psychology case study ethics

Ethics & Psychology

• General Resources
• Animal Subjects
• Human Subjects
• Case Studies

Collections of Cases

• Ethics Case Studies in Mental Health Research A large collection of cases addressing issues such as human participants in research, conflict of interest, and the responsible collection, management, and use of research data.
• Ethics Education Library -Psychology Case Studies A collection of over 90 case studies from the Ethics Education Library.
• Ethics Rounds A collection of case studies published in the American Psychological Association's "Monitor on Ethics".

Case Investigations by Government Agencies/Professional Organizations

• Office of Research Integrity Cases summaries from the past four years of investigations and inquiries done by the Office of Research Integrity. Also includes short case summaries from 1994 onwards.

Books, Anthologies, & More

• << Previous: Human Subjects
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2023 10:40 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.iit.edu/psychologyethics

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Studies UT Star Icon

Case Studies

More than 70 cases pair ethics concepts with real world situations. From journalism, performing arts, and scientific research to sports, law, and business, these case studies explore current and historic ethical dilemmas, their motivating biases, and their consequences. Each case includes discussion questions, related videos, and a bibliography.

A Million Little Pieces

James Frey’s popular memoir stirred controversy and media attention after it was revealed to contain numerous exaggerations and fabrications.

Abramoff: Lobbying Congress

Super-lobbyist Abramoff was caught in a scheme to lobby against his own clients. Was a corrupt individual or a corrupt system – or both – to blame?

Apple Suppliers & Labor Practices

Is tech company Apple, Inc. ethically obligated to oversee the questionable working conditions of other companies further down their supply chain?

Approaching the Presidency: Roosevelt & Taft

Some presidents view their responsibilities in strictly legal terms, others according to duty. Roosevelt and Taft took two extreme approaches.

Appropriating “Hope”

Fairey’s portrait of Barack Obama raised debate over the extent to which an artist can use and modify another’s artistic work, yet still call it one’s own.

Arctic Offshore Drilling

Competing groups frame the debate over oil drilling off Alaska’s coast in varying ways depending on their environmental and economic interests.

Banning Burkas: Freedom or Discrimination?

The French law banning women from wearing burkas in public sparked debate about discrimination and freedom of religion.

Birthing Vaccine Skepticism

Wakefield published an article riddled with inaccuracies and conflicts of interest that created significant vaccine hesitancy regarding the MMR vaccine.

Blurred Lines of Copyright

Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs.

Bullfighting: Art or Not?

Bullfighting has been a prominent cultural and artistic event for centuries, but in recent decades it has faced increasing criticism for animal rights’ abuse.

Buying Green: Consumer Behavior

Do purchasing green products, such as organic foods and electric cars, give consumers the moral license to indulge in unethical behavior?

Cadavers in Car Safety Research

Engineers at Heidelberg University insist that the use of human cadavers in car safety research is ethical because their research can save lives.

Cardinals’ Computer Hacking

St. Louis Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa hacked into the Houston Astros’ webmail system, leading to legal repercussions and a lifetime ban from MLB.

Cheating: Atlanta’s School Scandal

Teachers and administrators at Parks Middle School adjust struggling students’ test scores in an effort to save their school from closure.

Cheating: Sign-Stealing in MLB

The Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scheme rocked the baseball world, leading to a game-changing MLB investigation and fallout.

Cheating: UNC’s Academic Fraud

UNC’s academic fraud scandal uncovered an 18-year scheme of unchecked coursework and fraudulent classes that enabled student-athletes to play sports.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court

A controversial case focuses on Justice Scalia’s personal friendship with Vice President Cheney and the possible conflict of interest it poses to the case.

Christina Fallin: “Appropriate Culturation?”

After Fallin posted a picture of herself wearing a Plain’s headdress on social media, uproar emerged over cultural appropriation and Fallin’s intentions.

Climate Change & the Paris Deal

While climate change poses many abstract problems, the actions (or inactions) of today’s populations will have tangible effects on future generations.

Cover-Up on Campus

While the Baylor University football team was winning on the field, university officials failed to take action when allegations of sexual assault by student athletes emerged.

Covering Female Athletes

Sports Illustrated stirs controversy when their cover photo of an Olympic skier seems to focus more on her physical appearance than her athletic abilities.

Covering Yourself? Journalists and the Bowl Championship

Can news outlets covering the Bowl Championship Series fairly report sports news if their own polls were used to create the news?

Cyber Harassment

After a student defames a middle school teacher on social media, the teacher confronts the student in class and posts a video of the confrontation online.

Defending Freedom of Tweets?

Running back Rashard Mendenhall receives backlash from fans after criticizing the celebration of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in a tweet.

Dennis Kozlowski: Living Large

Dennis Kozlowski was an effective leader for Tyco in his first few years as CEO, but eventually faced criminal charges over his use of company assets.

Digital Downloads

File-sharing program Napster sparked debate over the legal and ethical dimensions of downloading unauthorized copies of copyrighted music.

Dr. V’s Magical Putter

Journalist Caleb Hannan outed Dr. V as a trans woman, sparking debate over the ethics of Hannan’s reporting, as well its role in Dr. V’s suicide.

East Germany’s Doping Machine

From 1968 to the late 1980s, East Germany (GDR) doped some 9,000 athletes to gain success in international athletic competitions despite being aware of the unfortunate side effects.

Ebola & American Intervention

Did the dispatch of U.S. military units to Liberia to aid in humanitarian relief during the Ebola epidemic help or hinder the process?

Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

Was Edward Snowden’s release of confidential government documents ethically justifiable?

Ethical Pitfalls in Action

Why do good people do bad things? Behavioral ethics is the science of moral decision-making, which explores why and how people make the ethical (and unethical) decisions that they do.

Ethical Use of Home DNA Testing

The rising popularity of at-home DNA testing kits raises questions about privacy and consumer rights.

Flying the Confederate Flag

A heated debate ensues over whether or not the Confederate flag should be removed from the South Carolina State House grounds.

Freedom of Speech on Campus

In the wake of racially motivated offenses, student protests sparked debate over the roles of free speech, deliberation, and tolerance on campus.

Freedom vs. Duty in Clinical Social Work

What should social workers do when their personal values come in conflict with the clients they are meant to serve?

Full Disclosure: Manipulating Donors

When an intern witnesses a donor making a large gift to a non-profit organization under misleading circumstances, she struggles with what to do.

Gaming the System: The VA Scandal

The Veterans Administration’s incentives were meant to spur more efficient and productive healthcare, but not all administrators complied as intended.

German Police Battalion 101

During the Holocaust, ordinary Germans became willing killers even though they could have opted out from murdering their Jewish neighbors.

Head Injuries & American Football

Many studies have linked traumatic brain injuries and related conditions to American football, creating controversy around the safety of the sport.

Head Injuries & the NFL

American football is a rough and dangerous game and its impact on the players’ brain health has sparked a hotly contested debate.

Healthcare Obligations: Personal vs. Institutional

A medical doctor must make a difficult decision when informing patients of the effectiveness of flu shots while upholding institutional recommendations.

High Stakes Testing

In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, parents, teachers, and school administrators take different positions on how to assess student achievement.

In-FUR-mercials: Advertising & Adoption

When the Lied Animal Shelter faces a spike in animal intake, an advertising agency uses its moral imagination to increase pet adoptions.

Krogh & the Watergate Scandal

Egil Krogh was a young lawyer working for the Nixon Administration whose ethics faded from view when asked to play a part in the Watergate break-in.

Limbaugh on Drug Addiction

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh argued that drug abuse was a choice, not a disease. He later became addicted to painkillers.

U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte’s “over-exaggeration” of an incident at the 2016 Rio Olympics led to very real consequences.

Meet Me at Starbucks

Two black men were arrested after an employee called the police on them, prompting Starbucks to implement “racial-bias” training across all its stores.

Myanmar Amber

Buying amber could potentially fund an ethnic civil war, but refraining allows collectors to acquire important specimens that could be used for research.

Negotiating Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy lawyer Gellene successfully represented a mining company during a major reorganization, but failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Pao & Gender Bias

Ellen Pao stirred debate in the venture capital and tech industries when she filed a lawsuit against her employer on grounds of gender discrimination.

Pardoning Nixon

One month after Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, Gerald Ford made the controversial decision to issue Nixon a full pardon.

Patient Autonomy & Informed Consent

Nursing staff and family members struggle with informed consent when taking care of a patient who has been deemed legally incompetent.

Prenatal Diagnosis & Parental Choice

Debate has emerged over the ethics of prenatal diagnosis and reproductive freedom in instances where testing has revealed genetic abnormalities.

Reporting on Robin Williams

After Robin Williams took his own life, news media covered the story in great detail, leading many to argue that such reporting violated the family’s privacy.

Responding to Child Migration

An influx of children migrants posed logistical and ethical dilemmas for U.S. authorities while intensifying ongoing debate about immigration.

Retracting Research: The Case of Chandok v. Klessig

A researcher makes the difficult decision to retract a published, peer-reviewed article after the original research results cannot be reproduced.

Sacking Social Media in College Sports

In the wake of questionable social media use by college athletes, the head coach at University of South Carolina bans his players from using Twitter.

Selling Enron

Following the deregulation of electricity markets in California, private energy company Enron profited greatly, but at a dire cost.

Snyder v. Phelps

Freedom of speech was put on trial in a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and their protesting at the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder.

Something Fishy at the Paralympics

Rampant cheating has plagued the Paralympics over the years, compromising the credibility and sportsmanship of Paralympian athletes.

Sports Blogs: The Wild West of Sports Journalism?

Deadspin pays an anonymous source for information related to NFL star Brett Favre, sparking debate over the ethics of “checkbook journalism.”

Stangl & the Holocaust

Franz Stangl was the most effective Nazi administrator in Poland, killing nearly one million Jews at Treblinka, but he claimed he was simply following orders.

Teaching Blackface: A Lesson on Stereotypes

A teacher was put on leave for showing a blackface video during a lesson on racial segregation, sparking discussion over how to teach about stereotypes.

The Astros’ Sign-Stealing Scandal

The Houston Astros rode a wave of success, culminating in a World Series win, but it all came crashing down when their sign-stealing scheme was revealed.

The Central Park Five

Despite the indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the innocence of the Central Park Five, some involved in the case refuse to believe it.

The CIA Leak

Legal and political fallout follows from the leak of classified information that led to the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The Collapse of Barings Bank

When faced with growing losses, investment banker Nick Leeson took big risks in an attempt to get out from under the losses. He lost.

The Costco Model

How can companies promote positive treatment of employees and benefit from leading with the best practices? Costco offers a model.

The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy

How can tech companies and government organizations strike a balance between maintaining national security and protecting user privacy?

The Miss Saigon Controversy

When a white actor was cast for the half-French, half-Vietnamese character in the Broadway production of Miss Saigon , debate ensued.

The Sandusky Scandal

Following the conviction of assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexual abuse, debate continues on how much university officials and head coach Joe Paterno knew of the crimes.

The Varsity Blues Scandal

A college admissions prep advisor told wealthy parents that while there were front doors into universities and back doors, he had created a side door that was worth exploring.

Providing radiation therapy to cancer patients, Therac-25 had malfunctions that resulted in 6 deaths. Who is accountable when technology causes harm?

Welfare Reform

The Welfare Reform Act changed how welfare operated, intensifying debate over the government’s role in supporting the poor through direct aid.

Wells Fargo and Moral Emotions

In a settlement with regulators, Wells Fargo Bank admitted that it had created as many as two million accounts for customers without their permission.

Stay Informed

Support our work.

Psychology’s Contribution to Ethics: Two Case Studies

• First Online: 22 March 2016

Cite this chapter

• Liz Gulliford 2  

739 Accesses

1 Citations

This paper contends that psychology cannot replace ethics. However, it will be argued, with reference to two case studies, that the empirical investigation of human morality can offer an important contribution to ethics. First, an empirical approach can illuminate matters of definition. Normative ethicists often make distinctions between concepts that do not reflect lay usage, and may seek to refine or reclaim the ‘true’ meaning of words to prevent the erosion of conceptual distinctions. However, it might be argued that they should hold no privileged place when it comes to defining the terms of language as it is used. It is essential that philosophers take seriously the question of what laypeople understand by ethical concepts, partly because the cultural and social differences such analyses reveal are interesting in themselves, but also because there are implications for the relationship between laypeople and the academy. The first case study thus shows that psychology can make a contribution towards defining ethical concepts. Secondly, it will be shown that psychology can elucidate the processes by which ethically desirable ends might be facilitated. Psychological approaches to forgiveness may, for example, help to expedite a goal which may seem remote from the human dynamics of forgiveness. Psychological interventions focus not on when forgiveness is appropriate or fitting (as a normative ethical account might) but on how this goal can be promoted. These methods do not replace ethics, but they do complement it in elucidating how certain ethically desirable ends might be progressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Is Applied Ethics Morally Problematic?

Articulating better, being better: ethical emancipation and the sources of motivation.

Early Confucian Moral Psychology

Al-Mabuk, R., Enright, R.D., & Cardis, P. (1995). Forgiveness education with parentally lovedeprived college students. Journal of Moral Education 24 , 427–444.

Article   Google Scholar  

Augsberger, D. (2000). The new freedom of forgiveness . Chicago: Moody.

Google Scholar  

Bartlett, M., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and pro-social behaviour: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science 17 (4), 319–25.

Baskin, T.W., & Enright, R. D. (2004). Interventions studies on forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counselling and Development 82, 79–90.

Baumeister, R.F., Stillwell, A.M., & Wotman, S.R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 994–1005.

Butler, J. (1970). Upon forgiveness of injuries. In T. A. Roberts (Ed.), Butler’s Fifteen Sermons (pp. 80–89). London: SPCK.

Cherry, S. (2004). Forgiveness and reconciliation in South Africa. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in Context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 160–177). London: T & T Clark.

Coate, M. A. (2004). The capacity for forgiveness. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in Context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 123–143). London: T & T Clark.

Coleman, P. (1998). The process of forgiveness in marriage and the family. In R. D. Enright & J.

North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 75–94). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Coyle, C.T., & Enright, R.D. (1997). Forgiveness intervention with post-abortion men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65, 1042–1046.

Downie, R. S. (1965). Forgiveness. Philosophical Quarterly 15, 128–134.

Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Smile or die: How positive thinking fooled America and the world. London: Granta.

