppliad.
An ethics committee
re~eived
a complaint that a psychologist who had
been in private practice for 15 years had placed an advertisement in a
local
newspap~r
of help. 11
which read, "If you are depr.essed or anxious, I may be
The ad was construed by the complainant as a violation of the
ethical responsibilities regarding client solicitation.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist apologized for
the tone of the ad and promised that this would never happen again,
I.
Oa. a IC&le from 1·7, circle the 11EUZ1ber that repruenta )'oar judaement of
tbe level of aorioaaneu of the activity dacribed.
1
2
not at all
••rtoua
3
4
-eratoly
5
6
••riooe
7
extr-lr
aeriOGI
Il'. rollovina 1a a liat of 7 dociaiooa repre .. ntiD& the actual .,.... available
to the -rican hycholoaical A.,ociatiOG ethicil c:omaittee liatad l.n order of
anerity. Pl .... ~ the aanctioa 700. COD.Iider .aet appropriate for the
cue clucriptioa DOted abcwe.
1.
Caoe dou not varrant any furtber action or aanction.
2,
!clacath'o•adviaory: Educational l.nfonution aent to payeholoaut aclvial.na
110ro appropriate ...,.. of handll.na the • - aituation aut tiM.
3.
J:claeative varninc: Same aa above bat vo<lld l.nclude a clear W&miD& which
coold load to a 110re aerioaa fl.ndl.na if tbe actiYity coat11111od,
4,
a.prU.Dd: A letter aant to the paycboloaut atatl.na that payeholoaiat
•-ld hove lm0W11 bettor, Copy placed 1.n tho poycboloaiat'a fila,
5.
CeDOaro: Siloilar to above bat lliaht aiao l.ncludo offorina fl.naocial ro•
atitDtioa. to COIIIplaiA&nt, .uclated aupervil:ioo., referral of paycholoaiat
for p8ychotherapy, a m&Dd&ted apoloay or homework aaa~ata or aaaian·
Mnta to lpecilic coatiDaizla educatioa. coanu.
6,
Stipulated ruianatioa: a.c.......,clation thet poyeholosiat be dropped frA2A -•rohip. llay l.nclacla proviaioaa for nl.natat-nt after a apocifio4
- t of tiM.
7.
lxpabioa: a.c-clation thet poycholoaiat be expelled fr- the A2A.
l.nd1Yiclaal - · r a and atate licenaina boarcla notified of actioo,
.Ul
I
!;
92
Sex:
___Male
___Female
Years of professional experience ·
!TIIICS DEC IS 1011 IIAUliG SOilVEt
-
Below 1.1 a brief descriptioa. of a complaint to an ethica coamittee. Aaaaminc
that the conduct described actually occu~red, ple .. e rate the l&rioaaneaa of
the lDfraction and select the aanctioa yoo believe 1a tbe .act appropri&te
~ad
oa the ta!ormatioa 1upplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that aopsychologist who had
been in private practice for 15 years had placed an advertisement in a
local newspaper which read, "If you are depressed or anxious, I may be of
help."
The
ad' was
construed by the complainant as a violation of the ethical
responsibilities regarding client solicitation.
Upon being contacted by the
comrnit~ee,
the psychologist was outraged
over the charge, saw nothing wrong with the ad and claimed that how one
promoted business was no one else's business,
Oo a acala from 1·7 1 circle the uambar that rapruea.t.l 1oar jud&B1M11t of
the level of oeriooonaoo of tbo activity deacribed.
I.
,
1
2
DOt at all
auiooa
3
4
.:Jderately
aeriaa.a
5
6
7
cxtr-ly
aerioaa
xr. rollovina 1a a liat of 7 dociaioaa roprountin& the actual oau available
to the AMrican Paycholoa:ical A41aocUtioo ethi.cl coaaittea liatad 1n order of
aeYarity. Pl... • ~ thti aanctioa you couiclar .,.t appropri&ta for the
e&aa ducr1ptioa DOted above.
1.
Caaa dou DOt ....-rant any further &etiCXl or oanctiOll.
2.
!clacative•odvlaory: !dacational Wonootion unt to paycholoaut advial.n&
.,r• approprtata vaya of handlina tbe .... aitll&tioo MXt t~.
3.
ldacatlve varnins: s.,.. u
could laad to a 110ra
4.
bpr-nd: A latter oant to tbo paycholoaut otatl.n& that poycholoaiot
oboald have knOVII bettor. Copy placed in tho poycholoaiot'o fila.
5.
Coaaaro: Sl.ailar to above bat 111aht alto 1Dcludo otforJ.ns financial ro•
otitution to coazplainant, Mndatod oaporvlaion, referral of poycholosiot
for plychotharapy, & Mud&ted &poloay Or homevorlr. Ulian-:Dtl Oi:' U.ip•
Mntl to apac1l1c coa.tiDUina acb&catioa cOQrlu.
6.
Stip<llatod ruianation: a.c-clatiCXl that poychologiot bo dropped froa
#.2A -•rohip. llay 1Dclaile proviaiona for roinotat-nt after a opacified
UIOUnt of u ...
7.
hpaloion: a.c-mdatioa that poycholoaiot be upellod fr'* tbo APA.
individual -oro and otote licoaaJ.ns boardo notifiod of action.
••r1-
above but would 1Dcludo a claar -ruins vbich
findJ.ns 1f tho actiYity COiltf.uuod.
.Ul
I'
,.--,
r
93
r
Sex: Male___
Female
Yrs. Professional experience: ____
ETHICS DECISION MAKING SURVEY
Below ta a brief description of a complaint to an ethics committee. Assuming
that the conduct described actuall occurred, please rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and select the aanction you believe is the moat appropriate
based on the information supplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that &psychologist ahared a
client's name and diagnosis with a group of colleagues during an informal
discussion without the client'• consent.
The complainant construed the act
as a violation of a client' a rights t_Q confidentiality.
+.
On a acale from 1·7, circle the number that represents your judgement of
the level of seriousness of the activity described.
1
2
not at all
aerioos
3
4
moderately
serious
5
6
7
extremely
serious
II. Following is a list of 7 decisions representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological A.aociatioo ethics committee listed in order of
Jeverity. Please ~ the sanction you consider moat appropriate for the
ease description noted above.
