By: Barbara G. Tabachnick
California
State University, Northridge;
Patricia
Keith-Spiegel
California State University,
Northridge
Kenneth S. Pope
Los Angeles,
CA
Acknowledgement: This project was
supported, in part, by the small grants program of California State University,
Northridge. Portions of this article were presented at the 96th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association in Atlanta, Georgia, in
August 1988.
We acknowledge our appreciation to Gary Spiegel for
developing and applying the random sampling technique and preparing the surveys
for mailing, and to Barbara Nicholson for assisting with data recording. We
thank the California State University, Northridge, Computer Center for use of
the facility.
Ethics and conduct of service-providing psychologists
working outside of academic settings have received
considerable coverage in the scholarly and professional literature. Parallel
literature describing the ethical dilemmas and responsibilities of psychologists
teaching in academic institutions has been confined almost exclusively to two
areas: supervision or treatment of students as researchers or research
participants, and sexual harassment of students and supervisees.
Examinations of the ethical responsibilities of
university teaching faculties across all disciplines are quite few (see, e.g.,
Baumgarten,
1982; Brown
& Krager, 1985; Callahan,
1982; Deutsch,
1979; Dill,
1982; Hook,
Kurtz, & Todorovich, 1977; Schurr,
1982; Scriven,
1982; Wilson,
1982), and fewer yet for teaching psychologists (see,
e.g., Cole,
1981; Goodstein,
1981; Keith-Spiegel
& Koocher, 1985; Matthews,
1989; Redlich
& Pope, 1980).
The paucity of scholarly essays and the lack of
empirical studies of ethics in academe does not mean that university faculties
have remained unscrutinized. A small stream of books echoing concerns about
professors range from stinging indictments, such as Sykes's
(1988)ProfScam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education or
Professor
X's (1973)This Beats Working for a Living: The Dark Secrets of a College
Professor, to more thoughtful but nevertheless unsettling criticisms such
as Cahn's
(1986)Saints and Scamps: Ethics in Academia or the best sellers
Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know ( Hirsch,
1987) and The Closing of the American Mind ( Bloom,
1987). Perhaps this recurring “professor-bashing” is at least partially
responsible for the tendencies of faculty members to shy away from objective
self-examination.
Academic professional associations have not ignored
ethical obligations altogether, although formal policies regulating conduct have
not emerged gracefully. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
does have an ethics code ( AAUP,
1987), although as Dill
(1982) pointed out, early resistance to dealing with self-discipline and
conduct regulation was extensive. John Dewey believed that the concept of
academic freedom was meaningless without a consideration of academic
responsibility. Dewey founded and chaired a short-lived committee on
professional ethics in the early 1920s; yet, it was to be almost 50 years before
AAUP would adopt its first ethics code ( Dill,
1982).
The American Psychological Association (APA)
represents a discipline whose members function in diverse work settings, and
academic psychologists have never been exempted from inclusion in the mandates
of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists ( APA,
1977, 1981,
1990).
The more recent revisions of the Ethical Principles have
included principles directed explicitly to teaching psychologists. For example,
the current ethics code admonishes, “As teachers, psychologists recognize their
primary obligation to help others acquire knowledge and skill. They maintain
high standards of scholarship by presenting psychological information
objectively, fully, and accurately” (Principle le, APA,
1990).
Our profession, however, has lacked empirical data
about what aspects of teaching are viewed as presenting ethical dilemmas for
psychologists, how often those dilemmas occur, and how psychologists respond. We
conducted the following survey to gather some initial data about the ethical
attitudes and behaviors of psychologists functioning as teachers.
Method
A survey questionnaire, a cover letter, and a return
envelope were sent to 1,000 psychologists (500 men and 500 women) identified
from the full membership section of the Membership Directory of the
American Psychological Association ( APA,
1987). The sample was randomly selected from among those who listed an
academic department as their address and/or who were members of Division 2
(Teaching of Psychology).