Emmons, R. A., & Shelton, C.M. (2002). Gratitude and the science of positive psychology. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 459–471) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Enright, R.D. (2001). Forgiveness is a Choice . Washington: APA LifeTools.

Enright, R.D., & Fitzgibbons, R.P. (2000). Helping Clients Forgive . Washington: APA.

Book   Google Scholar  

Enright, R.D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R.D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring Forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Fehr, B., & Russell, J.A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology 113 (3), 464–486.

Fehr, B., & Russell, J.A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (3), 425–438.

Freedman, S.R, & Enright, R.D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64, 983–992.

Gregg, A.P., Hart, C. M., Sedikes, C., & Kumashiro, M. (2008). Everyday conceptions of modesty: A prototype analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (7) , 978–992.

Gulliford, E. Z. (1999). Theological and psychological aspects of forgiveness. Unpublished MPhil Thesis, University of Cambridge.

Gulliford, L. (2004a). Intrapersonal forgiveness. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 83–105). London: T & T Clark.

Gulliford, L. (2004b). The healing of relationships. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 106–122). London: T & T Clark.

Gulliford, L. (2013). The head and the heart of the matter in hope and forgiveness. In F. Watts & G. Dumbreck (Eds.), Head and heart: Perspectives from religion and psychology (pp. 273–312). West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.

Gulliford, L., Morgan, B., & Kristjánsson, K. (2013). Recent work on the concept of gratitude in philosophy and psychology. The Journal of Value Inquiry 47(3 ) , 283–317.

Hebl, J. H., & Enright, R.D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with elderly females. Psychotherapy 30, 658–667.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations . New York: Wiley.

Hepper, E.G., Ritchie, T.D., Sedikes, C., & Wildschut, T. (2012). Odyssey’s end: Lay conceptions of nostalgia reflect its original Homeric meaning. Emotion 12 , 102–119.

Holloway, R. (2002). On forgiveness. How can we forgive the unforgiveable? Edinburgh: Canongate.

Horsburgh, H.J. (1974). Forgiveness. Canadian Journal of Philosoph, 4 (2), 269–289.

Jones, L.G. (1995). Embodying forgiveness: A theological analysis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans.

Kearns, J.N., & Fincham, F.D. (2004). A prototype analysis of forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (7), 838–855.

Knutson, J., Enright, R., & Garbers, B. (2008). Validating the developmental pathway of forgiveness. Journal of Counseling and Development 86, 193–199.

Lambert, N.M., Graham, S.M., & Fincham, F.D. (2009). A prototype analysis of gratitude: Varieties of gratitude experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35 (9) , 1193–1207.

Lewis, M. (1980). On forgiveness. Philosophical Quarterly 30, 236–245.

Lundahl, B.W., Taylor, M. J., Stevenson, R., & Roberts, K.D. (2008). Process-based forgiveness interventions: A meta-analytic review. Research on Social Work Practice 19, 465–478.

McConnell, T. (1993). Gratitude . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

McCullough, M. E., & Worthington Jr., E. L. (1995). Promoting forgiveness: A comparison of two brief psycho-educational group interventions with a waiting-list control. Counseling and Values 40 (1), 55–68.

McCullough, M.E., Worthington Jr., E.L., & Rachal, K.C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 321–336.

McGary, H. (1989). Forgiveness. American Philosophical Quarterly 26 (4) , 343–351.

Morgan, B., Gulliford, L., & Kristjánsson, K. (2014). Gratitude in the UK: A new prototype analysis and a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Positive Psychology 9 (4), 291–294.

Neblett, W. (1974). Forgiveness and ideals. Mind 73, 269–275.

North, J. (1987). The ‘ideal’ of forgiveness: A philosopher’s exploration. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 15–34). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Richards, N. (1988). Forgiveness. Ethics 99, 79–97.

Roberts, R.C. (2004). The blessings of gratitude: A conceptual analysis. In R.C. Emmons & M.E. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of Gratitude (pp. 58–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Roberts, R. C. (in press). The normative and the empirical in the study of gratitude. Res Philosophica. Smedes, L. B. (1984). Forgive and forget: Healing the hurts we don’t deserve . New York: Harper and Row.

Smedes, L. B. (1997). The art of forgiving: When you need to forgive and don’t know how . NY: Ballantine Books, Random House.

Twambley, P. (1976). Mercy and forgiveness. Analysis 36, 84–90.

Wade, S. H. (1989). Forgiveness scale. In P. C. Hill & R.W. Hood (Eds.), Measures of religiosity (pp. 422–425). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

Wade, N. G., & Worthington Jr., E.L. (2003). Overcoming interpersonal offences: Is forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling and Development 81 (3), 343–53.

Wade, N.G., & Worthington Jr., E. L. (2005). In search of a common core: A content analysis of interventions to promote forgiveness. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 42 (2), 160–177.

Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E. M., & Worthington Jr., E.L. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 82 (1), 154–170.

Watts, F. (2004). Christian theology. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 50–68). London: T & T Clark.

Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., Lloyd, J., & Atkins, S. (2009). Gratitude influences sleep through the mechanism of pre-sleep cognitions. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 66, 43–48.

Worthington Jr., E. L. (1998). The pyramid model of forgiveness: Some interdisciplinary speculations about unforgiveness and the promotion of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of Forgiveness (pp. 107–137). Radnor, Pennsylvania: Templeton Foundation Press.

Worthington Jr., E.L., & Wade, N.G. (1999). The social psychology of forgiveness and unforgiveness and the implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 18, 358–415.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, School of Education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Liz Gulliford

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liz Gulliford .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

IZEW, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

Cordula Brand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Gulliford, L. (2016). Psychology’s Contribution to Ethics: Two Case Studies. In: Brand, C. (eds) Dual-Process Theories in Moral Psychology. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12053-5_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12053-5_7

Published : 22 March 2016

Publisher Name : Springer VS, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-12052-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-12053-5

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Research ethics and case studies in psychology: a commentary on Taus v. Loftus

Affiliation.

• 1 Brown University, Providence, RI, USA [email protected].
• PMID: 24902593
• DOI: 10.1177/0886260514534987

Loftus and Guyer have been criticized for the methods they employed in investigating an anonymous case study published by Corwin and Olafson. This article examines the ethical dimensions of their investigation. Loftus and Guyer have offered three defenses for their actions. All three of those defenses lack merit. Their investigation did not constitute oral history because it failed to comport with the basic requirements of that practice. Their investigation did not constitute ethical journalism because of the unjustified use of anonymous sources and the clear violation of basic fairness. Their investigation did not constitute justified medical research because of a failure to analyze or weigh the harms against the benefits. Their methods also violated ethical principles for psychologists, including the rule against activities that could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity. This case demonstrates that there is no ethical way to investigate a clinical case, without the patient's approval, that is both comprehensive enough to provide strong scholarship and yet respectful enough of privacy and medical confidentiality to honor important professional norms.

Keywords: Taus v. Loftus; case studies; confidentiality; ethics; objectivity.

© The Author(s) 2014.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Protecting scientists, science, and case protagonists: a discussion of the Taus v. Loftus commentaries. Dalenberg CJ. Dalenberg CJ. J Interpers Violence. 2014 Dec;29(18):3308-19. doi: 10.1177/0886260514534991. Epub 2014 Jun 9. J Interpers Violence. 2014. PMID: 24913760
• First do no harm: is it any longer safe to write case reports? Brown LS. Brown LS. J Interpers Violence. 2014 Dec;29(18):3260-6. doi: 10.1177/0886260514534992. Epub 2014 May 23. J Interpers Violence. 2014. PMID: 24860072
• Published case reports: one woman's account of having her confidentiality violated. Kluemper NS. Kluemper NS. J Interpers Violence. 2014 Dec;29(18):3232-44. doi: 10.1177/0886260514534990. Epub 2014 Jun 5. J Interpers Violence. 2014. PMID: 24902594
• [The psychologist's responsibilities--legislative issues]. Talarowska M, Florkowski A, Orzechowska A, Zboralski K, Gałecki P. Talarowska M, et al. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2009 Sep;27(159):253-6. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2009. PMID: 19827743 Review. Polish.
• Research ethics. Shahan JB, Kelen GD. Shahan JB, et al. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006 Aug;24(3):657-69. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2006.05.013. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006. PMID: 16877135 Review.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources, other literature sources.

• scite Smart Citations

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews).

The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient’s personal history). In psychology, case studies are often confined to the study of a particular individual.

The information is mainly biographical and relates to events in the individual’s past (i.e., retrospective), as well as to significant events that are currently occurring in his or her everyday life.

The case study is not a research method, but researchers select methods of data collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies.

Freud (1909a, 1909b) conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

This makes it clear that the case study is a method that should only be used by a psychologist, therapist, or psychiatrist, i.e., someone with a professional qualification.

There is an ethical issue of competence. Only someone qualified to diagnose and treat a person can conduct a formal case study relating to atypical (i.e., abnormal) behavior or atypical development.

 Famous Case Studies

• Anna O – One of the most famous case studies, documenting psychoanalyst Josef Breuer’s treatment of “Anna O” (real name Bertha Pappenheim) for hysteria in the late 1800s using early psychoanalytic theory.
• Little Hans – A child psychoanalysis case study published by Sigmund Freud in 1909 analyzing his five-year-old patient Herbert Graf’s house phobia as related to the Oedipus complex.
• Bruce/Brenda – Gender identity case of the boy (Bruce) whose botched circumcision led psychologist John Money to advise gender reassignment and raise him as a girl (Brenda) in the 1960s.
• Genie Wiley – Linguistics/psychological development case of the victim of extreme isolation abuse who was studied in 1970s California for effects of early language deprivation on acquiring speech later in life.
• Phineas Gage – One of the most famous neuropsychology case studies analyzes personality changes in railroad worker Phineas Gage after an 1848 brain injury involving a tamping iron piercing his skull.

Clinical Case Studies

• Studying the effectiveness of psychotherapy approaches with an individual patient
• Assessing and treating mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD
• Neuropsychological cases investigating brain injuries or disorders

Child Psychology Case Studies

• Studying psychological development from birth through adolescence
• Cases of learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD
• Effects of trauma, abuse, deprivation on development

Types of Case Studies

• Explanatory case studies : Used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles. Helpful for doing qualitative analysis to explain presumed causal links.
• Exploratory case studies : Used to explore situations where an intervention being evaluated has no clear set of outcomes. It helps define questions and hypotheses for future research.
• Descriptive case studies : Describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. It is helpful for illustrating certain topics within an evaluation.
• Multiple-case studies : Used to explore differences between cases and replicate findings across cases. Helpful for comparing and contrasting specific cases.
• Intrinsic : Used to gain a better understanding of a particular case. Helpful for capturing the complexity of a single case.
• Collective : Used to explore a general phenomenon using multiple case studies. Helpful for jointly studying a group of cases in order to inquire into the phenomenon.

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

There are several places to find data for a case study. The key is to gather data from multiple sources to get a complete picture of the case and corroborate facts or findings through triangulation of evidence. Most of this information is likely qualitative (i.e., verbal description rather than measurement), but the psychologist might also collect numerical data.

1. Primary sources

• Interviews – Interviewing key people related to the case to get their perspectives and insights. The interview is an extremely effective procedure for obtaining information about an individual, and it may be used to collect comments from the person’s friends, parents, employer, workmates, and others who have a good knowledge of the person, as well as to obtain facts from the person him or herself.
• Observations – Observing behaviors, interactions, processes, etc., related to the case as they unfold in real-time.
• Documents & Records – Reviewing private documents, diaries, public records, correspondence, meeting minutes, etc., relevant to the case.

2. Secondary sources

• News/Media – News coverage of events related to the case study.
• Academic articles – Journal articles, dissertations etc. that discuss the case.
• Government reports – Official data and records related to the case context.
• Books/films – Books, documentaries or films discussing the case.

3. Archival records

Searching historical archives, museum collections and databases to find relevant documents, visual/audio records related to the case history and context.

Public archives like newspapers, organizational records, photographic collections could all include potentially relevant pieces of information to shed light on attitudes, cultural perspectives, common practices and historical contexts related to psychology.

4. Organizational records

Organizational records offer the advantage of often having large datasets collected over time that can reveal or confirm psychological insights.

Of course, privacy and ethical concerns regarding confidential data must be navigated carefully.

However, with proper protocols, organizational records can provide invaluable context and empirical depth to qualitative case studies exploring the intersection of psychology and organizations.

• Organizational/industrial psychology research : Organizational records like employee surveys, turnover/retention data, policies, incident reports etc. may provide insight into topics like job satisfaction, workplace culture and dynamics, leadership issues, employee behaviors etc.
• Clinical psychology : Therapists/hospitals may grant access to anonymized medical records to study aspects like assessments, diagnoses, treatment plans etc. This could shed light on clinical practices.
• School psychology : Studies could utilize anonymized student records like test scores, grades, disciplinary issues, and counseling referrals to study child development, learning barriers, effectiveness of support programs, and more.

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

Follow specified case study guidelines provided by a journal or your psychology tutor. General components of clinical case studies include: background, symptoms, assessments, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Interpreting the information means the researcher decides what to include or leave out. A good case study should always clarify which information is the factual description and which is an inference or the researcher’s opinion.

1. Introduction

• Provide background on the case context and why it is of interest, presenting background information like demographics, relevant history, and presenting problem.
• Compare briefly to similar published cases if applicable. Clearly state the focus/importance of the case.

2. Case Presentation

• Describe the presenting problem in detail, including symptoms, duration,and impact on daily life.
• Include client demographics like age and gender, information about social relationships, and mental health history.
• Describe all physical, emotional, and/or sensory symptoms reported by the client.
• Use patient quotes to describe the initial complaint verbatim. Follow with full-sentence summaries of relevant history details gathered, including key components that led to a working diagnosis.
• Summarize clinical exam results, namely orthopedic/neurological tests, imaging, lab tests, etc. Note actual results rather than subjective conclusions. Provide images if clearly reproducible/anonymized.
• Clearly state the working diagnosis or clinical impression before transitioning to management.

3. Management and Outcome

• Indicate the total duration of care and number of treatments given over what timeframe. Use specific names/descriptions for any therapies/interventions applied.
• Present the results of the intervention,including any quantitative or qualitative data collected.
• For outcomes, utilize visual analog scales for pain, medication usage logs, etc., if possible. Include patient self-reports of improvement/worsening of symptoms. Note the reason for discharge/end of care.