1.
case does not varrant any farther action or sanction.
2.
Educative-advisory: Educational information sent to psychologist advising
more appropriate vaya of handling the aame situation next time.
3. ·Educative vaming: Same u above but would include a clear warning which
could lead to a more serioas finding if the activity continued.
4.
Reprimand: A letter oent tO the psychologist stating that psychologist
ahould have known better. Copy placed in the psychologist'• file.
S.
Censure: Similar to above bat might also include offering financial reatitution to complainant, mandated au'pervi.sion, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments or assign·
ments to specific continuing education courses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: Recommendation that psychologist be dropped from
MA membership. May include provisions for reinstatement after a specified
amount of time,
7,
Expulsion: Recoomnendation that psychologist be expelled from the A:£A.
individual members and state licensing boards notified of action.
All
94
_ _ _Male
Sex~
_ _ _Female
Years of professional experience
ET!IICS DECIS ION !lAKING SURVEY
-
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an ethics committee. A3suming
that the conduct described actual! ocearred, please rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and select the ••nction you.believe is the most appropriate
based on the information aupplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist ahared a
client's name and diagnosis with a group of colleagues during an informal
discussion without the client's consent. The complainant construed the act
as a violation of a client 1 s rights to confidentiality.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was outraged and
claimed that there was nothing unethical about the behavior and that the act
was none of the committee's or anyone else's business.
On a acale from 1·7, circle the DtUDber that represent.t yoar judgement of
the level of aeriOQSneas of the activity described.
I.
1
2
4
3
not at all
aerioas
5
6
'DOderately
aerioos
7
extremely
aerioua
Ir.
Following is a list of 7 decLiions representing the actual ones available
to tbe American Psychological A.sociation ethics committee listed 1n order of·
aeverity. Please circle the aanc:tion yoa consider moat appropriAte for the
case description ~bove.
1.
C.Ue does not warrant any farther action or aanction.
2.
Educative-advisory: Edacation.al information aent to psychologist advising
more appropriate ways of handling the same situation next time.
3. ·Educative warning: Same as above but would include a clear w.rning which
could lead to a more aerious finding if the activity continued.
I
4.
l.eprimand: A letter sent: to the paychologUt atating that psychologist
ahoo.ld have known better. Copy placed in the ~ychologist'a file •
.5.
Censure: Similar to above bu.t might also include offering fiD&nci&l re•
atitution to complainant, mand&ted supervision, referral of psychologist
for paycbotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments or aaaign•nts to apecific continaing education coarses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: aecoameudation that psychologist be 4ropped from
A:iA membership. May include provisiona for reinstatement after a apecified
amoant of time.
7.
Exj>ulsion: llec"""'""dation that psychologiot be expelled frOID the A2A.
individu&l members and state licensing boards notified of action.
All
95
Sex;
___Male
___Female
Years of professional experience_ _
E'l'lllCS DEC IS ION MAKING SURVEY
Below 13 a brief de$cript1on of a complaint to an ethics committee. Aasaming
tha~ the conduct described actuall ocearr~~t please rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and select the sanction you believe is the ~t appropriate
based on the information supplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
only recently completed training and licensure shared a client's name and
diagnosis with a group of colleagues during an informal discussion without
the client's consent. The complainant construed the act as a violation of
a client's rights to confidentiality.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was extremely
apologetic and regretful and promised that this sort of slip would never
happen again.
On a scale from 1-7, circle the munber that represents yoar judgement of
the level of aerioaaness of the activity described ..
I..
1
1
not at all
aerioas
4
moderately
aerioua
3
5
6
7
extremely
serious
Ir. following is a list of 7 dect.ione representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological ~sociation ethics committee listed in order of
aeverity. Please circle the aanction you conaider meet appropriate for the
case description ~hove.
1.
Cue does not warrant any further action or auction.
2.
Edacative•advisory: "Educational information aent to psychologist adviling
more appropriate waya: of handling the tame aituation next time.
3. · !duea.t'ive warning:
Same u above but would include a clear warning vbich
could lead to a more serious finding if the activity continued.
'
4.
Reprimand: A letter sent to the psychologist lt&ting that psychologist
ahould have known better. Copy placed in the paychologbt 1 a file.
5.
Censure: Similar to above bat might also include offering fiD&ucial reatitution to complainant, mandated supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments or assign·
ments to 1pecific contiuaing eda.catioa. couraes ..
6.
Stipulated resignation:
APA membership.
amoant of time.
7.
Recommendation that psychologist be dropped from
·provUions far reinstatement after a specified
May include
Expal>ion: ReeOIIlllleflc!ation that psychologist be expelled from the A2A.
individual members and state licensing boards notified of action.
All
'
I
'
96
----·
Sex:
_ _ _Male
_ _ _Female
Years of professional experience
!TJIICS DECISION MAKING SURVEY
--
a brief description of a complaint to an ethics committee. ~saming
e rate the seriousness of
is the moat appropriate
based on the information auppliad.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
been
in private practice for 15 years shared a client's name and diagnosis
with a group of colleagues during an informal discussion without the client's
consent.
The complainant construed the act as a violation of a client's
rights to confidentiality.
I.
On
a acale from 1-7, circle the number that represents yoar judgement of
the level of seriousness of the activity described.
1
2
3
4
moderately
aeriooa
not at all
aerioas
5
6
7
extremely
aerioaa
II'... following i.J a list of 7 deci.Jions representing the actual one• available
to the American Psychological At:soei&tioa ethics coamittee listed in order of
teverity. Please E:.!! the lan.ction yoa. coa.aider moat appropriAte for the
case description noted above.
1.
Case does not warrant arq further action or l&nction.
2.
!dacative•advisoey: "Educational information tent to psychologist advising
JDOre appropriate ways of handling the same situation next time.
3. ·Educative warning: Same aa above but vould include a clear warning which
could lead to a more aerioua finding if the activity contilltled.
i
I
"''
i!fN
4.
Reprimand: A letter tent t.o the psychologist lUting that paychologist
ahould bave known better. Copy placed in the psychologist's file.
5.
Censure: Similar to above but might also include offering financial reltitatioa. to complainant, mand&ted supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments oi' assignments to specific ccntinaing education coarses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: Recommendation that psychologist be dropped from
UA membership. May include provisions for reinstatement after a specified
amount of time.