The survey questionnaire was adapted from that used in
a comparison study of psychologists functioning as therapists ( Pope,
Tabachnick, & Keith-Spiegel, 1987). Participants were asked to rate each
of 63 behaviors in terms of two categories. First, to what extent had they
engaged in the behavior in their work as teachers? Participants could rate the
behavior's occurrence in their academic activities as never,
rarely, sometimes, fairly often, or very often. Second,
to what extent did the participants consider the behavior ethical? In rating
whether each behavior was ethical, participants could use five categories:
unquestionably not, under rare circumstances, don't know/not sure, under
many circumstances, and unquestionably yes.
Respondents were also asked to provide information
about their own age, sex, primary teaching setting or academic appointment, type
of teaching (e.g., classroom, research supervision), tenure status, and primary
specialty (e.g., experimental, social, clinical).
Results
Demographic Characteristics and Ratings of the 63 Behaviors
Questionnaires were returned by 483 of the 1,000
respondents solicited; 482 provided usable data. Table
1 presents descriptions of the respondents' sex, age, primary teaching
setting, and whether tenured. Of the 469 respondents who revealed their sex,
more than one half were women (253), although an equal number of questionnaires
had been addressed to men and women. About one half the respondents were between
the ages of 36 and 50 (54%); 19% were younger than that, and 27% were older.
Almost one half (46.5%) of the respondents were
affiliated with a PhD-granting department; another 43% identified their primary
teaching setting as a four-year college or one granting the MA degree. About two
thirds of the respondents were tenured. As seen in Table
2, almost all of the respondents indicated having classroom teaching
responsibilities.
The most common primary specialty reported was
clinical (24%), then experimental (18%), social (16%), and developmental (14%).
Primary specialty areas are presented in Table
3.
Table
4 shows the percentage of respondents' ratings for each of the 63 behaviors
in terms of occurrence in their own teaching and the degree to which they
believe the behavior to be ethical.
Responses Systematically Related to Sex and Age of Psychologist
Of the 63 behaviors queried, 37 were selected a priori
to examine for differences related to sex. Because of the large number of
comparisons, α = .001 was set as the criterion for chi-square analyses. By this
criterion, statistically significant relationships between sex and rating were
found for 4 of these behaviors, shown in Table
5. Men were more likely than were women to report being sexually attracted
to students on at least rare occasions (93% vs. 64%, respectively).
A larger proportion of men than women also reported having sexual fantasies
about students at least rarely (84% vs. 39%, respectively). Becoming sexually
involved with a student after the course was completed was more likely among men
(26%) than women (12%), although mostly on a rare basis. Encouraging competition
at least rarely was more common among male instructors (85%) than among female
instructors (63%).
To examine age differences, 27 behaviors were selected
a priori, using a criterion α = .002. The two differences reaching statistical
reliability are shown in Table
5. Psychologists over 50 years of age were more likely to report
never using profanity in class (40%) than were psychologists between 36
and 50 years (29%) or under 36 years (25%). Use of illegal drugs on at least a
rare basis in one's personal life decreased with age, with 40% of psychologists
under 36 years reporting this behavior, decreasing to 32% among psychologists
between 36 and 50 years, and to 12% among psychologists over 50 years. (Recall
that about one half of the respondents were between 36 and 50 years of age.)
Log-linear analysis was used to examine both the
influence of age and sex and their interaction on rating of the ethicality of
three selected behaviors, using a criterion α = .017 for both partial and
marginal tests of association ( Tabachnick
& Fidell, 1989). A statistically significant association was found
between sex and rating of the item: “Teaching that homosexuality per se is
pathological,” χ 2(4, N = 440) = 53.11.
Although 50% of the male psychologists considered this to be unquestionably
unethical, 79% of the female psychologists did so. Neither age nor the Age × Sex
interaction contributed to rating of this behavior.