4. Discussion

• Analyze the case, exploring contributing factors, limitations of the study, and connections to existing research.
• Analyze the effectiveness of the intervention,considering factors like participant adherence, limitations of the study, and potential alternative explanations for the results.
• Identify any questions raised in the case analysis and relate insights to established theories and current research if applicable. Avoid definitive claims about physiological explanations.
• Offer clinical implications, and suggest future research directions.

5. Additional Items

• Thank specific assistants for writing support only. No patient acknowledgments.
• References should directly support any key claims or quotes included.
• Use tables/figures/images only if substantially informative. Include permissions and legends/explanatory notes.
• Provides detailed (rich qualitative) information.
• Provides insight for further research.
• Permitting investigation of otherwise impractical (or unethical) situations.

Case studies allow a researcher to investigate a topic in far more detail than might be possible if they were trying to deal with a large number of research participants (nomothetic approach) with the aim of ‘averaging’.

Because of their in-depth, multi-sided approach, case studies often shed light on aspects of human thinking and behavior that would be unethical or impractical to study in other ways.

Research that only looks into the measurable aspects of human behavior is not likely to give us insights into the subjective dimension of experience, which is important to psychoanalytic and humanistic psychologists.

Case studies are often used in exploratory research. They can help us generate new ideas (that might be tested by other methods). They are an important way of illustrating theories and can help show how different aspects of a person’s life are related to each other.

The method is, therefore, important for psychologists who adopt a holistic point of view (i.e., humanistic psychologists ).

Limitations

• Lacking scientific rigor and providing little basis for generalization of results to the wider population.
• Researchers’ own subjective feelings may influence the case study (researcher bias).
• Difficult to replicate.
• Time-consuming and expensive.
• The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources.

Because a case study deals with only one person/event/group, we can never be sure if the case study investigated is representative of the wider body of “similar” instances. This means the conclusions drawn from a particular case may not be transferable to other settings.

Because case studies are based on the analysis of qualitative (i.e., descriptive) data , a lot depends on the psychologist’s interpretation of the information she has acquired.

This means that there is a lot of scope for Anna O , and it could be that the subjective opinions of the psychologist intrude in the assessment of what the data means.

For example, Freud has been criticized for producing case studies in which the information was sometimes distorted to fit particular behavioral theories (e.g., Little Hans ).

This is also true of Money’s interpretation of the Bruce/Brenda case study (Diamond, 1997) when he ignored evidence that went against his theory.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1895).  Studies on hysteria . Standard Edition 2: London.

Curtiss, S. (1981). Genie: The case of a modern wild child .

Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, K. (1997). Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-term Review and Clinical Implications. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 151(3), 298-304

Freud, S. (1909a). Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy. In The Pelican Freud Library (1977), Vol 8, Case Histories 1, pages 169-306

Freud, S. (1909b). Bemerkungen über einen Fall von Zwangsneurose (Der “Rattenmann”). Jb. psychoanal. psychopathol. Forsch ., I, p. 357-421; GW, VII, p. 379-463; Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis, SE , 10: 151-318.

Harlow J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the head.  Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 39 , 389–393.

Harlow, J. M. (1868).  Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head .  Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2  (3), 327-347.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972).  Man & Woman, Boy & Girl : The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Money, J., & Tucker, P. (1975). Sexual signatures: On being a man or a woman.

Further Information

• Case Study Approach
• Case Study Method
• Enhancing the Quality of Case Studies in Health Services Research
• “We do things together” A case study of “couplehood” in dementia
• Using mixed methods for evaluating an integrative approach to cancer care: a case study

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Psychiatr Psychol Law
• v.25(3); 2018

Moral Challenges for Psychologists Working in Psychology and Law

Alfred allan.

School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia

States have an obligation to protect themselves and their citizens from harm, and they use the coercive powers of law to investigate threats, enforce rules and arbitrate disputes, thereby impacting on people's well-being and legal rights and privileges. Psychologists as a collective have a responsibility to use their abilities, knowledge, skill and experience to enhance law's effectiveness, efficiency, and reliability in preventing harm, but their professional behaviour in this collaboration must be moral. They could, however, find their personal values to be inappropriate or there to be insufficient moral guides and could find it difficult to obtain definitive moral guidance from law. The profession's ethical principles do, however, provide well-articulated, generally accepted and profession-appropriate guidance, but practitioners might encounter moral issues that can only be solved by the profession as a whole or society.

Disciplines and professions have an obligation to serve the interests of both society and its individual members (MacDonald, 1995 ; Parsons, 1968 ). Modern societies and individuals therefore expect psychologists to provide services to law that I define broadly to include the correction, investigative and justice systems. Psychologists provide services to these systems directly as administrators, consultants, policy advisers or practitioners using psychological resources (data, methods and instruments) that other psychologists have created as researchers, documented, edited, reviewed or taught. Some practitioners use these resources to provide therapeutic or rehabilitation services, but my focus is on the psychologists (assessors) who use psychological resources to generate information that law uses to make decisions that invariably impact on people's well-being and their legal rights and privileges.

Society's Use of Law and Coercion

The roots of law go back to the hunter-gatherer groups, which could only survive external threats and achieve their goals by ensuring internal order, strengthening the cohesion of the group, promoting mutually beneficial cooperation, and checking destructive selfish behaviour (Cosmides, 2015 ; Krasnow, Delton, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2015 ). Modern neuroscientists and psychologists (see, e.g. Rilling & Sanfey, 2011 ) confirm the belief of generations of scholars that people crave structure and order (see, e.g. Freud, 1927 ; Kelsen, 1943 ; Mill, 1859/ 1974 ) and feel wronged when others violate social norms (Rilling & Sanfey, 2011 ; Sanfey, 2007 ). Researchers (see, e.g. Pietrini, Guazzelli, Basso, Jaffe, & Grafman, 2000 ; Strang, Fischbacher, Utikal, Weber, & Falk, 2014 ) also confirm the historical view (see, e.g. Kelsen, 1943 ; Piaget, 1932/ 1965 ) that people's primitive survival need to protect themselves and significant others from further abuse (Von Fürer-Haimendor, 1967 ) predisposes victims to retaliate by taking revenge (for a discussion see McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2013 ; Tripp & Bies, 1997 ).

States try to prevent vigilante behaviour (Hogan & Emler, 1981 ) that can lead to harmful cycles of violence by creating law that provides victims access to grievance procedures and remedies that they can use to offset the consequences of wrongful behaviour. Law therefore allows State organs to intervene in disputes by forcing people to undertake activities (e.g. community service, paying damages or fines) or to discontinue activities (e.g. trespassing on property or contacting specific people), or suspending or modifying their rights or privileges (e.g. imprisoning them or restricting their access to, or opportunity to parent, their children).

Since the 16th century, States involuntarily detain people whose lack of insight as a consequence of their mental disorders might cause them to harm themselves or others, on the basis that they lack the competency to make rational decisions (Allan, 2002 ). States, however, also increasingly use the risk of harm to people and the broader society to justify regulating the activities of competent people, such as compelling cyclists to wear head protection, preventing people from smoking in public spaces or paying for consensual sex (Mis, 2016 ). States further use criminal law to investigate and control the behaviour of people, and psychologists have recently expressed moral concerns about their peers’ involvement in three types of regulation of activities.

Law, firstly, uses psychologists to assess people's risk of reoffending in an attempt to control those with a propensity to commit crimes. Law tries to prevent these people from committing future crimes by detaining them (even if they had not been found guilty of crimes, see, e.g. McSherry, 2014 ), or compelling them to wear radio transmitters, or preventing them from going to locations (e.g. close to schools).

Law, secondly, uses psychologists to develop behavioural profiles of suspects using covertly collected information (Allan, 2015 ) or using information for another purpose than that for which they had obtained consent to use it (see, e.g. Inmate Welfare Committee, William Head Institution v Canada, 2003  – Inmate case). The Canadian Federal Court in the Inmate case held that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Bill of Rights (Charter; Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 ) did not stop Correctional Services Canada (Corrections Canada) psychologists from completing a Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R; Hare, 1991 ) using file data without offenders’ consent if Corrections Canada needed it to fulfil its legislative mandate of protecting the public.

The final concern is psychologists’ involvement in forensic interviews and interrogations as supervisors or consultants of investigators (e.g. observing actual or video recordings of interviews and making suggestions to interviewers) or as investigative interviewers (e.g. in family and child protection or criminal matters). Law has used interviews since the dawn of history (Donohue, 2008 ), but people who associate them with the Inquisition (Burman, 2004 ) and police abuse (Ofshe & Leo, 1997 ) often view them negatively. Psychology's involvement with interviews is not new because interviewers, interrogators and investigators have used psychological data (Münsterberg, 1908/1925) , and psychologists have adopted investigative roles (see, e.g. Marbe, 1930 ; Münsterberg, 1908/ 1925 ) since the emergence of psychology as a separate discipline. Psychologists’ purported involvement in so-called enhanced interviewing and its association with torture, however, has led to contemporary debates about psychologists’ role and the use of psychological knowledge during interviews and interrogations (see, e.g. Arrigo, DeBatto, Rockwood, & Mawe, 2015 ; O'Donohue, Maragakis, Snipes, & Soto, 2015 ; O'Donohue et al., 2014 ; Suedfeld, 2007 ).

A theme underlying these three activities is that they involve psychologists in law's use of ‘organized coercion ‘ (Lloyd, 1964 , p. 41) to achieve its goals (Dworkin, 1986 ; Hart, 2012 ). Philosophers accept that States can use coercive legal powers to control autonomous people's behaviour, but since the 18th (Von Humboldt, 1792/1854) and 19th (Mill, 1859/1974) centuries they argued that this is only justified when directed toward prevention of harm to other individuals (the private harm principle ). Modern philosophers argue that there is also a public harm principle that allows States to use coercion to prevent harm to public interests (see, e.g. Feinberg, 1973 ). States that use coercion to prevent harm, however, often also cause unavoidable and unintended harm (see, e.g. Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009 ), and therefore the net result might be immoral (wrong and/or bad). Citizens should therefore scrutinise the morality (rightness and goodness) of the purpose, provisions and administration of coercive legislation.

Some argue that legislators sometimes introduce coercive criminal legislation for the purpose of attracting votes rather than preventing harm (see, e.g. Nutall, 2000 ), whilst others contend that it reflects the public's punitive and intolerant opinion about certain forms of offending behaviour (see, e.g. De Keijser, 2014 ; De Keijser & Elffers, 2009 ), such as terrorism (Carlé, Charron, Milochevitch, & Hardeman, 2004 ; Van de Lagemaat, 2012 ). Perceived public opinion, however, might not accurately reflect public morality (i.e. what society as a whole considers as right and good) because it fluctuates depending on variables such as people's education and socio-economic status (Carpenter, 1889 ) and could be swayed by external influences such as biased messages from police in search of more resources and the media that make money out of crime coverage (Roberts & Plesničar, 2015 ). People should further consider the provisions of the relevant legislation that determine the kind, magnitude, probability and immediacy of the targeted harm that justify the unavoidable and unintended harm caused by the lawful intervention (Brookbanks, 2002 ). In particular, they need to consider who should determine the relevant risks and what degree of certainty they should have that interventions will cause direct and immediate harm of a lesser magnitude than the targeted harm (McAlinden, 2001 ). Psychologists might not necessarily engage in the debate regarding the purpose and provisions of relevant legislation, but they should consider the moral appropriateness of their direct or indirect involvement in the administration of the relevant legislation.

Personal Decision Making

A range of factors make people's moral decisions poorer than they estimate (see, e.g. Allison, Messick, & Goethals, 1989 ; Tenbrunsel, 1998 ). For instance, their affiliation needs, emotions, feelings of disgust and other mechanisms that protect their self-worth and self-interest (Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997 ; Babcock, Loewenstein, & Issacharoff, 1997 ; Epley & Caruso, 2004 ; Greenwald, Pickrell, & Farnham, 2002 ; Hastorf & Cantril, 1954 ) could influence their decisions (for a critial overview see Newell & Shanks, 2014 ). People, in part, make decision-making mistakes because the constant demands on their finite cognitive abilities to make multiple decisions rapidly (see, e.g. Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006 ; Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999 ; Rieskamp & Hoffrage, 1999 ; Simon, 1955 , 1956 ; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974 ) lead them to make decisions non-consciously (see, e.g. Greene & Haidt, 2002 ; Reynolds, 2006 ). People make non-conscious decisions using two closely related constructs – namely, prototypes , which are neural representations (Smolensky, 1988 ) of objects or notions (e.g. do no harm), and heuristics , which are methods that allow people to arrive ‘at satisfactory solutions with modest amounts of computation ‘(Simon, 1990 , p. 11).

People would not be able to survive if they did not make decisions non-consciously, and such decisions work well for routine situations, but not necessarily when people have to make novel or complex moral decisions in professional contexts. The first problem is that psychologists might tend to choose the first satisfactory option that they identify without distinguishing relevant and irrelevant evidence, alternative options and the evidence for and against options (Simon, 1955 , 1956 ; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981 , 1986 ). The second is that psychologists’ inclination to avoid cognitive dissonance (see, e.g. Festinger, 1957 ) might lead them to use prototypes based on their subjective personal values that are not appropriate for professional decisions. For instance, compassion is an admirable personal trait, but psychologists who are overly compassionate could make decisions leading to boundary violations in professional relationships (Allan, 2017 ).

However, people can improve the quality of their moral decision making by using the method that experts use (Campitelli & Gobet, 2010 ; Morris & Moore, 2000 ; Rest, 1979 ). This includes two broad strategies. The first is to develop heuristics that allow them to identify and choose the best of the available solutions by focussing on relevant information and analysing it as deeply and abstractly as the complexity of tasks require and the time allows (Campitelli & Gobet, 2004 ). The second strategy, and more important for this article, is to develop prototypes to guide their conscious and non-conscious decision making (see Allan, 2017 , for a discussion). Psychologists develop and internalise these prototypes by storing objective chunks (Chase & Simon, 1973 ) or templates (Gobet & Simon, 1996 ) of normative information that they then use to solve moral problems. The problem confronting psychologists is where to find external and objective norms that transcend their personal values to internalise as prototypes. A place where they might find them is in the decisions of courts.