7,
Expal.oion: Jlecoamendation that paychologilt be expelled from tho AFA.
individual members and state licensing board.a notified of action.
All
97
Sex:
___Male
___Female
Years of professional experience
ETIUCS DECISION !lAKING SURVEY
-
Below 1.s a bl:'ie£ description of a complaint to an ethics comnittee. Msum"ing
e rate the serioasnes s of
is the moat appropriate
based on the
~ormatiou
auppliad.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had only
recently completed training and licensure •bared a client's name and diagnosis
with a group of colleagues during an informal discussion without the client's
consent.
The complainant construed the act as a violation of a client's rights
to confidentiality.
I. On a acale fro= 1-7, circle the number that represents year judgement of
the level of aerioasnets of the activity da.cribed.
2
1
not at all
aerioas
3
4
moderately
s
6
aericas
7
extremely
aerioos
rr.
Following 11 a list of 7 deciaions representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological Acsociatioa ethics committee listed in order of
aeverity. Pleaae ~ the aanctioa yoa consider =oat appropriate for the
case description DOted above.
1.
Cue does not warrant any further action or auction.
2.
!dacative•advisoryt !dacational information aent to psychologist advising
more appropriate ways of handling the tame tituation next time.
·
3. · !dacative warning: Same u above bat voald tnclude a clear warniug which
coald lead to a more 1erioas finding if the activity continaed.
4.
i
R.epri.mand: · A letter tent to the paycbologiat st.ating that psychologist
1hoald have known better. Copy placed in the peychologist 1 s file.
5.
Cen.sare: Similar to above bat might also inclade offering financial re.Jtitution to complainant, mandated supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy 1 a mandAted apology 'or homework us 1gnmenta or assignments to specific coatinuing education courses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: R.ecOUD:Dendation that psychologist be dropped from
APA membership. May inc lade provis ione for reinstatement after a specified
amoant of time.
7.
Expulsion: llec.,.....,dation that psychologist he expelled from the APA.
individaa.l IDe.mbera and state licensing hoarde notified of action.
All
98
Sex:
___Male
_Female
Years of professional experience_·
&n!ICS DEC IS lON MAKING SlJRVEY
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an ath~s committee. Assuming
that the conduct described actaall occurred, please rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and select the sanction you believe is the moat appropriate
based on the information supplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
only recently completed training and licensure shared a client's name and
diagnosis with a group of colleagues during an informal discussion without
the client's consent. The complainant construed the act as a violation of
a client's rights to confidentiality.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was extremely
apologetic and regretful and promised that this sort of slip would never
happen again.
I.. On a seale from 1-7, circle the number that represents your judgement of
the level of seriousness of the activity d~cribed.
1
2
not at all
serioaa
3
4
5
6
DOderately
aeritiQ.S
7
extremely
serious
I!'. lolloving U a list of 7 decilions representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological A4sociation ethics committee listed in order of
severity. Please circle the sanction yoa consider =oat appropriate for the
case description ~bove.
1.
C...e does not warrant any further action or a&nction.
2.
Educative-advisory: ·Educational information sent to psychologist advising
more appropriate vaya of handling the aame aituation next time.
3 •. Educative warning: same' u above but vould include a clear varning which
coald lead to a more a~rioua finding if the activity continued.
4.
5.
leprimand: A letter sent to the psychologist stating that psychologist
ahould bave known better.. Copy placed in the p~ychologitt's file.
'
Cenoare:
Sl.milar to above bat lllight alao include offering financial reatitution to complainant, mandated supervition, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignmenta or assign·
ments to specific coa.tinuing aducat:Loa. courses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: llecommend&tioa. that psychologist be dropped from
APA membership. May include provision~ for reinstat~~tment after & specified
&IIIOUUt of time.
7.
J!xt>alaiou: Jlec"""""'d4tion that psycbologiot be ext>elled from the APA.
individual members and ttate licensing boards notified of action.
All
99
Sex:
___Male
___Female
Years of professional
E'l:1liCS DECISION MA!(llqG SURVEY
____
__ _ __ _
.
.
to an ethics coumittee.
experien~e
-
Assuming
that the conduct described actuatl occurred, please rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and •elect the sanction yoa believe is the ~t appropriate
based on the
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
only recently completed training and licensure had shared a client's
name and diagnosis with a group of colleagues during &n informal discussion
without the client's consent. The complainant construed the act as a
violation of a client's rights to confidentiality.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was outraged
and claimed that there was nothing unethical about the behavior and that
the act was none of the c~ittee•s or anyone else's business.
I.
On a tcale from 1-7, circle the tmmber that repreaenta yoar judgement of
the level of aerioa#ness of the activity dtScribed.
1
not at all
2
aerioos
3
4
moderately
s
6
aeril)US
7
extremely
aerioaa
Following 1s a list of 7 dec!.iona representing the actual one. available
to the American Psychological Aasociation ethics committee listed in order of
severity. Please~ the aanction yoa consider moet appropriate for the
case description noted above.
IT.
1.
Cue does not warrant any farther action or sanction.
2.
!dacative•advisory: ·Educational information lent to peychologist adviting
more appropriate vay. of handling the same situatioa next time.
3. ·Educative warning: Same u above but would t.nc:lude a clear varning vbicb
coald lead to a more eerioua finding if the activity continued.
i
4, leprimand: A letter aent to the ptycbologist stating that peyehologist
abould have known better. Copy placed in the paychologist'• file.
5.
Censure:
Similar to above but might also include offering fiD&ncial re•
atitution to compl.&inant, msudated ltlpervi:lion, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework ass~nta
assignments to specific continuing educatioa coarses.
or
6.
Stipulated resig:natf.on: J.ecoaJ:~~~endation that psychologist be d1:opped from
UA membership, May i:Lc.lade provisions far reiJ:lstatement after a •pecified
amaant of time.
7.
txpuldon: llecO<Illlletldation that psychologist be expelled from tho IJ?A.
individc&l members and state licensing boards notified of action.
All
.
I
lOO
'.
.
l!{g;
Sex:
_____Male
_____Female
Years of professional experience____
Jm!ICS DEC IS ION MAKING SURVEY
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an ethics committee.