Rating of the ethicality of “Requiring students to use
aversive procedures with rats, pigeons, etc.” was also associated with sex, χ
2(6, N = 454) = 25.63. This behavior was
considered to be ethical at least under rare circumstances by 83% of the men but
only by 69% of the women. Neither age nor the Age × Sex interaction was
associated with this rating. For the item: “Becoming sexually involved with a
student,” the ethicality rating was associated with neither age, sex, nor the
interaction by the chosen criterion.
Relationship Between Behavior and Belief
Congruence between engaging in behaviors and beliefs
about their ethicality was evaluated through the Γ'statistic, a test of
probability of similar ranking on two indices with ordered categories. To
compensate for multiple (63) analyses, criterion α = .0008, one-tailed test. Of
the 63 behaviors, 53 reached this level, with Γ'ranging from .28 (“Teaching in
buildings which could not accommodate physically challenged students”) to .82
(“Accepting for your department a publisher's monetary reward for adopting their
text”).
For the 11 items that failed to reach reliable
congruence, most did so because of respondents who felt the behavior to be
ethical, but reported that they had not engaged in it. These items included
“Using school resources to create a ‘popular’ psychology trade book,” “Making
deliberate or repeated sexual comments…,” “Teaching that certain races are
intellectually inferior,” “Accepting undeserved authorship on a student's
published paper,” “Accepting for yourself a publisher's monetary rebate for
adopting their text,” “Engaging in a sexual relationship with another faculty
member…” (both items, same or different academic rank), and “Privately tutoring
students in the department for a fee.”
In one instance, “Teaching while under the influence
of alcohol,” there were almost as many respondents who admitted to the behavior
while considering it unquestionably unethical as there were those who considered
it ethical but reportedly did not indulge. No discernable pattern of responses
was evident for the remaining two items showing discrepancy between behavior and
belief: “Teaching where there's no adequate grievance procedure for students”
and “Teaching in a setting lacking adequate ethnic diversity among the
faculty.”
With only one exception (“allowing a student's
‘likability’ to influence your grading”), the frequency with which the
respondents reported engaging in a behavior was less than
the frequency of instances in which the behavior was ethical in their judgment.
Thus, the data suggest that the psychologists' self-reported behavior was
generally in accordance with their ethical beliefs.
Comparisons Between Teaching and Clinical Psychologists
Log-linear analysis was used to compare the teaching
psychologists of the current study with the clinical psychologists of the prior
study ( Pope
et al., 1987) on practice and ethicality judgments of 16 behaviors queried
on both questionnaires. Three-way associations among type of psychologist, sex,
and rating were examined, as well as the two-way association between type of
psychologist and rating. A criterion α = .001 was set for tests of partial
association. As seen in Table
6, 8 of the behaviors were reported more prevalently among teachers and were
more likely to be considered ethical by them. Six of the behaviors were more
prevalent among clinical psychologists. As seen in Table
7, however, judgments of ethicality differed for only one of those items.
For only one of the items was a three-way association
found: “Becoming sexually involved with a student (client).” A pattern of
declining ratings from never to often
for male and female psychologists was the general trend with the following
exception. Male teaching psychologists and female clinical psychologists
responded fairly often more frequently than
sometimes for that behavior. Four male teachers reported sometimes
becoming sexual involved with students, and 14 reported engaging in this
behavior fairly often. None of the female clinicians reported engaging in such
behavior sometimes, but two reported doing so
fairly often.
Differences Associated With Primary Specialty Area
To assess moonlighting behavior and attitudes, the
primary specialty areas were collapsed into two categories: (a) professional
(including clinical, counseling, and the various forms of human
factors/industrial), and (b) the remaining psychologists. A statistically
significant difference in behavior was found, χ 2(4,
N = 476) = 16.86, p < .01. Although 25% of
the professional psychologists reported “teaching full time while moonlighting
at least 20 hours per week” at least rarely, only 11% of the remaining
psychologist group did so. The difference in attitude between the two groups,
although statistically significant, was less dramatic, χ
2(4, N = 476) = 9.76, p <
.05. Although 43% of the professional psychologists felt that such behavior was
unquestionably ethical or ethical under many circumstances, only 32% of the
remaining psychologists did so.