Law and Morality

Most psychologists could find it difficult to establish what moral principles underlie law because two rival traditions exist in law regarding who should decide the morality of legislation and what principles they should apply when doing so. Proponents of natural law generally believe that judges must decide the morality of legislation by applying the universal law that humans ‘possessed in a state of nature ‘ (Lloyd, 1964 , p. 83), but often disagree about what law humans possessed in a state of nature. They initially used divine law as a yardstick, but later adopted the fundamental rights identified during and after the Reformation (Witte, 2007 ). These rights (see, e.g. Bill of Rights of the United States, 1791 ), however, often do not flow from a clear set of moral principles, but rather from arbitrary assumptions about the desires of people with a specific socio-cultural history (Lloyd, 1964 ).

Legal positivists in contrast generally make a clear distinction between legal (what is the law?) and moral (what ought the law be?) questions and argue that all people, including judges, must follow and obey existing law and use legitimate means to change such law, or parts of it, that they consider immoral (Lloyd, 1964 ). Positivists therefore believe that judges should refrain from questioning the morality of the purpose and provisions of legislation, which means that they could administer immoral legislation as happened in, for example, Nazi Germany.

Proponents of both traditions therefore, particularly since the Second World War, started looking at human rights law to find a set of moral principles that provides natural law supporters with a set of generally accepted and universal moral principles and positivists with legal principles based on a clear moral foundation (Lloyd, 1964 ). The foundational moral principle of human rights law is respect for human dignity (McCrudden, 2008 ), which philosophers such as Locke (1690/2005) , Rousseau (1762/2002) and Kant (1785/ 2001 , 1796/1887) initially developed. Most people consider the United Nations’ ( 1948 ) Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the cornerstone of human rights law, but it and other United Nations treatises and instruments, such as the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (United Nations, 1985 ), do not automatically form part of countries’ domestic law (Allan, 2013a ). People living in countries that adopted United Nations treaties and instruments can, however, lodge complaints with the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations established under Article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations, 1966 ).

Countries can also incorporate human (sometimes called fundamental or natural) rights into their constitutions (see, e.g. Constitution of Ireland, 1937 ) or other legislation (see, e.g. the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 ). Countries thereby give their citizens claim rights (see Corbin, 1919 ; Feinberg, 1973 ; Hohfeld, 1919 ) that they can enforce in courts, by contrast to unenforceable moral rights. Some regional bodies, such as the Council of Europe ( 1950 ), furthermore developed their own conventions on human rights (Council of Europe, 1950 ) and more specific instruments such as the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Prevention of Torture Convention; Council of Europe, 1987 ). Bodies such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment aim to prevent human rights violations, and citizens of member states can approach bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights for relief after having exhausted the remedies available under their domestic law.

These bodies apply human rights law when they consider the provisions of member countries’ legislation and its administration and often hear matters with profound moral implications (see, e.g. Wackenheim v France, 2002 ), and their decisions carry much weight and provide useful information on moral issues (see, e.g. Grosskopf v Germany, 2010 , on preventative detention). However, psychologists trying to solve professional issues will often find it difficult to identify well-articulated, comprehensive and applied principles by studying the decision of these bodies because they hear relatively few cases and usually undertake legal (see, e.g. Selmouni v France, 1999 ) rather than moral analyses of issues.

Psychology's Ethical Principles

Allan ( in press , 2017b) therefore argues that psychologists should use the set of ethical principles that underlies psychology's codes of ethics to develop prototypes to fill in the gaps that law leaves open. Allan ( 2010 , 2016) identified a set of eight principles that underlies most of psychology's codes of ethics and also the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (International Union of Psychological Science [IUPsyS] and the International Association of Applied Psychology [IAAP], 2008 ) that psychologists across the world recognise (Gauthier, Pettifor, & Ferrero, 2010 ). These principles, which can be collapsed into three or five principles with several components (see Table 1 ), reflect the accumulated wisdom of generations of psychologists regarding how the moral foundations that people across the world share should be applied by psychologists who aspire to provide high-quality morally acceptable services to individuals and society.

Ethical principles and the obligations they bring.

Psychologists faced with moral decisions should identify the principle that in the circumstances appears to be more binding than the others, and obey their obligations under it. They might find that their obligations under one principle conflict with those under another, or that they have conflicting obligations to different people under the same principle. Under the non-maleficence principle, psychologists might therefore have to compare the risk of harming infants by removing them from attachment figures to the risk that they could be sexually abused by fathers who have histories of child sexual abuse (see, e.g. Farnell & Chanbau, 2016 ). They should then examine the circumstances to identify the principle, or combination of principles, to which they should give priority and use it to make tentative decisions that they review as circumstances change.

Application of Legal and Ethical Principles

The care (non-maleficence) principle requires psychologists to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to people towards whom they have a responsibility, and the responsibility (social) principle expands this protection to the whole of society, thereby giving assessors prima facie justification to assist States in protecting themselves and their citizens. However, assessors’ behaviour might lead to unavoidable or unintended harmful consequences that exceed the benefits thereof for society, the profession and individuals, thereby violating the care principle. This could be particularly problematic if assessors’ behaviour violates the fidelity principle by bringing the profession into disrepute, thus eroding the public's trust in them and the profession.

Society and individuals can rarely judge professionals’ abilities, knowledge, skill and experience, and if they need to consult them they must trust those that they use to act in their best interests, thereby making trust essential to professions’ existence (see, e.g. MacDonald, 1995 ). Society, individuals and the profession will suffer if people lose trust in psychologists and stop using their services, but more relevant here is the risk that clients and those administering the law might lose trust in them and stop using them. Assessors’ professional behaviour is particularly likely to influence the public's perceptions as their work often receives publicity, especially if there have been miscarriages of justice. They also work with people who are often very emotional because their rights, interests and well-being are at stake and who might therefore be particularly distrustful of psychologists whose opinions they believe are influential even though this might not be true. Assessors can try to keep people's trust in them and the profession by adhering strictly to the justice (procedural) and respect for humanity principles.

Justice Principle

The procedural component of the justice principle reflects people's expectation that others will be fair when they collect and use information to make decisions that will impact on their rights, interests and well-being (Lind & Tyler, 1988 ). Assessors who collect information that will be used to making such decisions (Allan, 2013b ) should specifically consider the seven requirements of this principle.

Assessors should strive to be objective , but, as the discussion of decision making above suggests, they could find it difficult, if not impossible, to avoid bias (Allison et al., 1989 ; Greenwald et al., 2002 ; Moore & Loewenstein, 2004 ). They could be influenced by internal factors such as their emotions, prejudices and self-interest (Diekmann, Samuels, Ross, & Bazerman, 1997 ; Messick, Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson, 1985 ), or external factors such as the expectations of their colleagues, managers, legal decision-makers, and assessees (see, e.g. Gutheil & Simon, 2004 ). Psychologists can improve the objectivity of their decision making by using structured and actuarial methods and always trying to work under close supervision (for a general discussion see, e.g. Allan, 2017 ). They should avoid doing non-treatment-related risk assessments of people to whom they provide or provided treatment. The independent reviewers of a murder committed by a parolee in the United Kingdom (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2006 ), for example, concluded that the assessment of the parolee's risk had been wrong and that the ‘fact that this assessment was being made by the psychologist who was also delivering treatment may be a factor in this case ‘ (paragraph 10.1.6).

Assessors should use reliable resources even when they do not anticipate external scrutiny, such as that lawyers might raise concerns about the tests used in their pleadings or cross-examination. They should therefore use scientifically credible resources (e.g. avoid non-peer-reviewed and online resources of uncertain reliability) that are specific and sensitive enough to limit both false positives and false negatives. Assessors in countries with big migrant (particularly refugees) or Indigenous populations (see, e.g. Allan, Dawson, & Allan, 2006 ) might not have such resources because they are usually developed for the majority populations in most countries. Judges in countries such as Australia (see, e.g. DPP v Mangolamara, 2007 ), Canada (see e.g. Ewert v Canada, 2015 ) and New Zealand (see, e.g. R v Peta, 2007 ) have expressed concern about the reliability of the instruments that psychologists use when they assess Indigenous sexual offenders. In Ewert v Canada ( 2015 ) the court used the human rights principles embodied in the Canadian Charter ( 1982 ) to prevent Corrections Canada psychologists from using well-known assessment tools such as the PCL–R and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993 ) to assess Canadian Aboriginal offenders until Corrections Canada confirmed the reliability of those tools in respect of this group. The Federal Court of Appeals in Canada v Ewert ( 2016 ) overturned this decision but that does not reduce psychologists’ ethical obligation to restrict their use of culturally questionable resources to those cases where there is legal and ethical justification for using them and adhere strictly to other principles, such as by obtaining assessees’ consent and collaboration.

Assessors must also only undertake assessments within their ability, knowledge, skills and experience ( competence ). They should know and understand the theories that underlie the resources they use and be familiar with the relevant and current manuals and related peer-reviewed material (Allan & Grisso, 2014 ). They should be able to select and use appropriate resources and know the psychometric properties of instruments and how to administer them and how to interpret and report their findings. Novice assessors should develop these competencies and gain experience by training and working under close supervision of experienced and competent colleagues. Experienced psychologists should keep abreast of developments in the area they work in by attending professional development training and reading peer-reviewed literature.

They must collect and consider all the reasonably accessible relevant information from representative sources, and if their employers or contracts do not allow them enough time to undertake effective assessments they must try to rectify the problem to avoid foreseeable risk to society, individuals, their employers and themselves. Individual assessors might find it very difficult to negotiate individually with their employers and contractors for realistic time allocations, and they should therefore do so through their professional and industrial bodies.

Assessors must apply the appropriate legal (e.g. test in legislation) and psychological (e.g. diagnostic) criteria to the pertinent information in a logical manner that leads to defensible conclusions . They should point to the limitations of their assessments, data and opinions in their records, reports and testimony and identify and explain departures from previous decisions that they or others have made in similar circumstances (Allan & Grisso, 2014 ). Assessors should report their findings, opinions and, if relevant, decisions, in an objective and detached manner, avoiding subtle exaggerations, acknowledging the limitations of their assessments and data, and distinguishing their observations from their opinions. They must, finally, as far as is practical, inform examinees of their decisions and give them opportunities to correct wrong factual material and ask questions. If required, they should review their conclusions (see Allan & Grisso, 2014 , for a more comprehensive discussion).

The Respect for Humanity Principle

This respect for humanity principle and human rights law have the dignity that all humans share as their philosophical root (see, e.g. Allan, 2013a ). Even philosophers sometimes disagree about whether behaviour is disrespectful of human dignity (see, e.g. Feinberg, 1973 ), but it is clear that no person should behave in a manner that is disrespectful of other people's dignity, or permits others to behave in a manner that disregard their dignity, if the majority of people will find such behaviour offensive (see, e.g. Wackenheim v France , 2002 ). Allan and Davidson ( 2013 , 2015) propose that as a practical guide psychologists in their professional capacity should treat others in accordance with what society considers good manners.

Assessors often experience anger and disgust when they observe the disrespectful way in which those with whom they work behave towards themselves and others. Assessors can be honest with such people about what they think of their behaviour, but must not in return violate their physical or psychological integrity. They should avoid objectifying others by using them for their own means (e.g. administering tests on them merely because they need the experience); dehumanising them by labelling (e.g. calling them psychopaths); or belittling or disregarding their group identity (e.g. assessing them with psychological tests not appropriate for their culture or language). In particular, they should refrain from behaviour that could degrade or impair assessees’ self-esteem, or make them experience fear, anguish or feelings of inferiority, or assist others who do this – to break other peoples’ psychological and physical resistance down constitutes torture (Council of Europe, 1987 ).

Assessors can lessen the risk that people might feel betrayed by them and lose trust in all psychologists by explaining their exceptional role to non-psychologists and by being scrupulously honest with all people with whom they interact as professionals. They must especially inform assessees of the purpose of activities and the limits of privacy that they can offer them. Well-informed competent assessees can then make educated decisions regarding whether they want to proceed with the service, what information they want to disclose to assessors during the process and whether they want to waive their rights and privileges.

Assessors sometimes feel that their assessees lack the opportunity to make informed, free and voluntary decisions. Psychologists, for instance, analyse covertly collected data of people, and obtaining informed consent from them would defeat the purposes of the legislation that they operate under (e.g. the Criminal Investigation [Covert Powers] Act 2012 , WA). However, psychologists can do these analyses if they are satisfied that the agency they work for collected the data with legal warrants authorising the collection, analysis and use of the data (Allan, 2015 ). However, assessors must still adhere diligently to the other ethical principles and specifically avoid analysing data of people with whom they have other professional relationships (e.g. as counsellors). Assessors should further ensure that assessees understand the options they might have and that they may withhold their consent, but also what the consequences would be if they do so. These consequences could be negative for examinees (e.g. their parole applications might fail), and assessors might have legal authority to perform risk assessments using available file data without their collaboration (see, e.g. Inmate Welfare Committee, 2003 ).

States have an obligation to protect themselves and their citizens from harm, and they partly use the coercive powers of the law to achieve this by investigating threats, enforcing rules and arbitrating disputes even though it may impact on people's well-being and their legal rights and privileges. States also require all psychologists to protect them and their citizens from harm by, for instance, requiring them to disclose confidential information if they suspect their clients might cause irreversible harm to themselves or other people and if the only reasonable way of preventing the harm is by disclosing the information. Furthermore, the drafters of professional codes give psychologists the discretion to disclose confidential information to avert risks of harm in emergency situations or to protect ‘the health, welfare or safety of children or vulnerable adults ‘(standard 1(2)(vi)(c), British Psychological Society, 2009 ) even in the absence of such legislation.

Psychologists as a collective, however, also have resources that allow them to assist law (and therefore Society) actively in being more effective, efficient and reliable in preventing harm. The law can use psychologists’ observations (e.g. who has better parenting skills), predictions (e.g. who might reoffend or desist) and intervention (e.g. through rehabilitation or punishment 1. ) skills to prevent or minimise the occurrence of harm. Psychological resources about interviewing, detection of deception, reliability of memory, identification and testimony can reduce the risk of harm (e.g. information that foils terrorist attempts) and miscarriages of justice (e.g. through false confessions or mistaken identifications). Psychologists as a collective therefore have a responsibility to assist the law directly or indirectly in its protective function even thought this may involve them in coercive processes. The profession's ethical principles provide well-articulated, generally accepted and profession-appropriate guidance.