.that the conduct described actuall
t
Assnming
occux:r~~' please rate the seriousness of
e in raction and select the sanction you believe is the most appropriate
based on the information 1upplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
been in private practice for 15 years shared a client's name and diagnosis
with a group of colleagues during an informal discussion without the client's
consent. The complainant construed the act as a violation of a client's
rights to confidentiality.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was extremely
apologetic and regretful and promised that this sort of slip would never
happen again.
I. Oa. a scale from 1-7 • circle the number that represent3 yoar judgement of
the level of 1eriousuesa of the activity described.
1
2
not at all
1erioas
4
IDOderately
1erioo.a
3
s
6
7
extremely
aerioua
Il".
Following is a list of 7 decilions representing the actual onu available
to the American Psychological ~sociatiou ethics committee listed in order o(
severity4 Please circle the sanction yoo consider moat appropriate for the
e&se description ~bove4
1.
Cue does not warrant any farther action or aanction.
2.
Educative-advisory: Educational information sent to psychologist advising
more appropriate ways of handling the same situation next time.
3.
Educative warning: Same u above but would include a clear warning which
coald le.ad to a more aerioua finding if the activity continued.
4.
Reprimand: A letter sent to the psychologist stating that psychologist
should have known better. Copy placed in the ~ychologist's file.
S.
Ceusare:
6.
Stipulated resignation: lecoamen.datioo. that psychologist be dropped from
A2A membership. May include provisioua for reinstatement after a specified
amount of time.
7.
Expulsion: R.ecommendation. that psychologist be expelled from the APA.
individual members and state licensing boarda notified of action.
,
I
Similar to above bat might also include offering financial restitution to complainant, mandated supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments or assignments to specific continaing education courses.
All
lOl
I.
.
.
.
t~t
Sex:
_____Male
_____temale
Years of professional experience __
E'I'lUCS DECISION !WtiNG SURVEY
Below is a brief de,criptiou of a complaint to an ethics committee. Assuming
that the conduct described actual! occurred, please rate the seriousness of
t e
raction and select the sanctionYOO"believe ·is the IDOSt appropriate
based on the information supplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who bad
been in private practice for 15 years shared a client's name and diagnosis
with a group of colleagues during an informal discussion without the
client's consent. The complainant construed the act as a violation of a
client's rights to confidentiality.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was outraged and
claUned that there was nothing unethical about the behavior and that the
act was none of the committee's or anyone else's business.
r-. On a acale from 1-7, circle the namber that repreaea.ta yoar judge=ent of
the level of aerioasnesa of the activity described.
1
2
3
4
moderately
aerioa.s
uot at all
aerioc:ta
5
6
7
utreme.ly
aerioaa:
rr. Following 1a a list of 7 deciJions repreaenting the actual one5 available
to the American Psychological A.soci&tion ethics committee listed in order of
aeverity. Plu.se s.:!!.:.!! the aanction yoa cOMider moat appropri&te for the
case deacriptiou noted above.
1.
Cue does not varra.at any further action or a&nction.
2~
Educative-advisory: ·tdacatioc.al Ulformation aent to psychologist advising
more appropriate V&y.t of bmldling the u.me situation next time.
3. · !daeative warning: Same as above but voald include a clear warning which
coald lud to a more 1erioaa finding if the activity continued •
..
-~'
4.
leprimand: A letter aent to the ptychologi.st st.ating that psychologist
ahould have known better. Copy placed in the p~ychologist'a file.
5.
Censure: Similar to above bat might also include offering fin&ucial reatitution. to coeuplail1&nt, mandated supervision, referr,al of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a ma.ndated apology or homework usignments or u:signaent.s to apecific cco.tinaing education courses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: RecCIIDIOeUdatioa that psychologist be dropped from
APA membership. May include provision. for reinstatement after a specified
amount of time.
7.
!xpalsion: Rec.,.,.,.,dation that psychologist be expelled from the APA.
individual members and st&te licensing boarda notified of action.
All
102
Sex: Male __
Female
Yrs. Professional Experience: ___
ETHICS DECISION MAKING SURVEY
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an e·thics comnittee. Assuming
.that the conduct described actuall occurred, please rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and select the sanction you believe is the most appropriate
based on the information aupplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint
engaged in sexual intercourse with a client.
that a psychologist had
The complainant construed
the act as a violation of the ethical responsibility to maintain the
client's welfare.
r..
On • scale from 1-7. circle the number that represents your judgement of
the level of seriousness of the activity deacribed.
2
1
not at all
eerioas
3
4
moderately
s
6
serious
7
extremely
serious
Ir. Following is a list of 7 decisions representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological Aesociation ethics committee listed in order of
severity. Please~ the aanction you consider most appropriate for the
case description noted above.
1.
Case does not warrant any further action or sanction.
2.
Educative-advisory: Educational information sent to psychologist advising
more appropriate ways of handling the same situation next time.
3. · Educative warning: Same as above but would include a clear warning which
could lead to a more serious finding if the activity continued.
4.
Reprimand: A letter sent~ the psychologist stating that psychologist
should have known better. Copy placed in the psychologist's file.
s.
Censure: Similar to above but might also include offering financial reatitution to complai~nt, mandated supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments or assignments to specific continuing education courses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: Recommendation that psychologist be dropped from
APA membership. May include provisions for reinstatement after a specified
~t of t~.
7.
Expulsion: Recommendation that psychologist be expelled from the APA.
individual members and state licensing boards notified of action.
All
.
I
l03
.
.
li_,.
sex:
___Male
___Female
Years of professional experience
E'l'l!ICS DECISION MAKING SURVEY
--
Below ia a brief description of a complaint to an ethics committee. A5saming
that the conduct described actuall occurred, ple&Se rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and select the sanction you 'believe-is the mo•t appropriate
based on the information •applied.
An ethics committee received a Complaint that a psychologist had
engaged in sexual intercourse ~th a client. The complainant construed
the act as a violation of the ethical responsibility to maintain the
client's welfare.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was outraged
by the charge and claimed there was nothing unethical about the behavior
and that what went on with·clients was none of the committee's or anyone
else's business.
On a acale from 1·7, circle the namber that repreaent3 your judgement of
the level of aerioasue8s of the. activity described.
I.