Discussion
Validity and Interpretation Issues
Interpretation of these data must involve caution.
First, this is an initial study and awaits attempts at replication. Second, it
is unclear how the attitudes and practices of this sample of teaching
prychologists compare with those of psychologists functioning as teachers who
are not members of APA. Third, specific ethical standards may not be applicable
to and therefore may not be endorsed by a majority of psychologists functioning
as teachers. As previously noted, ethical standards can represent attempts to
improve ethical awareness and behavior. Empirical data about attitudes and
practices should inform rather than determine our ethical deliberations. Fourth,
a few of the listed behaviors were discovered to be ambiguous. For example,
“encouraging students to participate in your research projects” does not
indicate whether the students' role is that of participant, assistant, or
collaborator. Fifth, the same professionals rated both the frequency of their
own behaviors and their judgments of the ethicality of those behaviors. There is
evidence, however, that such multiple judgments do not bias the results.
Borys
and Pope (1989) conducted a national survey of 4,800 mental health
professionals, in which one half were asked about frequency of behaviors and the
other half about ethicality. Relevant results did not differ from those of
research in which the same professionals made both ratings. Finally, most of the
63 items involved simple ratings of enormously complex issues.
The discussion that follows is meant only to highlight
some major themes, patterns, and dilemmas emerging from these initial data,
rather than to provide an exhaustive discussion of every finding. As pointed out
in Footnote
1, results must be interpreted in the light of the criterion chosen
for dividing those who do and those who do not report engaging in each behavior.
Behaviors That Are Almost Universal
For 3 of the 63 items, at least 90% of the respondents
indicated that they had engaged in the behavior, at least on rare occasions (see
Table
4). Note that two of these items involve teaching when one is not completely
prepared: “teaching material you haven't really mastered” and “teaching a class
without adequate preparation that day.” Of course, if one teaches on a more than
extremely rare basis, it is likely that life's vicissitudes will prevent a
less-than-superhuman psychologist showing up for every class adequately
prepared. Teaching material not completely mastered may in some cases be
attributable to a department's less than ideal allocation of introductory and
required courses among its faculty, or to the difficulties in keeping up with
the information explosion, even in one's own specialty. Fortunately, fewer than
4% describe engaging in either behavior fairly often or
very often. The third item meeting the 90% criterion for almost
universal behavior was “teaching ethics or values to students.” In contrast to
the other two items, for this item almost one half (48%) of the respondents
indicated that they engaged in the behavior fairly often or
very often. The frequency and obvious significance of this
behavior invite detailed follow-up research to explore which values are being
taught (and which are neglected or avoided), the teaching strategies, and the
degree to which efforts in this area are effective, and possible unintended or
unforeseen consequences.
Behaviors That Are Rare
The most rare behavior, acknowledged by only 1% of the
respondents, was sexual harassment, which was never reported on more than a rare
basis. This item, “Making deliberate or repeated sexual comments, gestures, or
physical contact that is unwanted by the student,” was quoted verbatim from the
definition provided by the Ethical Principles of
Psychologists ( APA,
1981), and perhaps, as worded, does not invite many admissions. One other
rare item, “telling a student: ‘I'm sexually attracted to you’,” also concerned
sexual issues. It is intriguing that respondents report disclosing sexual
attraction toward a student (acknowledged on a rare basis by 7%)
less frequently than they report actually becoming sexually involved
with a student (11%, with 9.5% doing so only rarely).
Teaching while under the influence of alcohol (less
than 1% more than rarely) or of cocaine or other illegal drugs (less than 1%
ever) is rare. Few psychologists report ever teaching that certain races are
intellectually inferior (2%) or that homosexuality per se is pathological (5%).