The care and responsibility principles read together justify psychologists’ assistance to the law in protecting States and their citizens even when this involves coercion, but the fidelity principle requires them to refrain from behaviour that might erode the trust in them, their peers or the profession. They can, however, minimise this risk by paying particular attention to the justice and respect for humanity principles, thereby ensuring that people will trust psychologists even though some might feel the law disregard their rights, interests, self-worth and reputation.

Assessors, however, irrespective of their roles, should provide services within the constraints of their social, professional and contractual responsibilities, and they should obtain legal advice and/or involve appropriate professional or industrial bodies if indicated. This might, for instance, happen where psychologists feel that their employers’ instruction might require them to behave unlawfully. Those who feel that employers or contractors require them to violate their professional ethical principles should clarify the situation and seek constructive solutions that will allow them to uphold their ethical principles. Some psychologists might therefore be confronted with the difficult choice of terminating contracts when they cannot reconcile their employers’ expectations with the profession's ethical expectations.

Assessors might, however, sometimes find that issues beyond their control make it difficult for them to achieve the ethical aspirations of their profession. A pressing issue in many countries is the lack of resources to assess Indigenous sexual offenders (see, e.g. Allan et al., 2006 ; Smallbone & Rallings, 2013 ; Spiranovic, 2012 ). Some assessors could rightfully argue that they should refrain from assessing Indigenous sexual offenders. However, doing that ignores psychologists’ broader responsibility to contribute to the protection of members of society (see, e.g. Allan, 2013b ; Allan & Grisso, 2014 ), in this situation specifically the victims of Indigenous sexual offenders who will most likely be Indigenous women and children (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014–15 ; Wundersitz, 2010 ). Assessors finding themselves in this situation could use the care principle to justify the assessments that they undertake if they ensure the optimal outcome for all involved by balancing the benefits, risks and costs of decisions, but the justice (distribute) principle nevertheless requires them to advocate for the development of resources that will eliminate the problem.

1. For a discussion of moral issues regarding punishment see, e.g. Honderich ( 2006 ).

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a keynote paper presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the European Association of Psychology and Law, Toulouse, France, 5–8 July 2016.

The author thanks Maria Allan, Graham Davidson and Crista McDaniel for their comments on previous drafts of this article.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest.

Alfred Allan has declared no conflicts of interest

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

• Allan A. (2002). The past, present and future of mental health law: A therapeutic jurisprudence analysis . Law in Context , 20 ( 2 ), 24–53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2010). The principles that underlie the 2007 Code . In Allan A. & Love A. W. (Eds.), Ethical practice in psychology - Reflections from the creators of the APS Code of Ethics (pp. 61–76). Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2013a). Are human rights redundant in the ethical codes of psychologists? Ethics and Behavior , 23 ( 4 ), 251–265. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2013.776480 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2013b). Ethics in correctional and forensic psychology: Getting the balance right . Australian Psychologist , 48 ( 1 ), 47–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-9544.2012.00079.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2015). Ethics in psychology and law: An international perspective . Ethics and Behavior , 25 ( 6 ), 443–457. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.952006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2016). An international perspective of law and ethics in psychology (3rd ed.). Somerset, West, South Africa: Inter-Ed Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2017a). Applying research findings to enhance pre-practicum ethics training . Ethics and Behavior . doi: 10.1080/10508422.2017.1313705 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (In press). Being ethical psychologists in coercive settings . In Polaschek D., Day A., & Hollin C. (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of correctional psychology . London, UK: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2017b). A principled approach to ethical issues for psychologists in prisons and secure settings . In Ireland J. L., Ireland C. A., Fisher M., & Gredecki N. (Eds.), International handbook on forensic psychology in secure settings (pp. 269–282). London, UK: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A., & Davidson G. R. (2013). Respect for the dignity of people: What does this principle mean in practice? Australian Psychologist , 48 ( 5 ), 345–352. doi: Doi = 10.1111_ap.12012 [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A., & Davidson G. R. (2015). Respectful professional behaviour: What does it mean? In Morrissey S., Reddy P., Davidson G. R., & Allan A. (Eds.), Ethics and Professional practice (2nd ed., pp. 25–39). Melbourne, Australia: Cengage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A., Dawson D., & Allan M. M. (2006). Prediction of the risk of male sexual reoffending in Australia . Australian Psychologist , 41 ( 1 ), 60–68. doi: 10.1080/00050060500391886 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A., & Grisso T. (2014). Ethical principles and the communication of forensic mental health assessments . Ethics and Behavior , 24 ( 6 ), 467–477. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.880346 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allison S. T., Messick D. M., & Goethals G. R. (1989). On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect . Social Cognition , 7 ( 3 ), 275–295. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arrigo J. M., DeBatto D., Rockwood L., & Mawe T. G. (2015). The “good” psychologist, “good” torture, and “good” reputation—Response to O'Donohue, Snipes, Dalto, Soto, Maragakis, and Im (2014) “The ethics of enhanced interrogations and torture” . Ethics and Behavior , 25 ( 5 ), 361–372. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2015.1007996 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014-15). Recorded crime - Offenders (4519.0). [ Google Scholar ]
• Babcock L., & Loewenstein G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases . The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 11 ( 1 ), 109–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babcock L., Loewenstein G., & Issacharoff S. (1997). Creating convergence: Debiasing biased litigants . Law and Social Inquiry , 22 ( 4 ), 913–925. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.1997.tb01092.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bill of Rights of the United States (1791). from http://consource.org/document/bill-of-rights/?gclid=CNv3yN7C0MsCFdcRvQodlH8O5Q
• British Psychological Society (2009). Code of conduct, ethical principles and guidelines. from http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/aa%20Standard%20Docs/inf94_code_web_ethics_conduct.pdf
• Brookbanks W. (2002). Public policy, moral panics and the lure of anticipatory containment . Psychiatry, Psychology and Law , 9 ( 2 ), 127–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burman E. (2004). The inquisition: The hammer of heresy . London: Sutton Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campitelli G., & Gobet F. (2004). Adaptive expert decision making: Skilled chess players search more and deeper . Journal of the International Computer Games Association , 27 ( 4 ), 209–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campitelli G., & Gobet F. (2010). Herbert Simon's decision-making approach: Investigation of cognitive processes in experts . Review of General Psychology , 14 , 354–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Canada v Ewert (2016). FCA 203, Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca2203/2016fca2203.html .
• Canadian Constitution Act (1982). Available at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html .
• Carlé B., Charron S., Milochevitch A., & Hardeman F. (2004). An inquiry of the opinions of the French and Belgian populations as regards risk . Journal of Hazardous Materials , 111 ( 1–3 ), 21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.02.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter E. (1889). Defence of criminals – Criticism of immorality I . To-day 31-41, Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/carpenter/1889/defence-criminals-1881.htm .
• Chase W. G., & Simon H. A. (1973). Perception in chess . Cognitive Psychology , 4 ( 1 ), 55–81. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Constitution of Ireland (1937). from https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf
• Corbin A. L. (1919). Legal analysis and terminology . Yale Law Journal , 19 , 163–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cosmides L. (1989). The logical of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Watson Selection Task . Cognition , 31 , 187–276. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Council of Europe (1950). European convention on human rights . Retrieved 1/06/2010, from http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
• Council of Europe (1987). Convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or fegrading treatment or punishment . from http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/126
• Criminal Investigation [Covert Powers] Act (2012). Western Australia, Retrieved from https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument:29414P/$FILE/Criminal%20Investigation%20(Covert%20Powers)%20Act%202012%20-%20[00-f0-00].pdf?OpenElement .
• De Keijser J. W. (2014). Penal theory and popular opinion: The deficiencies of direct engagement . In Ryberg J. & Roberts J. V. (Eds.), Popular punishment: On the normative significance of public opinion (pp. 101–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Keijser J. W., & Elffers H. (2009). Public punitive attitudes: A threat to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system? In Oswald M., Bieneck S., & Hupfeld J. (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 55–74). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diekmann K. A., Samuels S. M., Ross L., & Bazerman M. H. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 ( 5 ), 1061–1074. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1061 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donohue L. K. (2008). The cost of counterterrorism: Power, politics, and liberty . New York: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• DPP v Mangolamara (2007). WASC 71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dworkin R. (1986). Law's empire . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Epley N., & Caruso E. M. (2004). Egocentric ethics . Social Justice Research , 17 ( 2 ), 171–187. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson K. A., Charness N., Feltovich P. J., & Hoffman R. R. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance . New York: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ewert v Canada (2015). FC 1093, Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc1093/2015fc1093.html .
• Farnell and Chanbau (2016). FCWA 17, avalable at http://www.familycourt.wa.gov.au/_files/Publications/2016FCWA2017anon.pdf .
• Feinberg J. (1973). Social philosophy . New York: Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Festinger L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Evanston, Ill: Row, Peterson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S. (1927). The future of an illusion. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, (1927-1931) (Vol. XXI , pp. 1–56). Retrieved from https://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/The-future-of-illusion/pdf?dl&preview . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gatti U., Tremblay R. E., & Vitaro F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 50 ( 8 ), 991–998. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02057.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauthier J., Pettifor J., & Ferrero A. (2010). The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists: A culture-sensitive model for creating and reviewing a code of ethics . Ethics and Behavior , 20 ( 3/4 ), 179–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigerenzer G., & Todd P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox . In Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M., & Group A. R. (Eds.), Simple Heuristics that make us Smart (pp. 3–34). New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gobet F., & Simon H. A. (1996). Templates in chess memory: A mechanism for recalling several boards . Cognitive Psychology , 31 , 1–40. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1996.0011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene J. D., & Haidt J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in cognitive sciences , 6 ( 12 ), 517–523. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald A. G., Pickrell J. E., & Farnham S. D. (2002). Implicit partisanship: Taking sides for no reason . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 ( 2 ), 367–379. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.367 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grosskopf v Germany (2010). ECHR 158, Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1581.html .
• Gutheil T. G., & Simon R. I. (2004). Avoiding bias in expert testimony . Psychiatric Annals , 34 ( 4 ), 260–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hare R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised Manual . Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris G. T., Rice M. E., & Quinsey V. L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument . Criminal Justice and Behavior , 20 ( 4 ), 315–335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart H. L. A. (2012). The concept of law (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hastorf A. H., & Cantril H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 49 , 129–134. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (2006). An independent review of a serious further offence case: Anthony Rice . Retrieved December, 12, 2015 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_05_06_probation.pdf .
• Hogan R., & Emler N. P. (1981). Retributive justice . In Lerner M. J. & Lerner S. C. (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 125-143). NY: Plenum Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hohfeld W. N. (Ed.). (1919). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning: And other legal essays . New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, available from http://archive.org/details/fundamentallegal00hohfuoft [ Google Scholar ]
• Honderich T. (2006). Punishment: The supposed justifications revisited . London: Pluto Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Human Rights Act (1998). (United Kingdom) from http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1.html .
• Inmate Welfare Committee, William Head Institution v Canada (2003). FC 870, Retrieved from http://canlii.ca/t/gg878 .
• International Union of Psychological Science [IUPsyS] and the International Association of Applied Psychology [IAAP] (2008). Universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists . Retrieved from http://www.am.org/iupsys/resources/ethics/univdecl2008.html
• Kant I. (1785/2001). Fundamental principles of the metaphysics of morals . In Wood A. W. (Ed.), Basic writings of Kant (pp. 143–221). New York: The Modern Library. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kant I. (1796/1887). The philosophy of law: An exposition of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence as the science of right (Hastie W. Trans.). Edinburgh: T & T Clark. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelsen H. (1943). Society and nature . Chicago Ill: The University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krasnow M. M., Delton A. W., Cosmides L., & Tooby J. (2015). Group cooperation without group selection: Modest punishment can recruit much cooperation . PLoS ONE , 10 ( 4 ), 1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124561 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lind E. A., & Tyler T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice . New York: Plenum Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lloyd D. (1964). The idea of law . Harmondsworth, UK: Penquin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke J. (1690/2005). Two treatise on government . London: Project Gutenberg eBook, available at www.gutenberg.org . [ Google Scholar ]
• MacDonald K. M. (1995). The sociology of professions . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [ Google Scholar ]
• Marbe K. (1930). Autobiography of Karl Marbe . In Murchison C. (Ed.), History of Psychology in Autobiography (Vol. 1 , pp. 181–213). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAlinden A.-M. (2001). Indeterminate sentences for the severely personality disordered . Criminal Law Review , (February), 108–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrudden C. (2008). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights . European Journal of International Law , 19 ( 4 ), 655–724. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chn043 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCullough M. E., Kurzban R., & Kurzban B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 36 , 1–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McSherry B. (2014). Throwing away the key: The ethics of risk assessment for preventive detention schemes . Psychiatry, Psychology and Law , 21 ( 5 ), 779–790. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2014.893551 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Messick D. M., Bloom S., Boldizar J. P., & Samuelson C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 21 ( 5 ), 480–500. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(85)90031-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mill J. S. (1859/1974). On liberty . Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mis M. (2016). French law that makes it illegal to pay for sex ‘revolutionary’: Activists . World News , Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-lawmaking-prostitution/french-law-that-makes-it-illegal-to-pay-for-sex-revolutionary-activists-iduskcn0X42DR [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore D. A., & Loewenstein G. (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest . Social Justice Research , 17 ( 2 ), 189–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris M. W., & Moore P. C. (2000). The lessons we (don't) learn: Counterfactual thinking and organizational accountability after a close call . Administrative Science Quarterly , 45 ( 4 ), 737–765. doi: 10.2307/2667018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Münsterberg H. (1908/1925). On the witness stand: Essays on Psychology and Crime . New York: Doubleday. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newell B. R., & Shanks D. R. (2014). Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 37 ( 1 ), 1–9. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12003214 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nutall C. (2000). Introduction . In Nutall C. (Ed.), Crime and criminal justice in Europe (pp. 9–12). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Donohue W., Maragakis A., Snipes C., & Soto C. (2015). Psychologists and the ethical use of enhanced interrogation techniques to save lives . Ethics and Behavior , 25 ( 5 ), 373–385. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2015.1027769 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Donohue W., Snipes C., Dalto G., Soto C., Maragakis A., & Im S. (2014). The ethics of enhanced interrogations and torture: A reappraisal of the argument . Ethics and Behavior , 24 ( 2 ), 109–125. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2013.814088 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ofshe R. J., & Leo R. A. (1997). The social psychology of police interrogations: The theory and classification of tue and false confessions . Studies in Law, Politics and Society , 16 , 189–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons T. (1968). Professions . In Sills D. L. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of social sciences (Vol. 12 , pp. 536–546). New York: MacMillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piaget J. (1932/1965). The moral judgement of the child . New York: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pietrini P., Guazzelli M., Basso G., Jaffe K., & Grafman J. (2000). Neural correlates of imaginal aggressive behavior assessed by positron emission tomography in healthy subjects . American Journal of Psychiatry , 157 , 1772–1781. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• R v Peta (2007) 2 NZLR 627. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rest J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds S. J. (2006). A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-making process: Implications for study and practice . Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 ( 4 ), 737–748. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rieskamp J., & Hoffrage U. (1999). When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell? In Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M., & Group A. R. (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 141–167). New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rilling J. K., & Sanfey A. G. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making . Annual Review of Psychology , 62 ( 1 ), 23–48. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131647 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts J. V., & Plesničar M. M. (2015). Sentencing, legitimacy, and public opinion . In Meško G. & Tankebe J. (Eds.), Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice (pp. 33–51). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rousseau J. J. (1762/2002). The social contract (Cole G. D. H. Trans.). Baltimore: Penguin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanfey A. G. (2007). Social decision-making: Insights from game theory and neuroscience . Science , 318 , 598–602. doi: 10.1126/science.1142996 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selmouni v France (1999). ECHR 66, Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1999/1966.html .
• Simon H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice . The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 69 ( 1 ), 99–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment . Psychological Review , 63 ( 2 ), 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior . Annual Review of Psychology , 41 , 1–19. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smallbone S., & Rallings M. (2013). Short-Term predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-99-R for Indigenous and Nonindigenous Australian sexual offenders . Sexual Abuse , 25 ( 3 ), 302–316. doi: 10.1177/1079063212472937 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smolensky P. (1988). On the proper treatment of connectionism . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 11 ( 1 ), 1–23. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/10.1017/S0140525X00052432 [ Google Scholar ]
• Spiranovic C. (2012). The Static-99 and Static-99-R Norms Project: Developing norms based on Western Australian sex offenders . Crawley: Western Australia University of Western Australia, Retrieved from http://www.law.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2253328/FinalReportForRelease141212_Static99Norms_141212.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Strang S., Fischbacher U., Utikal V., Weber B., & Fals A. (2014). Neural correlates of receiving an apology and active forgiveness: An fMRI study . PLoS ONE , 9 ( 2 ), 1–7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087654 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suedfeld P. (2007). Torture, interrogation, security, and psychology: Absolutistic versus complex thinking . Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy , 7 ( 1 ), 55–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00125.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tenbrunsel A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation . Academy of Management Journal , 41 ( 3 ), 330–339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tripp T. M., & Bies R. J. (1997). What's good about revenge? The avenger's perspective . In Lewicki R. J., Bies R. J., & Sheppard B. H. (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6 , pp. 145–160). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky A., & Kahneman D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases . Science , 185 , 1124–1131. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky A., & Kahneman D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice . Science , 211 , 453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky A., & Kahneman D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions . Journal of Business , 59 ( 4 ), S251–S278. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (1948). Universal declaration of human rights . New York: Allan; Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx, . [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (1966). International covenant on civil and political rights . New York: Allan; Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (1985). Declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power . New York: Allan; Retrieved from http://www.unhchr,ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp49.htm . [ Google Scholar ]
• Van de Lagemaat B. (2012). Preparing the Public for Danger: Emotions and the Netherlands against Terrorism Campaign ( Master Thesis ), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Fürer-Haimendor C. (1967). Morals and merit: A study of values and social controls in South Asian societies . London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Humboldt W. (1792/1854). The Sphere and Duties of Government (The Limits of State Action . (J. Coulthard, Trans.). London: John Chapman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wackenheim v France, Communication No 854/1999, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/75/D/854/1999 (2002). Retrieved from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/854-1999.html .
• Witte J. (2007). The reformation of rights: Law, religion and human rights in early modern Calvinism . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wundersitz J. (2010). Indigenous perpetrators of violence: Prevalence and risk factors for offending Research and Public Policy Series . Canberra: AIC. [ Google Scholar ]