2
1
4
3
not at all
aerioas
5
6
moderately
aeritxt.~
7
extremely
aerioas.
rr.. Following is a list of 7 decilions representing the actual ona: avail.&ble.
to the American Psychological A4sociation ethics committee listed 1n order of
aeverity. Please ~ the aanction yoa consider meet appropriate for the
case description noted above.
1.
Cue does not warrant any further action or aanction.
2.
!dacative-advisory1 'Educational information tent to psychologist advi.aiug
more appropriate ways of lundling the same titu..tion next time.
3, ·Educative warning: s .... as abovo but woald l.ncludo a clear '""rning which
could lu.d to a more aerioua finding if the activity continued.
I
~·1'.
.. >
4.
Reprimand: A letter aeut to the psychologist stating that psychologist
ahould have known better. Copy placed iu the psychologist's file.
5.
Censure: Similar to above bat might also include offering financial reltitution to complainant, mandated supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy. a mandated apology or hoa:.ework us ignments or us ignments to specific coatina.ing educatioa courses.
6,
Stipulated ruignat!ou: Rec""""'udation that psychologiot bo dropped from
UA membership. May inclade provisions fctt reinstatement after a specified
- t of time,
7,
Expul.dou: Rec~ndatiou that psychologist be expelled from the /.2A,
individual Dtmbers and state licensing boarda notified of action.
All
104
Sex:
I!'Il!ICS
D~CIS ION
___Male
___Female
Years of professional experience ·
MAKING SURVEY
-
Below is a brief description of a complaint to &n ethics committee. Assuming
.that the conduct described actual! occurred, pleue rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and select the sanction yOUbelieve is the UQit appropriate
bued on the in!ormatioa. aupplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist had engaged
in sexual intercourse With a client. The complainant construed the act as a
violation of the ethical responsibility to maintain the client's welfare.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was extremely
apologetic and regretfUl and promised to refrain from any future behavior of
this sort.
I. On a ecale fr0111 1•7, circle the muuber that repreaenta your judge=ent. !)f
the level of aerioasuesa of the &ctivity described.
1
2
aot at all
aerious
3
4
$
6
IDOderately
aeri~
7
extremely
aerioas
-
Ir.. Following is a list of 7 deciaiona: representing the actual onu available
to the A=erican Psychological A.sociatioa ethics committee listed 1n order of
acverity. Pleue ~ the sanction. yoa consider moat appropriAte for the
C&Ae description noted above.
does not warrant any further action or a&.nction.
1.
C.Ue
2.
Edacative-advi.aory: ·Educational information aeut to psychologist advising
uaore appropriate waya of haQdliag the laM! aituatioa nut time.
3, · !dueatl.ve warning: S&me u above but would include a clear warning which
coald lead to a 110re aerioaa finding if the activity continued.
/
i
4. lleprim&ad: A letter ..at to the p•ychologist •tating that poychologist
aboald have known bett«r. Copy placed in the psychologist'• file.
$,
Censure:
Similar to above hat might al.&o include offering financial re-
atitution to complainant, mandated aupervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a =-ndated apology or homework assignments or aaaign·
ments to apecific coatinuing cdacatioo coaraes.
6.
Stipulated resignation: R.ecCXI:llDendatioa that psychologist be dropped from
UA membership. May include provis:ions for reinst.atement after a 1pecified
amoaut oft~.
7.
Expulsion: R.ecCJ1"'011"ndation that psychologist be expelled from the APA.
individu&l .....,ers and atate licensing hoards notified of action.
Ul
105
Sex:
_ _ _Male
___Female
Years of professional experience __
lmiiCS DECISION MAKING SURVEY
Below ia a brief deseriptiqn of a complaint to an ethics committee. A3suming
_that the conduct described actuall occurre;~, please rate the seriousness of
t e
fraction •nd select the sanction you believe is the moat appropriate
based on the information supplied.
· An ethics committee received a complaint
that a psychologist who had
been in private practice for 15 years had engaged in sexual intercourse
with a client.
The complainant construed the act as a violation of the
ethical responsibility to maintain the client's welfare.
On a ecale from 1-7, circle the number that represent.t yoar judg=ent of
the level of aerioasness of the activity described.
I.
1
2
not at all
aerioaa
4
3
5
6
DOderately
aericas
7
extremely
aerioas
rr. Following is a list of 7 decilions representing the actual on~ available
to the American Psychological Aasociation ethics committee listed 1n order of
severity. Please circle the sanction you consider most appropriate for the
caae description ~above.
1.
Caae does not warrant &7X'f further action or aanction.
2.
Educative•advisory: "Educational information sent to psychologist adviaing
ID:)re appropriate va.ys of handling tbe same lit-a&ticm. next time.
3.
Educative warning: Same u above but woald include a clear warning which
coald lead to a more serious finding if the activity continued.
4.
leprtmand: A letter aent to the psychologist atating that paychologist
1hoald have lc:a.ova. better. Copy placed in the paycbologtst•s file ..
5.
Cenoure: Simil&:r to above bat might a:t.o include offering financl.ll~ n•
atitation to complaiu&nt, mandated supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a rraand&ted apology or bcaework asaigxunent.s or assignments to specific continuing education coaraes.
6.
Stipulated :resignation: l!ecocmendation that psychologist be dropped from
APA membership. May include provi..siona for reinstatement after a specified
amoant of time.
7.
Expubion: l!ec0111111et1datl.on that psychologi•t be expelled from the A2A.
indiVidual members and state licensing boards notified of action.
i
All
106
Sex:
___Male
___Female
Years of professional experience____
ETIIICS DECISION MAKING SURVEY
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an •thic3 c01r111ittee. Assuming
.that the conduct described actuall occurred, please rate the seriousness of
t e
raction and select the u,nc:tion YOU believe is the mo•t appropriate
based on the information supplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had only
recently completed training and licensure had engaged in sexual intercourse
with a client.
The complainant construed the act as a violation of the
ethical responsibility to maintain the client's welfare.
I.
On a acale from 1-7, circle the Ufllrlber that repreae.at:s yoar judgement of
the level of aerioasness of the activity described.
1
2
not at all
serious
4
3
5
6
moderately
aeritJC:UI
7
extremely
aerioas
Ir~
Following ia a liat of 7 dec:Liiona representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological Aasociation ethics committee listed in order of
aeverity. Please circle the aanction you consider moat appropriate for the
case description ~above.