Dishonesty involving including false or misleading information when writing a
letter of recommendation for a student is unusual; it was reported by less than
1% more than rarely.
Allowing at least the appearance of a conflict of
interest in accepting publishers' “kick-backs” is generally avoided. Fewer than
1% acknowledged ever “accepting for yourself a publisher's rebate for adopting
their text,” and only 3% acknowledged ever “accepting for your department” such
rebates.
Although using school resources to prepare a scholarly
textbook (39%) is common, those who report ever using such resources to create a
“popular” psychology trade book (5%) are relatively rare. Few (8%) reportdd ever
taking advantage of student's offer such as wholesale prices. Only 3% reported
ever taking undeserved authorship credit for a student's project, and then only
rarely.
Difficult Judgments
We defined a difficult judgment as
one in which at least 25% of the respondents indicated don't
know/not sure in terms of whether the behavior was ethical. There were
seven items that met this criterion. The two most difficult judgments (the only
two for which more than 30% of the respondents indicated that they didn't know
or weren't sure) involved de facto segregation: “teaching in a setting lacking
adequate ethnic diversity” and “teaching in buildings which could not
accommodate physically challenged students.”
Two difficult items concerned
either external or personal barriers to effective teaching: “teaching in classes
so crowded you couldn't teach effectively” and “teaching when too distressed to
be effective.”
Whether encouraging competition among students,
selling unwanted complimentary textbooks to used book vendors, and teaching in
an institution that does not have adequate grievance procedures, are ethical
were also difficult judgments for respondents to make.
Controversial Behaviors
We defined a controversial item as one in which the
ethical judgments were so diverse that the SD > 1.25. Ten
items met this criterion.
It is intriguing that one half of these controversial
items concerned sexual thoughts or behavior: “being sexually attracted to
students,” “engaging in sexual fantasies about students,” “engaging in a sexual
relationship with another faculty member within your department of the same
academic rank as you,” “engaging in a sexual relationship with another faculty
member within your department who is of a higher or lower rank than you,” and
“becoming sexually involved with a student only after he or she has completed
your course and the grade has been filed.”
Of the remaining controversial behavior items, two
(“requiring students to use aversive procedures with rats, pigeons, etc.” and
“selling unwanted complimentary textbooks to used book vendors”) were also
difficult judgments.
Although slightly more than one half (53%) of the
respondents believed that “having students be research subjects as part of a
course requirement” was either unquestionably ethical or ethical under many
circumstances, a sizable minority (35%) believed that it was either never or
only rarely ethical.
There was a relatively narrow gap between those who
believed that “giving academic credit instead of salary for student assistants”
was clearly ethical or ethical under many circumstances (47%) and those who
believed that it was never or rarely ethical (37%).
“Using cocaine or other illegal drugs in your personal
(nonteaching) life” was judged unethical or ethical only under rare
circumstances by 45% but unquestionably ethical or ethical under many
circumstances by 29%.
Comment on Selected Issues
Bending the rules for selected
students
The importance of objective grading procedures versus
the frailties of human nature was perhaps most apparent in the finding that a
student's likability could influence assigned grades. Note that two thirds of
the respondents believed such actions to be unquestionably unethical, but two
thirds also report having given in to such influences on at least rare
occasions. More than one half of the respondents have allowed students to drop
courses for reasons not officially approved on at least a rare basis, and more
than one half saw this act as generally unethical. Similarly, more than one half
of the respondents report having omitted significant information when writing a
letter of recommendation at least rarely, and two thirds of the respondents view
that behavior as generally unethical. These are instances of, perhaps,
conflicting loyalties; helping out someone who is judged to be deserving of it
versus objectivity in maintaining the standards one knows are important to
uphold in order for the system to work properly. Or perhaps there is a conflict
between endorsement of general rules of behavior versus application of those
rules to those one knows.
Including false or misleading information in a
recommendation letter, however, appears to be clearly unacceptable. Only a small
percentage of respondents report having done that, and 90% believe such behavior
to be unethical.