Psychology Case Study Examples: A Deep Dive into Real-life Scenarios

Peeling back the layers of the human mind is no easy task, but psychology case studies can help us do just that. Through these detailed analyses, we’re able to gain a deeper understanding of human behavior, emotions, and cognitive processes. I’ve always found it fascinating how a single person’s experience can shed light on broader psychological principles.

Over the years, psychologists have conducted numerous case studies—each with their own unique insights and implications. These investigations range from Phineas Gage’s accidental lobotomy to Genie Wiley’s tragic tale of isolation. Such examples not only enlighten us about specific disorders or occurrences but also continue to shape our overall understanding of psychology .

As we delve into some noteworthy examples , I assure you’ll appreciate how varied and intricate the field of psychology truly is. Whether you’re a budding psychologist or simply an eager learner, brace yourself for an intriguing exploration into the intricacies of the human psyche.

Understanding Psychology Case Studies

Diving headfirst into the world of psychology, it’s easy to come upon a valuable tool used by psychologists and researchers alike – case studies. I’m here to shed some light on these fascinating tools.

Psychology case studies, for those unfamiliar with them, are in-depth investigations carried out to gain a profound understanding of the subject – whether it’s an individual, group or phenomenon. They’re powerful because they provide detailed insights that other research methods might miss.

Let me share a few examples to clarify this concept further:

• One notable example is Freud’s study on Little Hans. This case study explored a 5-year-old boy’s fear of horses and related it back to Freud’s theories about psychosexual stages.
• Another classic example is Genie Wiley (a pseudonym), a feral child who was subjected to severe social isolation during her early years. Her heartbreaking story provided invaluable insights into language acquisition and critical periods in development.

You see, what sets psychology case studies apart is their focus on the ‘why’ and ‘how’. While surveys or experiments might tell us ‘what’, they often don’t dig deep enough into the inner workings behind human behavior.

It’s important though not to take these psychology case studies at face value. As enlightening as they can be, we must remember that they usually focus on one specific instance or individual. Thus, generalizing findings from single-case studies should be done cautiously.

To illustrate my point using numbers: let’s say we have 1 million people suffering from condition X worldwide; if only 20 unique cases have been studied so far (which would be quite typical for rare conditions), then our understanding is based on just 0.002% of the total cases! That’s why multiple sources and types of research are vital when trying to understand complex psychological phenomena fully.

In the grand scheme of things, psychology case studies are just one piece of the puzzle – albeit an essential one. They provide rich, detailed data that can form the foundation for further research and understanding. As we delve deeper into this fascinating field, it’s crucial to appreciate all the tools at our disposal – from surveys and experiments to these insightful case studies.

Importance of Case Studies in Psychology

I’ve always been fascinated by the human mind, and if you’re here, I bet you are too. Let’s dive right into why case studies play such a pivotal role in psychology.

One of the key reasons they matter so much is because they provide detailed insights into specific psychological phenomena. Unlike other research methods that might use large samples but only offer surface-level findings, case studies allow us to study complex behaviors, disorders, and even treatments at an intimate level. They often serve as a catalyst for new theories or help refine existing ones.

To illustrate this point, let’s look at one of psychology’s most famous case studies – Phineas Gage. He was a railroad construction foreman who survived a severe brain injury when an iron rod shot through his skull during an explosion in 1848. The dramatic personality changes he experienced after his accident led to significant advancements in our understanding of the brain’s role in personality and behavior.

Moreover, it’s worth noting that some rare conditions can only be studied through individual cases due to their uncommon nature. For instance, consider Genie Wiley – a girl discovered at age 13 having spent most of her life locked away from society by her parents. Her tragic story gave psychologists valuable insights into language acquisition and critical periods for learning.

Finally yet importantly, case studies also have practical applications for clinicians and therapists. Studying real-life examples can inform treatment plans and provide guidance on how theoretical concepts might apply to actual client situations.

• Detailed insights: Case studies offer comprehensive views on specific psychological phenomena.
• Catalyst for new theories: Real-life scenarios help shape our understanding of psychology .
• Study rare conditions: Unique cases can offer invaluable lessons about uncommon disorders.
• Practical applications: Clinicians benefit from studying real-world examples.

In short (but without wrapping up), it’s clear that case studies hold immense value within psychology – they illuminate what textbooks often can’t, offering a more nuanced understanding of human behavior.

Different Types of Psychology Case Studies

Diving headfirst into the world of psychology, I can’t help but be fascinated by the myriad types of case studies that revolve around this subject. Let’s take a closer look at some of them.

Firstly, we’ve got what’s known as ‘Explanatory Case Studies’. These are often used when a researcher wants to clarify complex phenomena or concepts. For example, a psychologist might use an explanatory case study to explore the reasons behind aggressive behavior in children.

Second on our list are ‘Exploratory Case Studies’, typically utilized when new and unexplored areas of research come up. They’re like pioneers; they pave the way for future studies. In psychological terms, exploratory case studies could be conducted to investigate emerging mental health conditions or under-researched therapeutic approaches.

Next up are ‘Descriptive Case Studies’. As the name suggests, these focus on depicting comprehensive and detailed profiles about a particular individual, group, or event within its natural context. A well-known example would be Sigmund Freud’s analysis of “Anna O”, which provided unique insights into hysteria.

Then there are ‘Intrinsic Case Studies’, which delve deep into one specific case because it is intrinsically interesting or unique in some way. It’s sorta like shining a spotlight onto an exceptional phenomenon. An instance would be studying savants—individuals with extraordinary abilities despite significant mental disabilities.

Lastly, we have ‘Instrumental Case Studies’. These aren’t focused on understanding a particular case per se but use it as an instrument to understand something else altogether—a bit like using one puzzle piece to make sense of the whole picture!

So there you have it! From explanatory to instrumental, each type serves its own unique purpose and adds another intriguing layer to our understanding of human behavior and cognition.

Exploring Real-Life Psychology Case Study Examples

Let’s roll up our sleeves and delve into some real-life psychology case study examples. By digging deep, we can glean valuable insights from these studies that have significantly contributed to our understanding of human behavior and mental processes.

First off, let me share the fascinating case of Phineas Gage. This gentleman was a 19th-century railroad construction foreman who survived an accident where a large iron rod was accidentally driven through his skull, damaging his frontal lobes. Astonishingly, he could walk and talk immediately after the accident but underwent dramatic personality changes, becoming impulsive and irresponsible. This case is often referenced in discussions about brain injury and personality change.

Next on my list is Genie Wiley’s heart-wrenching story. She was a victim of severe abuse and neglect resulting in her being socially isolated until she was 13 years old. Due to this horrific experience, Genie couldn’t acquire language skills typically as other children would do during their developmental stages. Her tragic story offers invaluable insight into the critical periods for language development in children.

Then there’s ‘Little Hans’, a classic Freudian case that delves into child psychology. At just five years old, Little Hans developed an irrational fear of horses -or so it seemed- which Sigmund Freud interpreted as symbolic anxiety stemming from suppressed sexual desires towards his mother—quite an interpretation! The study gave us Freud’s Oedipus Complex theory.

Lastly, I’d like to mention Patient H.M., an individual who became amnesiac following surgery to control seizures by removing parts of his hippocampus bilaterally. His inability to form new memories post-operation shed light on how different areas of our brains contribute to memory formation.

Each one of these real-life psychology case studies gives us a unique window into understanding complex human behaviors better – whether it’s dissecting the role our brain plays in shaping personality or unraveling the mysteries of fear, language acquisition, and memory.

How to Analyze a Psychology Case Study

Diving headfirst into a psychology case study, I understand it can seem like an intimidating task. But don’t worry, I’m here to guide you through the process.

First off, it’s essential to go through the case study thoroughly. Read it multiple times if needed. Each reading will likely reveal new information or perspectives you may have missed initially. Look out for any patterns or inconsistencies in the subject’s behavior and make note of them.

Next on your agenda should be understanding the theoretical frameworks that might be applicable in this scenario. Is there a cognitive-behavioral approach at play? Or does psychoanalysis provide better insights? Comparing these theories with observed behavior and symptoms can help shed light on underlying psychological issues.

Now, let’s talk data interpretation. If your case study includes raw data like surveys or diagnostic tests results, you’ll need to analyze them carefully. Here are some steps that could help:

• Identify what each piece of data represents
• Look for correlations between different pieces of data
• Compute statistics (mean, median, mode) if necessary
• Use graphs or charts for visual representation

Keep in mind; interpreting raw data requires both statistical knowledge and intuition about human behavior.

Finally, drafting conclusions is key in analyzing a psychology case study. Based on your observations, evaluations of theoretical approaches and interpretations of any given data – what do you conclude about the subject’s mental health status? Remember not to jump to conclusions hastily but instead base them solidly on evidence from your analysis.

In all this journey of analysis remember one thing: every person is unique and so are their experiences! So while theories and previous studies guide us, they never define an individual completely.

Applying Lessons from Psychology Case Studies

Let’s dive into how we can apply the lessons learned from psychology case studies. If you’ve ever studied psychology, you’ll know that case studies offer rich insights. They shed light on human behavior, mental health issues, and therapeutic techniques. But it’s not just about understanding theory. It’s also about implementing these valuable lessons in real-world situations.

One of the most famous psychological case studies is Phineas Gage’s story. This 19th-century railroad worker survived a severe brain injury which dramatically altered his personality. From this study, we gained crucial insight into how different brain areas are responsible for various aspects of our personality and behavior.

• Lesson: Recognizing that damage to specific brain areas can result in personality changes, enabling us to better understand certain mental conditions.

Sigmund Freud’s work with a patient known as ‘Anna O.’ is another landmark psychology case study. Anna displayed what was then called hysteria – symptoms included hallucinations and disturbances in speech and physical coordination – which Freud linked back to repressed memories of traumatic events.

• Lesson: The importance of exploring an individual’s history for understanding their current psychological problems – a principle at the heart of psychoanalysis.

Then there’s Genie Wiley’s case – a girl who suffered extreme neglect resulting in impaired social and linguistic development. Researchers used her tragic circumstances as an opportunity to explore theories around language acquisition and socialization.

• Lesson: Reinforcing the critical role early childhood experiences play in shaping cognitive development.

Lastly, let’s consider the Stanford Prison Experiment led by Philip Zimbardo examining how people conform to societal roles even when they lead to immoral actions.

• Lesson: Highlighting that situational forces can drastically impact human behavior beyond personal characteristics or morality.