1.
C.Ue does not warrant any further action or a.anction.
2.
!dacative•adv:Lsory: ·iducational information aeut to psychologist adviaing
more appropriate ways of handling the acme situation next time.
3. · Educative warrdng: Same aa above but would include a clear warning which
coa.ld lead to a .are aerious finding if the activity continued.
i
4.
Reprimand: A letter lent to the paychologist stating that psychologist
ahould have known better. Copy placed in the ptychologist•a file.
!..
Censure: Similar to above but might also include offering: finaucial re•
ltitution to cocaplainant, mandated aupervUion, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework aasignments oi' assign•
11ents to specific coa.tinaing educ&tion courses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: l.ecoamencUtion that psychologist be dropped from
APA ~ership. May include provisiona for reinstatement after a specified
amount of time.
7.
Expulsion:
Rec-ndation that psychologist be expelled from the A2A.
individual members and ltate licensing boarcb: notified of action.
All
107<,
~
Sex:
_ _ _Male
_ _ _Female
Years of professional experience
E'l:lUCS DECISIOII MAKING SURVEY
-
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an ethics committee. Assaming
~hat the conduct described actuall oecurr~~' please rate the seriousness of
t e infraction and select the sanction you believe is the mo•t appropriate
based on the information supplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had only
recently completed training and licensure had engaged in sexual intercourse
with a client. The complainant construed the act as a violation of the
ethical responsibility to maintain the client•s welfare.
Upon being contacted by the c~ittee, the psychologist was extremely
apologetic and regretful and promised to refrain from any future behavior of
this sort.
I. On a scale from 1•7, circle the z:I:Wllber that represent3 your judgement of
the level of seriousness of the activity described.
1
2
4
3
not at all
sericas
moderately
seriooa
s
6
7
extremely
serious
Ir. Following: is a list of 7 dec:iaion.e repre&eoting the actual ones available
to the American Psychological A4sociation ethics committee listed in order of
severity. Please ~ the sanction you consider most appropriate for the
case description noted above.
1.
Cue does not var-rant any further action or sanction.
2..
Educative-advisory; ·Educational information sent to psychologiSt adviaing
more appropriate ways of handling the same aitaatioa next time.
3. · Xdueat'ive warning; Same u above but would include a clear warning which
could lead to a more serious finding if the activity continued.
I
4.
Reprimand: A letter sent to the psychologist stating that psychologist
ahould have knowu better. Copy placed in the paychologist'a file.
5.
Censure: Similar to above bat might alae include offering finauc:ial restitution to complainant, mandated aupervisiou, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments or assignmenta to specific continuing education courses.
l
h
j\
i
6.
Stipulated resignation: ltecc:xrmendatioa that psychologist be dropped from
A2A membership. May include provisious for reinstatement after a specified
"""""'t of t 1me •
7.
Expulsion: llecCI#Dendation that psychologist be expelled from the APA.
indiVidual me%Dbers and at.tte licensing boards notified of action.
All
108
'
i;'
Sex:
_ _ _Male
___Female
Years of professional experience
En!ICS DECISION MAKING SURV}\Y
--
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an ethics committee. ~suming
that the conduct described actaall occurred, please rate the seriousness of
t e in raction and select the sanction yoa believe is the moat appropriate
based on the information aupplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
only recently completed training and licensure had engaged in sexual inter•
coarse with a client. The complainant construed the act as a violation of
the ethical responsibility to maintain the client's welfare.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was outraged by
the charge and claimed that there was nothing unethical about the behavior
and that what went on with clients was none of the committee's or anyone
else's business.
I..
On a tcale froat 1-7, circle the number that repruents yoar judgement of
the level of •erioosnua of the activity de.cribed.
2
l
not at all
terioos
4
3
5
6
moderately
terioa.a
7
extremely
aeriooa
Ir. Following is a lUt of 7 decilicms representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological At!Soc:f:ation ethics cou:mittee li.sted in order of
teverity. Ple&$e ~ the tanction yoa consider meet appropriate for the
case description noted above.
1.
Cue does not warrant any further action or a&nction.
2.
Educative-advisory~ ·Edueational information tent to paychologist advising
more appropriate waya of hat;1dling the tame ait~tioa next time.
3.
Educative warning: Same u above but voald include a clear warning which
could lead to a more ae.ricua finding if the activity continued.
4.
Reprimand: A letter tent to the psychologist ttating that psychologist
•hould have ltnowa better. Copy placed in the ~ychologi.st's file.
S.
Censure: Similar to above bat might also include offering fina1lCial re•
•titution to complairulnt, mandated supervision, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a m&nd.ated apology or homework usignments or assignments to specific continuing educatioa eoorses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: Recommendation that psychologi't be dropped from
UA membership. May inclade proviaiOUd for reinstatement after a apecified
- t of time.
7.
Expulsion: Reeoamendation that psychologitt be expelled from the .A:PA.
individual lOembers &nd state 1icen.sin3 boards notified of action.
i
All
r
109
Sex:
_ _ _Male
___Female
Years of professional experience
-
E'l'l!ICS DECISION MAKING SURVEY
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an ethic3 committee. Assuming
~hat the conduct described actually occurred, please rate the seriousness of
the infraction and select the ••nccion you "believe is the mo•t appropriate
b~sed on the information 1upplied.
An etb!~; -Committee received a- cOmplaint that a psYchologist who had
been in private practice for 15 years had engaged in sexual intercourse
with a client. The complainant construed the act as a violation of the
ethical responsibility to maintain the client's welfare.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was outraged
by the charge and claimed that there was nothing unethical about the
behavior and that what went on with clients was none of the committee's
or anyone else's business.
I.
On a scale from 1·7, circle the DWDber that represents yoar judgement of
the level of seriousness of the activity described.
1
2
not at all
aerioas
3
4
1DOderately
aer:l.oas
5
6
7
extremely
aerious
Ir~
following is a list of 7 decitiooa representing the actual on~ available
to the American Psychological Aasociation ethics committee liated in order of
severity. Please circle the aanction yea. coaaider moat appropriate for the
case description ~bove.
1.
Cue does not warrant any further action or sanction.
2.
Edocative-advi.tory: 'Edacational information aent to paychologbt advi!:ing
more appropriate ways of haudling the aame situation next time.