Little boundary blurrings
Clinical practitioners are admonished to keep the
professional role paramount and to resist any temptation or opportunity to
interact with a client in other roles ( Borys
& Pope, 1989; Pope,
1991; Pope
& Vasquez, 1991). Boundary violations are viewed as compromising the
objectivity necessary to provide competent services, as well as increasing the
potential for exploitation and violations of trust. Students and professors also
compose a sensitive dyad in that the professor has the power to influence
students' lives in a number of significant ways, thus “students” are also
explicitly included in the portion of the Ethical Principles of
Psychologists that admonishes psychologists to avoid dual role
relationships (Principle 5d, APA,
1990).
Student and professor groups, however, are encouraged
to spend time together in a variety of contexts, thus making boundary crossing
difficult to avoid. Sometimes, what with so many social and other types of
activities available to both students and faculty on and off campus, boundary
blurring seems practically built into the academic system.
Accepting invitations to students' parties is a common
phenomenon among teaching psychologists, and less than a quarter of the sample
saw any ethical problems with this activity. Similarly, asking small favors from
students was also commonly reported, although more than one third of the
respondents believed that this was generally unethical. More than one half of
the respondents reported having loaned money to students at least rarely, and
most saw no ethical problems if it was done only under rare circumstances.
Finally, one fourth of the respondents reported selling goods (such as books or
a car) to students on at least rare occasions, with no consensus emerging as to
the ethicality of this behavior. Most of these activities, as we would have
predicted, occur much more frequently among students and professors than among
clients and therapists (see Table
6).
Gossip and betrayal of student
confidences
Relatively few respondents reported ever having
insulted or ridiculed a student directly to his or her face, although almost one
half reported having engaged in such behavior in the students' absence. Hefty
majorities believe, however, that the act in neither context constitutes ethical
behavior. Similarly, more than one third admitted having relayed confidential
disclosures made by students to colleagues (mostly only rarely), although,
again, the vast majority believed this to be unethical (see also Principle 5,
preamble, Ethical Principles of Psychologists,APA,
1990). Thus, although behavior that might embarrass or violate the trust of
a student happens often enough (usually without the students' awareness), the
perpetrators also admit to knowing better.
Willingness to stand up to
wrongdoings
Dealing with the cheating student or unethical
colleague is not relished by anyone. Such situations are inherently distasteful,
not to mention anxiety-provoking, painful, and even frightening to confront.
About one fourth of the respondents reported having
assisted students with the filing of a complaint against another teacher, mostly
only rarely. It is impossible to ascertain from our data if the others had
failed to engage in that act because the opportunity never presented itself. It
was distressing to learn, however, that one fifth of the respondents reported
they had, at least on rare occasions, ignored strong evidence of student
cheating, and 79% had ignored unethical behavior by colleagues. It would be of
great interest to know more about the barriers or circumstances that account for
turning away from the ethical responsibility to be actively involved in the
monitoring of ethical behavior of colleagues and students (see Principle 7g of
the Ethical Principles of Psychologists,APA,
1990).
Sexual relations with students and other
faculty
The sexualization of psychologists' professional
relationships with those whom they serve—as teachers, as therapists, as
supervisors, as assessment specialists, and so forth—has been a problematic one
for the profession. Some maintain that neither the law nor the APA can
legitimately hinder the right to free association (including the right to define
that association as sexual) of two consenting adults, whether they be teacher
and student, employer and employee, therapist and patient, or assessment
specialist and job candidate. Others express concern that the sexualization of
professional relationships may cause a variety of negative consequences
including the erosion of the objectivity necessary for professional tasks (
Glaser
& Thorpe, 1986; Pope,
1989; Pope,
1990a, 1990b;
Pope,
Levenson, & Schover, 1979; Pope
& Vasquez, 1991; Robinson
& Reid, 1985). For example, teachers must assume the role of evaluator (
APA,
1979; Pope,
Schover, & Levenson, 1980).