These examples demonstrate that psychology case studies aren’t just academic exercises isolated from daily life. Instead, they provide profound lessons that help us make sense of complex human behaviors, mental health issues, and therapeutic strategies. By understanding these studies, we’re better equipped to apply their lessons in our own lives – whether it’s navigating personal relationships, working with diverse teams at work or even self-improvement.

Challenges and Critiques of Psychological Case Studies

Delving into the world of psychological case studies, it’s not all rosy. Sure, they offer an in-depth understanding of individual behavior and mental processes. Yet, they’re not without their share of challenges and criticisms.

One common critique is the lack of generalizability. Each case study is unique to its subject. We can’t always apply what we learn from one person to everyone else. I’ve come across instances where results varied dramatically between similar subjects, highlighting the inherent unpredictability in human behavior.

Another challenge lies within ethical boundaries. Often, sensitive information surfaces during these studies that could potentially harm the subject if disclosed improperly. To put it plainly, maintaining confidentiality while delivering a comprehensive account isn’t always easy.

Distortion due to subjective interpretations also poses substantial difficulties for psychologists conducting case studies. The researcher’s own bias may color their observations and conclusions – leading to skewed outcomes or misleading findings.

Moreover, there’s an ongoing debate about the scientific validity of case studies because they rely heavily on qualitative data rather than quantitative analysis. Some argue this makes them less reliable or objective when compared with other research methods such as experiments or surveys.

To summarize:

• Lack of generalizability
• Ethical dilemmas concerning privacy
• Potential distortion through subjective interpretation
• Questions about scientific validity

While these critiques present significant challenges, they do not diminish the value that psychological case studies bring to our understanding of human behavior and mental health struggles.

Conclusion: The Impact of Case Studies in Understanding Human Behavior

Case studies play a pivotal role in shedding light on human behavior. Throughout this article, I’ve discussed numerous examples that illustrate just how powerful these studies can be. Yet it’s the impact they have on our understanding of human psychology where their true value lies.

Take for instance the iconic study of Phineas Gage. It was through his tragic accident and subsequent personality change that we began to grasp the profound influence our frontal lobes have on our behavior. Without such a case study, we might still be in the dark about this crucial aspect of our neurology.

Let’s also consider Genie, the feral child who showed us the critical importance of social interaction during early development. Her heartbreaking story underscores just how vital appropriate nurturing is for healthy mental and emotional growth.

Here are some key takeaways from these case studies:

• Our brain structure significantly influences our behavior.
• Social interaction during formative years is vital for normal psychological development.
• Studying individual cases can reveal universal truths about human nature.

What stands out though, is not merely what these case studies teach us individually but collectively. They remind us that each person constitutes a unique combination of various factors—biological, psychological, and environmental—that shape their behavior.

One cannot overstate the significance of case studies in psychology—they are more than mere stories or isolated incidents; they’re windows into the complexities and nuances of human nature itself.

In wrapping up, I’d say that while statistics give us patterns and trends to understand groups, it’s these detailed narratives offered by case studies that help us comprehend individuals’ unique experiences within those groups—making them an invaluable part of psychological research.

Related Posts

Cracking the Anxious-Avoidant Code

Deflection: Unraveling the Science Behind Material Bending

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is a Case Study?

Weighing the pros and cons of this method of research

Verywell / Colleen Tighe

• Pros and Cons

What Types of Case Studies Are Out There?

Where do you find data for a case study, how do i write a psychology case study.

A case study is an in-depth study of one person, group, or event. In a case study, nearly every aspect of the subject's life and history is analyzed to seek patterns and causes of behavior. Case studies can be used in many different fields, including psychology, medicine, education, anthropology, political science, and social work.

The point of a case study is to learn as much as possible about an individual or group so that the information can be generalized to many others. Unfortunately, case studies tend to be highly subjective, and it is sometimes difficult to generalize results to a larger population.

While case studies focus on a single individual or group, they follow a format similar to other types of psychology writing. If you are writing a case study, we got you—here are some rules of APA format to reference.  

At a Glance

A case study, or an in-depth study of a person, group, or event, can be a useful research tool when used wisely. In many cases, case studies are best used in situations where it would be difficult or impossible for you to conduct an experiment. They are helpful for looking at unique situations and allow researchers to gather a lot of˜ information about a specific individual or group of people. However, it's important to be cautious of any bias we draw from them as they are highly subjective.

What Are the Benefits and Limitations of Case Studies?

A case study can have its strengths and weaknesses. Researchers must consider these pros and cons before deciding if this type of study is appropriate for their needs.

One of the greatest advantages of a case study is that it allows researchers to investigate things that are often difficult or impossible to replicate in a lab. Some other benefits of a case study:

• Allows researchers to capture information on the 'how,' 'what,' and 'why,' of something that's implemented
• Gives researchers the chance to collect information on why one strategy might be chosen over another
• Permits researchers to develop hypotheses that can be explored in experimental research

On the other hand, a case study can have some drawbacks:

• It cannot necessarily be generalized to the larger population
• Cannot demonstrate cause and effect
• It may not be scientifically rigorous
• It can lead to bias

Researchers may choose to perform a case study if they want to explore a unique or recently discovered phenomenon. Through their insights, researchers develop additional ideas and study questions that might be explored in future studies.

It's important to remember that the insights from case studies cannot be used to determine cause-and-effect relationships between variables. However, case studies may be used to develop hypotheses that can then be addressed in experimental research.

Case Study Examples

There have been a number of notable case studies in the history of psychology. Much of  Freud's work and theories were developed through individual case studies. Some great examples of case studies in psychology include:

• Anna O : Anna O. was a pseudonym of a woman named Bertha Pappenheim, a patient of a physician named Josef Breuer. While she was never a patient of Freud's, Freud and Breuer discussed her case extensively. The woman was experiencing symptoms of a condition that was then known as hysteria and found that talking about her problems helped relieve her symptoms. Her case played an important part in the development of talk therapy as an approach to mental health treatment.
• Phineas Gage : Phineas Gage was a railroad employee who experienced a terrible accident in which an explosion sent a metal rod through his skull, damaging important portions of his brain. Gage recovered from his accident but was left with serious changes in both personality and behavior.
• Genie : Genie was a young girl subjected to horrific abuse and isolation. The case study of Genie allowed researchers to study whether language learning was possible, even after missing critical periods for language development. Her case also served as an example of how scientific research may interfere with treatment and lead to further abuse of vulnerable individuals.

Such cases demonstrate how case research can be used to study things that researchers could not replicate in experimental settings. In Genie's case, her horrific abuse denied her the opportunity to learn a language at critical points in her development.

This is clearly not something researchers could ethically replicate, but conducting a case study on Genie allowed researchers to study phenomena that are otherwise impossible to reproduce.

There are a few different types of case studies that psychologists and other researchers might use:

• Collective case studies : These involve studying a group of individuals. Researchers might study a group of people in a certain setting or look at an entire community. For example, psychologists might explore how access to resources in a community has affected the collective mental well-being of those who live there.
• Descriptive case studies : These involve starting with a descriptive theory. The subjects are then observed, and the information gathered is compared to the pre-existing theory.
• Explanatory case studies : These   are often used to do causal investigations. In other words, researchers are interested in looking at factors that may have caused certain things to occur.
• Exploratory case studies : These are sometimes used as a prelude to further, more in-depth research. This allows researchers to gather more information before developing their research questions and hypotheses .
• Instrumental case studies : These occur when the individual or group allows researchers to understand more than what is initially obvious to observers.
• Intrinsic case studies : This type of case study is when the researcher has a personal interest in the case. Jean Piaget's observations of his own children are good examples of how an intrinsic case study can contribute to the development of a psychological theory.

The three main case study types often used are intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies are useful for learning about unique cases. Instrumental case studies help look at an individual to learn more about a broader issue. A collective case study can be useful for looking at several cases simultaneously.

The type of case study that psychology researchers use depends on the unique characteristics of the situation and the case itself.

There are a number of different sources and methods that researchers can use to gather information about an individual or group. Six major sources that have been identified by researchers are:

• Archival records : Census records, survey records, and name lists are examples of archival records.
• Direct observation : This strategy involves observing the subject, often in a natural setting . While an individual observer is sometimes used, it is more common to utilize a group of observers.
• Documents : Letters, newspaper articles, administrative records, etc., are the types of documents often used as sources.
• Interviews : Interviews are one of the most important methods for gathering information in case studies. An interview can involve structured survey questions or more open-ended questions.
• Participant observation : When the researcher serves as a participant in events and observes the actions and outcomes, it is called participant observation.
• Physical artifacts : Tools, objects, instruments, and other artifacts are often observed during a direct observation of the subject.

If you have been directed to write a case study for a psychology course, be sure to check with your instructor for any specific guidelines you need to follow. If you are writing your case study for a professional publication, check with the publisher for their specific guidelines for submitting a case study.

Here is a general outline of what should be included in a case study.

Section 1: A Case History

This section will have the following structure and content:

Background information : The first section of your paper will present your client's background. Include factors such as age, gender, work, health status, family mental health history, family and social relationships, drug and alcohol history, life difficulties, goals, and coping skills and weaknesses.

Description of the presenting problem : In the next section of your case study, you will describe the problem or symptoms that the client presented with.

Describe any physical, emotional, or sensory symptoms reported by the client. Thoughts, feelings, and perceptions related to the symptoms should also be noted. Any screening or diagnostic assessments that are used should also be described in detail and all scores reported.

Your diagnosis : Provide your diagnosis and give the appropriate Diagnostic and Statistical Manual code. Explain how you reached your diagnosis, how the client's symptoms fit the diagnostic criteria for the disorder(s), or any possible difficulties in reaching a diagnosis.

Section 2: Treatment Plan

This portion of the paper will address the chosen treatment for the condition. This might also include the theoretical basis for the chosen treatment or any other evidence that might exist to support why this approach was chosen.

• Cognitive behavioral approach : Explain how a cognitive behavioral therapist would approach treatment. Offer background information on cognitive behavioral therapy and describe the treatment sessions, client response, and outcome of this type of treatment. Make note of any difficulties or successes encountered by your client during treatment.
• Humanistic approach : Describe a humanistic approach that could be used to treat your client, such as client-centered therapy . Provide information on the type of treatment you chose, the client's reaction to the treatment, and the end result of this approach. Explain why the treatment was successful or unsuccessful.
• Psychoanalytic approach : Describe how a psychoanalytic therapist would view the client's problem. Provide some background on the psychoanalytic approach and cite relevant references. Explain how psychoanalytic therapy would be used to treat the client, how the client would respond to therapy, and the effectiveness of this treatment approach.
• Pharmacological approach : If treatment primarily involves the use of medications, explain which medications were used and why. Provide background on the effectiveness of these medications and how monotherapy may compare with an approach that combines medications with therapy or other treatments.

This section of a case study should also include information about the treatment goals, process, and outcomes.

When you are writing a case study, you should also include a section where you discuss the case study itself, including the strengths and limitiations of the study. You should note how the findings of your case study might support previous research. 

In your discussion section, you should also describe some of the implications of your case study. What ideas or findings might require further exploration? How might researchers go about exploring some of these questions in additional studies?

Need More Tips?

Here are a few additional pointers to keep in mind when formatting your case study:

• Never refer to the subject of your case study as "the client." Instead, use their name or a pseudonym.
• Read examples of case studies to gain an idea about the style and format.
• Remember to use APA format when citing references .

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach .  BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011;11:100.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011 Jun 27;11:100. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Gagnon, Yves-Chantal.  The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook . Canada, Chicago Review Press Incorporated DBA Independent Pub Group, 2010.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . United States, SAGE Publications, 2017.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Psychology’s 10 Greatest Case Studies – Digested

These ten characters have all had a huge influence on psychology and their stories continue to intrigue each new generation of students.

27 November 2015

By Christian Jarrett

These ten characters have all had a huge influence on psychology and their stories continue to intrigue each new generation of students. What's particularly fascinating is that many of their stories continue to evolve – new evidence comes to light, or new technologies are brought to bear, changing how the cases are interpreted and understood. What many of these 10 also have in common is that they speak to some of the perennial debates in psychology, about personality and identity, nature and nurture, and the links between mind and body.

Phineas Gage

One day in 1848 in Central Vermont, Phineas Gage was tamping explosives into the ground to prepare the way for a new railway line when he had a terrible accident. The detonation went off prematurely, and his tamping iron shot into his face, through his brain, and out the top of his head. Remarkably Gage survived, although his friends and family reportedly felt he was changed so profoundly (becoming listless and aggressive) that "he was no longer Gage."

There the story used to rest – a classic example of frontal brain damage affecting personality. However, recent years have seen  a drastic reevaluation  of Gage's story in light of new evidence. It's now believed that he underwent significant rehabilitation and in fact began work as a horse carriage driver in Chile. A  simulation of his injuries  suggested much of his right frontal cortex was likely spared, and  photographic evidence  has been unearthed showing a post-accident dapper Gage. Not that you'll find this revised account in many psychology textbooks:  a recent analysis  showed that few of them have kept up to date with the new evidence.

See also Jim Horne's ' Blasts from the past ', looking back at similar accounts from the era.

Henry Gustav Molaison (known for years as H.M. in the literature to protect his privacy), who died in 2008, developed severe amnesia at age 27 after undergoing brain surgery as a form of treatment for the epilepsy he'd suffered since childhood. He was subsequently the focus of study by over 100 psychologists and neuroscientists and he's been mentioned in over 12,000 journal articles! Molaison's surgery involved the removal of large parts of the hippocampus on both sides of his brain and the result was that he was almost entirely unable to store any new information in long-term memory (there were some exceptions – for example, after 1963 he was aware that a US president had been assassinated in Dallas). The extremity of Molaison's deficits was a surprise to experts of the day because many of them believed that memory was distributed throughout the cerebral cortex.

Today, Molaison's legacy lives on: his brain was carefully sliced and preserved and turned into a 3D digital atlas and his life story is reportedly due to be turned into a feature film based on the book researcher Suzanne Corkin wrote about him:  Permanent Present Tense, The Man With No Memory and What He Taught The World .

See also 'Understanding amnesia - Is it time to forget H.M.?'

Victor Leborgne (nickname "Tan")

The fact that, in most people, language function is served predominantly by the left frontal cortex has today almost become common knowledge, at least among psych students. However, back in the early 19th century, the consensus view was that language function (like memory, see entry for H.M.) was distributed through the brain. An 19th century patient who helped change that was Victor Leborgne, a Frenchman who was nicknamed "Tan" because that was the only sound he could utter (besides the expletive phrase "sacre nom de Dieu").