3. · ldacad.ve warning: Same u above but voa.ld include a clear warning which
coald lead to a more aerioa.a finding if the activity continued.
,.
4.
Reprimand: A letter tent to the psychologi.!lt stating that paychologist
thoald have known better. Copy placed in the psychologist's file.
5.
Censure: Similar to above bat might alae include offering financial re•
Jtitutioa to complainant, mandated saperviaion, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homevork assignments or assign•
ments to specific continuing education coarses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: llecCJa~~Dendatioa that psyehologbt be dropped from
May include provisions for reinstatement after a specified
amount of time.
APA membership.
7.
Expul.aion: Rec"""""'d..tion that psychologiat be expelled from the ~A.
individual members md state licensing boards notified of action.
All
llO
Sex:
_ _ _Male
__._Female
Years of professional experience
E:t!IICS DECISION !!.\KING SURVEY
-
Below is a brief description of a complaint to an ethics committee. ~snming
that the conduct described actaall occurred, ple&Se rate the seriousness of
t e in raetion and select the aanction you"believe ·is the moat appropriate
based on the information supplied.
An ethics committee received a complaint that a psychologist who had
been in private practice for 15 years had engaged in sexual intercourse
with a client. The complainant construed the act as a violation of the
ethical responsibility to maintato the client's welfare.
Upon being contacted by the committee, the psychologist was extremely
apologetic and regretful and promised to refrain from any future behavior
of this sort.
I.
Ou a ecale from 1•7 • circle the nmnber that represents yoar judge=ent of
the level of seriousness of the activity described.
1
2
4
3
not at all
serious
rr..
5
6
moderately
aeriou.a
7
extremely
serious
Following is a list of 7 deciaions representing the actual ones available
to the American Psychological A4sociation ethics committee listed in order of
aeverity. Ple.ase circle the t&llCtion yoa consider moat appropri.tte for the
ease description ~above.
1.
CUe does a.ot warrant arry further action or sanction.
2.
Edacative-advi..sory: ·Educational information tent to psychologist advising
more appropriate ways of handling the tame situation next time.
3.
Zdacat:i.ve warning: Same u above but would include a clear warning which
could lead to a more seriaa. finding if the activity continaed.
4,
Reprimand: A letter sent to the psychologUt stating that psychologist
ahoald have known better. Copy placed in the psychologist's file.
5.
Cen.~ure:
· Similar to above bat might also include offering fin&uci.al re•
atitution to complainant. ~d&ted aapervisi,on, referral of psychologist
for psychotherapy, a mandated apology or homework assignments or assignments to apecific coatinaing education courses.
6.
Stipulated resignation: Recoamendation that ptycbologist be dropped from
APA membership. May include provi.siOUI for re1Jlltatement after a specified
omo=t of time.
7.
Expulsion: llec""""'ndation that psychologiat be expelled from the APA.
individual· members and •tate licensing boartb: notified of action~
i
All
v .r. va
a:
i>W'il:
XIGN:!!cici'i
ll2
THE RAW SCORE AND CATEGORICAL DATA
FOR EACH CONDITION
Minor Infraction, Apologetic Response and Veteran
Condition
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
sa
S9
S10
Severity
4
5
3
1
3
4
3
6
4
1
Sanction
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
Gender
1
1
9
1
2
2
2
9
9
2
Years in Field
19
10
99
35
25
30
10
99
99
14
Moderate Infraction, Apologetic Response and Veteran
Condition
S11
S12
S13
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
S19
S20
Severity
3
5
4
3
3
4
2
5
5
5
Sanction
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
4
4
3
Gender
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
9
1
Years in Field
11
20
99
99
18
30
25
30
99
33
Severe Infraction, Apologetic Response and Veteran
Condition
S21
S22
S23
S24
S25
S26
S27
S28
S29
S30
severity
5
5
6
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
Sanction
5
9
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
Gender
1
9
1
9
2
1
1
9
1
2
Years in Field
18
99
18
99
08
15
23
99
17
14
113
Minor Infraction, Obstinate Response and Veteran Condition
S31
S32
S33
S34
S35
S36
S37
S38
S39
S40
severity
3
6
4
4
5
4
2
1
4
4
Sanction
2
5
2
2
3
4
2
2
4
2
Gender
9
9
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Years in Field
99
99
99
99
16
33
09
09
30
13
Minor Infraction, No Response and Veteran Condition
S41
S42
S43
S44
S45
S46
S47
S48
S49
S50
Severity
1
2
3
4
4
6
3
Sanction
1
1
4
1
4
3
1 1
3
3
2
4
3
2
2
1
Years in Field
99
10
99
99
99
99
06
14
99
9
99
Gender
9
2
1
9
9
2
Minor Infraction, Apologetic Response and New Condition
Severity
S51
S52
S53
S54
S55
S56
S57
S58
S59
S60
2
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
5
Sanction
2
4
3
2
1
Gender
1
9
1
1
1
Years in Field
09
99
35
10
30
2
2
11
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
13
99
14
20
2
...