Sexual attraction toward and sexual fantasies about
students were reported to occur in the majority of the respondents, although
less frequently by the women and at less frequent rates than those of therapists
toward their clients ( Pope,
Keith-Spiegel, & Tabachnick, 1986; Pope
et al., 1987). Smaller percentages of respondents reported having disclosed
feelings of sexual attraction, dated, or had sexual relations with current or
former students. When sexual feelings toward students are acted
upon, the majority of the respondents believed that this constituted an
ethical problem.
Despite the fact that sexual relations among
colleagues may raise ethical issues because of power differentials and political
intrigues, they were viewed differently than was sexual activity between teacher
and student. Only about 1 in 10 respondents reported engaging in a sexual
relation with a colleague of the same academic rank or of a different academic
rank, and sexual involvement with a colleague of the same
rank was viewed as less ethically objectionable. Generally, however, the
respondents did not believe that sexual relations among colleagues was an
ethical problem.
Hugging students may, of course, be sexual or
nonsexual in nature (and, not infrequently, the two participants may interpret
that nature differently). The majority of the respondents reported hugging
students at least on occasion, which is still significantly less than therapists
hug their clients (see Table
7). There was no consensus among respondents on the ethics of hugging
students.
Conclusion
Those of us who are devoted to teaching may be
justifiably skeptical of some external efforts to regulate what and how we
teach. And yet this skepticism may have hindered valuable processes of ethical
self-examination and accountability of the sort we wish to model for and
encourage in our students. A crucial aspect of the maturation and moral
development of any profession is the collective openness and dedication of its
membership to study and critically examine itself.
Psychology has a rich tradition of empirical research
and respect for systematically collected data. It is time for us to bring the
strengths, strategies, rigorous discipline, and persistent inquisitiveness of
that tradition to bear on our own behavior and beliefs as teachers.
Footnotes
1 In
reporting this and subsequent findings, we frequently differentiate responses of
never from all of the remaining responses. It is important
to emphasize that non-never categories may include many
respondents who seldom engage in a behavior (perhaps once, a long time ago). We
have attempted to point out behaviors for which the preponderance of non-never
responses is rarely, and to use other criteria for
differentiating responses when deemed appropriate. In general, we use the
criterion that we feel best characterizes the reported behavior of our
respondents and their likely interpretation of the question, and attempt to make
explicit in each case the cutoff used. Nevertheless, caution is necessary in
interpretation of all percentages reported.
REFERENCES
American Association of University Professors. (
1987, July–August). Statement on professional ethics.
Academe, 73( 4), 49.
American Psychological Association. ( 1977).
Standards for providers of psychological services.
American Psychologist, 32, 495–
505.
American Psychological Association. ( 1979).
Criteria for accreditation of doctoral training programs and
internships in professional psychology. Washington, DC:
Author.
American Psychological Association. ( 1981).
Ethical principles of psychologists ( Rev. ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. ( 1987).
Membership directory of the American Psychological
Association. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. ( 1990).
Ethical principles of psychologists (amended June 2, 1989)American
Psychologist, 45, 390– 395.
Baumgarten, E. ( 1982).
Ethics in the academic profession. Journal of Higher
Education, 53, 283– 295.
Bloom, A. ( 1987).
The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Borys, D. S., & Pope,
K. S. ( 1989). Dual relationships between
therapist and client: A national study of psychologists, psychiatrists, and
social workers. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 20, 283– 293.
Brown, R. D., & Krager,
L. ( 1985). Ethical issues in graduate
education: Faculty and student responsibilities. Journal of
Higher Education, 56, 403– 418.
Cahn, S. M. ( 1986).
Saints and scamps: Ethics in academia. Totowa, NJ:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Callahan, D. ( 1982).
Should there be an academic code of ethics?Journal of Higher Education,
53, 335– 346.
Cole, D. L. ( 1981).
Teaching tomorrow's psychology students: Who pays the piper?American
Psychologist, 36, 514– 519.
Deutsch, M. ( 1979).
Education and distributive justice: Some reflections on grading systems.
American Psychologist, 34, 391–
401.
Dill, D. D. ( 1982).
The structure of the academic profession: Toward a definition of ethical issues.
Journal of Higher Education, 53,
255– 267.
Glaser, R. D., & Thorpe,
J. S. ( 1986). Unethical intimacy: A survey of
sexual contact and advances between psychology educators and female graduate
students. American Psychologist, 41,
43– 51.
Goodstein, L. D. ( 1981).
Ethics are for academics too!Professional Psychology,
12, 191– 193.
Hirsch, E. D. ( 1987).
Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hook, S., Kurtz,
P., & Todorovich, M. ( Eds.). (
1977). The ethics of teaching and scientific research.
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Keith-Spiegel, P. C., &
Koocher, G. ( 1985). Ethics in psychology:
Professional standards and cases. New York: Random
House.
Matthews, J. R. ( 1989,
August13). The teaching of ethics and the ethics of
teaching.Division 2 presidential address delivered at the 97th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Pope, K. S. ( 1989).
Teacher–student sexual intimacy. In G. O.Gabbard ( Ed.),
Sexual exploitation in professional relationships (pp.
163– 176). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Press.
Pope, K. S. ( 1990a).
Therapist–patient sex as sex abuse: Six scientific, professional and practical
dilemmas in addressing victimization and rehabilitation.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21,
227– 239.
Pope, K. S. ( 1990b).
Therapist–patient sexual involvement: A review of research.
Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 477–
490.
Pope, K. S. ( 1991).
Dual relationships in psychotherapy. Ethics and Behavior,
1, 21– 34.
Pope, K. S., Keith-Spiegel,
P., & Tabachnick, B. G. (
1986). Sexual attraction to clients: The human therapist and the
(sometimes) inhuman training system. American Psychologist,
41, 147– 158.
Pope, K. S., Levenson,
H., & Schover, L. R. ( 1979).
Sexual intimacy in psychology training: Results and implications of a
national survey. American Psychologist,
34, 682– 689.
Pope, K. S., Schover,
L. R., & Levenson, H. ( 1980).
Sexual behavior between clinical supervisors and trainees: Implications
for professional standards. Professional Psychology,
11, 157– 162.
Pope, K. S., Tabachnick,
B. G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (
1987). Ethics of practice: The beliefs and behaviors of psychologists
as therapists. American Psychologist,
42, 993– 1006.
Pope, K. S., & Vasquez,
M. J. T. ( 1991). Ethics in psychotherapy
and counseling: A practical guide for psychologists. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Professor, X. ( 1973).
This beats working for a living: The dark secrets of a college
professor. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.
Redlich, F., & Pope,
K. ( 1980). Ethics of mental health training.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 168,
709– 714.
Robinson, W. L., & Reid,
P. T. ( 1985). Sexual intimacies in psychology
revisited. Professional Psychology, 16,
512– 520.
Schurr, G. M. ( 1982).
Toward a code of ethics for academics. Journal of Higher
Education, 53, 318– 134.
Scriven, M. ( 1982).
Professorial ethics. Journal of Higher Education,
53, 307– 317.
Sykes, C. J. ( 1988).
Profscam: Professors and the demise of higher education.
Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.
Tabachnick, B. G., &
Fidell, L. S. ( 1989). Using multivariate
statistics ( 2nd ed.). New York: Harper &
Row.
Wilson, E. K. ( 1982).
Power, pretence, and piggybacking: Some ethical issues in teaching.
Journal of Higher Education, 53, 268–
281.
This publication is protected by US and international
copyright laws and its content may not be copied without the copyright holders
express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the
retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use
of the individual user.
Source: American
Psychologist. Vol.46 (5) US : American Psychological Association pp.
506-515.
Accession Number: 1991-28759-001
Digital Object
Identifier: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.5.506