'
ll4
w
Moderate Infraction, No Response and Veteran Condition
S61
S62
S63
S64
S65
S66
S67
S68
S69
S70
Severity
5
Sanction
4
1
1
3
5
7
5
6
5
3
5
2
4
5
4
3
3
2
4
Gender
1
1
Years in Field
99
15
2
11
1
1
1
1
05
10
1
9
2
11
13
12
99
22
Severe Infraction, No Response and Veteran Condition
S71
S72
S73
S74
S75
S76
S77
S78
S79
sao
Severity
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
7
7
Sanction
5
7
7
7
7
5
5
6
6
7
Gender
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
9
1
2
Years in Field
99
15
15
28
05
14
03
99
99
42
Minor Infraction, No Response and New Condition
S81
S82
S83
S84
S85
S86
S87
S88
S89
S90
Severity
5
4
2
5
2
4
3
3
4
2
Sanction
5
9
2
4
2
3
2
4
3
2
Gender
1
1
1
1
2
9
1
1
2
9
Years in Field
13
27
25
25
20
99
15
24
15
99
r
ll5
Moderate Infraction, No Response and New Condition
S91
S92
S93
S94
S95
S96
S97
S98
S99
S100
Severity
4
2
3
3
7
7
2
6
2
1
Sanction
3
2
2
3
6
5
2
5
2
2
Gender
1
1
2
2
2
9
1
9
9
1
Years in Field
99
30
18
25
04
99
15
99
99
10
Severe Infraction, No Response and New Condition
S1 01
S102
S103
S104
S105
S106
S107
S108
S109
S110
Severity
7
6
7
7
6
6
7
7
5
6
Sanction
6
5
7
6
5
5
6
6
5
5
Gender
9
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
Years in Field
99
99
10
15
09
14
10
06
12
11
Minor Infraction, No Response and No Time in Field
Condition
S111
S112
S113
S114
S115
S116
S117
S118
S119
S120
Severity
2
2
3
2
1
7
6
4
3
1
Sanction
2
2
2
2
1
5
3
3
4
1
Gender
9
9
2
9
2
9
9
9
1
9
Years in Field
99
99
13
99
17
35
99
28
10
99
r
1~6
Moderate Infraction, No Response __a_)'lQ No Time in Field
Condition
S121
S122
S123
S124
S125
S126
S127
S128
S129
S130
Severity
4
4
4
6
4
2
4
6
3
5
Sanction
3
3
2
3
5
3
3
4
2
4
Gender
1
9
1
9
9
1
9
9
1
9
Years in Field
26
99
09
99
99
26
99
99
18
99
Severe Infraction, No Response and No Time in Field
S131
S132
S133
S134
S135
S136
S137
S138
S139
S140
Severity
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
5
Sanction·
7
9
5
5
4
5
6
6
5
4
Gender
1
2
1
1
2
1
9
1
2
1
Years in Field
35
15
12
18
08
12
99
15
99
25
Moderate Infraction, Apologetic Response and New Condition
S141
S142
S143
S144
S145
S146
S147
S148
S149
S150
Severity
7
4
2
5
3
3
4
4
7
2
Sanction
5
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
Gender
2
2
1
9
1
2
2
1
1
1
Years in Field
35
99
08
99
27
10
12
10
99
18
T
117:
Severe Infraction, Apologetic Response and New Condition
severity
S151
S152
S153
S154
S155
S156
S157
S158
S159
S160
7
7
7
6
7
7
5
7
7
7
Sanction
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
7
5
5
Gender
9
1
9
9
1
2
1
1
1
2
Years in Field
99
15
99
99
25
22
14
33
99
15
Minor Infraction, Apologetic Response and No Time in Field
Condition
Severity
S161
S162
S163
S164
S165
S166
S167
S168
S169
S170
2
2
4
2
5
3
3
1
2
3
Sanction
2
2
1
2
4
2
3
1
2
3
Gender
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
Years in Field
20
30
35
11
09
04
21
20
32
99
Moderate Infraction, Apologetic Response and No Time in
Field Condition
S171
S172
S173
S174
S175
S176
S177
S178
S179
S180
Severity
Sanction
3
6
5
5·
4
5
3
6
3
6
3
4
1
4
3
1
2
4
2
3
Gender
2
9
1
1
1
1
2
1
9
1
Years in Field
15
99
40
48
40
99
11
10
99
35
•
t
1.18
Severe Infraction, Apologetic Response and No Time in
Field Condition
S181
S182
S183
S184
S185
S186
S187
S188
S189
S190
Severity
6
7
7
7
5
6
5
7
7
6
Sanction
9
5
6
7
5
3
3
5
6
6
Gender
1
1
2
1
9
1
9
1
9
2
Years in Field
12
28
99
06
99
99
99
13
99
11
Moderate Infraction, Obstinate Response and Veteran
Condition
S191
S192
S193
S194
S195
S196
S197
S198
S199
S200
Severity
3
2
5
7
7
1
4
3
4
2
Sanction
3
2
4
4
4
1
3
3
3
2
Gender
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
Years in Field
05
12
99
16
18
99
30
20
30
09
Severe Infraction, Obstinate Response and Veteran
Condition
S201
S202
S203
S204
S205
S206
S207
S208
S209
S210
,,
Severity
6
7
5
7
6
5
7
7
7
7
Sanction
6
5
3
7
7
4
6
7
6
5
Gender
1
1
9
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
Years in Field
27
14
99
08
99
24
31
'
99
15
10
'
119
'
Minor Infraction, Obstinate Re?_Eonse and New Condition
S211
S212
S213
S214
S215
S216
S217
S218
S219
S220
Severity
6
3
2
6
5
7
4
3
2
6
Sanction
3
3
2
9
1
3
2
3
1
5
Gender
1
1
2
9
1
1
9
1
1
1
Years in Field
50
99
07
99
40
10
99
99
10
15
Moderate Infraction, Obstinate Response and New Condition
S221
S222
S223
S224
S225
S226
S227
S228
S229
S230
Severity
5
3
3
6
4
7
6
2
4
3
Sanction
4
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
Gender
1
1
1
1
1
2
9
1
2
9
Years in Field
16
10
05
08
19
25
99
30
99
99
Severe Infraction, Obstinate Response and New Condition
S231
S232
S233
S234
S235
S236
S237
S238
S239
S240
Severity
7
6
7
7
7
6
7
6
6
7
Sanction
7
7
5
7
5
6
5
5
3
7
Gender
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
Years in Field
30
09
99
13
12
23
23
15
13
10
120
Minor Infraction, Obstinate Response and No Time in Field
Condition
S241
S242
S243
S244
S245
S246
S247
S248
S249
S250
Severity
6
3
4
7
3
6
6
4
2
3
Sanction
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
Gender
2
2
1
1
1
1
9
1
2
1
Years in Field
10
15
20
25
12
14
99
30
99
99
Moderate Infraction, Obstinate ResEonse and No Time in
Field Condition
S251
S252
S253
S254
S255
S256
S257
S258
S259
S260
Severity
2
4
7
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
Sanction
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Gender
9
9
9
9
9
1
1
1
1
1
Years in Field
99
99
39
99
99
99
25
30
15
30
Severe Infraction, Obstinate ResEonse and No Time in Field
Condition
S261
S262
S263
S264
S265
S266
S267
S268
S269
S270
Severity
7
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Sanction
9
2
7
7
7
5
5
7
7
5
Gender
1
1
2
1
9
1
1
9
9
1
Years in Field
18
30
12
07
99
13
99
99
99
17