In 1861, aged 51, Leborgne was referred to the renowned neurologist Paul Broca, but died soon after. Broca examined Leborgne's brain and noticed a lesion in his left frontal lobe – a segment of tissue now known as Broca's area. Given Leborgne's impaired speech but intact comprehension, Broca concluded that this area of the brain was responsible for speech production and he set about persuading his peers of this fact – now recognised as a key moment in psychology's history.

For decades little was known about Leborgne, besides his important contribution to science. However, in a paper published in 2013, Cezary Domanski at Maria Curie-Sklodowska University in Poland uncovered new biographical details, including the possibility that Leborgne muttered the word "Tan" because his birthplace of Moret, home to several tanneries.

See also ' Glimpsed at last ', and ' Using brain imaging to re-evaluate psychology's three most famous cases '.

Wild Boy of Aveyron

The "Wild boy of Aveyron" – named Victor by the physician Jean-Marc Itard – was found emerging from Aveyron forest in South West France in 1800, aged 11 or 12, where's it's thought he had been living in the wild for several years. For psychologists and philosophers, Victor became a kind of "natural experiment" into the question of nature and nurture. How would he be affected by the lack of human input early in his life?

Those who hoped Victor would support the notion of the "noble savage" uncorrupted by modern civilisation were largely disappointed: the boy was dirty and dishevelled, defecated where he stood and apparently motivated largely by hunger. Victor acquired celebrity status after he was transported to Paris and Itard began a mission to teach and socialise the "feral child". This programme met with mixed success: Victor never learned to speak fluently, but he dressed, learned civil toilet habits, could write a few letters and acquired some very basic language comprehension. Autism expert Uta Frith believes Victor may have been abandoned because he was autistic, but she acknowledges we will never know the truth of his background.

Victor's story inspired the 2004 novel  The Wild Boy  and was dramatised in the 1970 French film  The Wild Child .

Listen to an episode of 'The Mind Changers'.

Nicknamed 'Kim-puter' by his friends, Peek who died in 2010 aged 58, was the inspiration for Dustin Hoffman's autistic savant character in the multi-Oscar-winning film  Rain Man . Before that movie, which was released in 1988, few people had heard of autism, so Peek via the film can be credited with helping to raise the profile of the condition.

Arguably though, the film also helped spread the popular misconception that giftedness is a hallmark of autism (in one notable scene, Hoffman's character deduces in an instant the precise number of cocktail sticks – 246 – that a waitress drops on the floor). Peek himself was actually a non-autistic savant, born with brain abnormalities including a malformed cerebellum and an absent corpus callosum (the massive bundle of tissue that usually connects the two hemispheres). His savant skills were astonishing and included calendar calculation, as well as an encyclopaedic knowledge of history, literature, classical music, US zip codes and travel routes. It was estimated that he read more than 12,000 books in his life time, all of them committed to flawless memory. Although outgoing and sociable, Peek had coordination problems and struggled with abstract or conceptual thinking.

"Anna O." is the pseudonym for Bertha Pappenheim, a pioneering German Jewish feminist and social worker who died in 1936 aged 77. As Anna O. she is known as one of the first ever patients to undergo psychoanalysis and her case inspired much of Freud's thinking on mental illness. Pappenheim first came to the attention of another psychoanalyst, Joseph Breuer, in 1880 when he was called to her house in Vienna where she was lying in bed, almost entirely paralysed. Her other symptoms include hallucinations, personality changes and rambling speech, but doctors could find no physical cause.

For 18 months, Breuer visited her almost daily and talked to her about her thoughts and feelings, including her grief for her father, and the more she talked, the more her symptoms seemed to fade – this was apparently one of the first ever instances of psychoanalysis or "the talking cure", although the degree of Breuer's success has been disputed and some historians allege that Pappenheim did have an organic illness, such as epilepsy.

Although Freud never met Pappenheim, he wrote about her case, including the notion that she had a hysterical pregnancy, although this too is disputed. The latter part of Pappenheim's life in Germany post 1888 is as remarkable as her time as Anna O. She became a prolific writer and social pioneer, including authoring stories, plays, and translating seminal texts, and she founded social clubs for Jewish women, worked in orphanages and founded the German Federation of Jewish Women.

Kitty Genovese

Sadly, it is not really Kitty Genovese the person who has become one of psychology's classic case studies, but rather the terrible fate that befell her. In 1964 in New York, Genovese was returning home from her job as a bar maid when she was attacked and eventually murdered by Winston Mosely. What made this tragedy so influential to psychology was that it inspired research into what became known as the Bystander Phenomenon – the now well-established finding that our sense of individual responsibility is diluted by the presence of other people. According to folklore, 38 people watched Genovese's demise yet not one of them did anything to help, apparently a terrible real life instance of the Bystander Effect.

However, the story doesn't end there because historians have since established  the reality was much more complicated  – at least two people did try to summon help, and actually there was only one witness the second and fatal attack. While the main principle of the Bystander Effect has stood the test of time, modern psychology's understanding of the way it works has become a lot more nuanced. For example, there's evidence that in some situations people are more likely to act when they're part of a larger group, such as when they and the other group members all belong to the same social category (such as all being women) as the victim.

See also another angle , on false confessions.

Little Albert

"Little Albert" was the nickname that the pioneering behaviourist psychologist John Watson gave to an 11-month-old baby, in whom, with his colleague and future wife Rosalind Rayner, he deliberately attempted to instill certain fears through a process of conditioning. The research, which was of dubious scientific quality, was conducted in 1920 and has become notorious for being so unethical (such a procedure would never be given approval in modern university settings).

Interest in Little Albert has reignited in recent years as an academic quarrel has erupted over his true identity. A group led by Hall Beck at Appalachian University announced in 2011 that they thought Little Albert was actually Douglas Merritte, the son of a wet nurse at John Hopkins University where Watson and Rayner were based. According to this sad account, Little Albert was neurologically impaired, compounding the unethical nature of the Watson/Rayner research, and he died aged six of  hydrocephalus (fluid on the brain).

However, this account was challenged by a different group of scholars led by Russell Powell at MacEwan University in 2014. They established that Little Albert was more likely William A Barger (recorded in his medical file as Albert Barger), the son of a different wet nurse. Earlier this year, textbook writer Richard Griggs weighed up all the evidence and concluded that the Barger story is the more credible, which would mean that Little Albert in fact died 2007 aged 87.

Chris Sizemore

Chris Costner Sizemore is one of the most famous patients to be given the controversial diagnosis of multiple personality disorder, known today as dissociative identity disorder. Sizemore's alter egos apparently included Eve White, Eve Black, Jane and many others. By some accounts, Sizemore expressed these personalities as a coping mechanism in the face of traumas she experienced in childhood, including seeing her mother badly injured and a man sawn in half at a lumber mill.

In recent years, Sizemore has described how her alter egos have been combined into one united personality for many decades, but she still sees different aspects of her past as belonging to her different personalities. For example, she has stated that her husband was married to Eve White (not her), and that Eve White is the mother of her first daughter. Her story was turned into a movie in 1957 called  The Three Faces of Eve  (based on a book of the same name written by her psychiatrists). Joanne Woodward won the best actress Oscar for portraying Sizemore and her various personalities in this film. Sizemore published her autobiography in 1977 called  I'm Eve . In 2009, she appeared on the BBC's  Hard Talk  interview show.

David Reimer

One of the most famous patients in psychology, Reimer lost his penis in a botched circumcision operation when he was just 8 months old. His parents were subsequently advised by psychologist John Money to raise Reimer as a girl, "Brenda", and for him to undergo further surgery and hormone treatment to assist his gender reassignment. Money initially described the experiment (no one had tried anything like this before) as a huge success that appeared to support his belief in the important role of socialisation, rather than innate factors, in children's gender identity.

In fact, the reassignment was seriously problematic and Reimer's boyishness was never far beneath the surface. When he was aged 14, Reimer was told the truth about his past and set about reversing the gender reassignment process to become male again. He later campaigned against other children with genital injuries being gender reassigned in the way that he had been. His story was turned into the book  As Nature Made Him, The Boy Who Was Raised As A Girl  by John Colapinto, and he is the subject of two BBC Horizon documentaries. Tragically, Reimer took his own life in 2004, aged just 38.

- Explore our Collection of features from the Research Digest, and all the latest coverage .

Related articles

28 July 2023

• BPS updates

19 August 2016

28 March 2019

Ethics and Psychology

Where ethics is more than a code

Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Vignette warehouse (39).

• Abnormal Psychology
• Assessment (IB)
• Biological Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminology
• Developmental Psychology
• Extended Essay
• General Interest
• Health Psychology
• Human Relationships
• IB Psychology
• IB Psychology HL Extensions
• Internal Assessment (IB)
• Love and Marriage
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
• Prejudice and Discrimination
• Qualitative Research Methods
• Research Methodology
• Revision and Exam Preparation
• Social and Cultural Psychology
• Studies and Theories
• Teaching Ideas

Key Study: HM’s case study (Milner and Scoville, 1957)

Travis Dixon January 29, 2019 Biological Psychology , Cognitive Psychology , Key Studies

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

HM’s case study is one of the most famous and important case studies in psychology, especially in cognitive psychology. It was the source of groundbreaking new knowledge on the role of the hippocampus in memory. 

Background Info

“Localization of function in the brain” means that different parts of the brain have different functions. Researchers have discovered this from over 100 years of research into the ways the brain works. One such study was Milner’s case study on Henry Molaison.

The memory problems that HM experienced after the removal of his hippocampus provided new knowledge on the role of the hippocampus in memory formation (image: wikicommons)

At the time of the first study by Milner, HM was 29 years old. He was a mechanic who had suffered from minor epileptic seizures from when he was ten years old and began suffering severe seizures as a teenager. These may have been a result of a bike accident when he was nine. His seizures were getting worse in severity, which resulted in HM being unable to work. Treatment for his epilepsy had been unsuccessful, so at the age of 27 HM (and his family) agreed to undergo a radical surgery that would remove a part of his brain called the hippocampus . Previous research suggested that this could help reduce his seizures, but the impact it had on his memory was unexpected. The Doctor performing the radical surgery believed it was justified because of the seriousness of his seizures and the failures of other methods to treat them.

Methods and Results

In one regard, the surgery was successful as it resulted in HM experiencing less seizures. However, immediately after the surgery, the hospital staff and HM’s family noticed that he was suffering from anterograde amnesia (an inability to form new memories after the time of damage to the brain):

Here are some examples of his memory loss described in the case study:

• He could remember something if he concentrated on it, but if he broke his concentration it was lost.
• After the surgery the family moved houses. They stayed on the same street, but a few blocks away. The family noticed that HM as incapable of remembering the new address, but could remember the old one perfectly well. He could also not find his way home alone.
• He could not find objects around the house, even if they never changed locations and he had used them recently. His mother had to always show him where the lawnmower was in the garage.
• He would do the same jigsaw puzzles or read the same magazines every day, without ever apparently getting bored and realising he had read them before. (HM loved to do crossword puzzles and thought they helped him to remember words).
• He once ate lunch in front of Milner but 30 minutes later was unable to say what he had eaten, or remember even eating any lunch at all.
• When interviewed almost two years after the surgery in 1955, HM gave the date as 1953 and said his age was 27. He talked constantly about events from his childhood and could not remember details of his surgery.

Later testing also showed that he had suffered some partial retrograde amnesia (an inability to recall memories from before the time of damage to the brain). For instance, he could not remember that one of his favourite uncles passed away three years prior to his surgery or any of his time spent in hospital for his surgery. He could, however, remember some unimportant events that occurred just before his admission to the hospital.

Brenda Milner studied HM for almost 50 years – but he never remembered her.

Results continued…

His memories from events prior to 1950 (three years before his surgery), however, were fine. There was also no observable difference to his personality or to his intelligence. In fact, he scored 112 points on his IQ after the surgery, compared with 104 previously. The IQ test suggested that his ability in arithmetic had apparently improved. It seemed that the only behaviour that was affected by the removal of the hippocampus was his memory. HM was described as a kind and gentle person and this did not change after his surgery.

The Star Tracing Task

In a follow up study, Milner designed a task that would test whether or not HMs procedural memory had been affected by the surgery. He was to trace an outline of a star, but he could only see the mirrored reflection. He did this once a day over a period of a few days and Milner observed that he became faster and faster. Each time he performed the task he had no memory of ever having done it before, but his performance kept improving. This is further evidence for localization of function – the hippocampus must play a role in declarative (explicit) memory but not procedural (implicit) memory.

Cognitive psychologists have categorized memories into different types. HM’s study suggests that the hippocampus is essential for explicit (conscious) and declarative memory, but not implicit (unconscious) procedural memory.

Was his memory 100% gone? Another follow-up study

Interestingly, HM showed signs of being able to remember famous people who had only become famous after his surgery, like Lee Harvey Oswald (who assassinated JFK in 1963). (Image: wikicommons)

Another fascinating follow-up study was conducted by two researchers who wanted to see if HM had learned anything about celebrities that became famous after his surgery. At first they tested his knowledge of celebrities from before his surgery, and he knew these just as well as controls. They then showed him two names at a time, one a famous name (e.g. Liza Minelli, Lee Harvey Oswald) and the other was a name randomly taken from the phonebook. He was asked to choose the famous name and he was correct on a significant number of trials (i.e. the statistics tests suggest he wasn’t just guessing). Even more incredible was that he remembered some details about these people when asked why they were famous. For example, he could remember that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated the president. One explanation given for the memory of these facts is that there was an emotional component. E.g. He liked these people, or the assassination was so violent, that he could remember a few details. 

HM became a hugely important case study for neuro and cognitive Psychologists. He was interviewed and tested by over 100 psychologists during the 53 years after his operation. Directly after his surgery, he lived at home with his parents as he was unable to live independently. He moved to a nursing home in 1980 and stayed there until his death in 2008. HM donated his brain to science and it was sliced into 2,401 thin slices that will be scanned and published electronically.

Critical Thinking Considerations

• How does this case study demonstrate localization of function in the brain? (e.g.c reating new long-term memories; procedural memories; storing and retrieving long term memories; intelligence; personality) ( Application )
• What are the ethical considerations involved in this study? ( Analysis )
• What are the strengths and limitations of this case study? ( Evaluation )
• Why would ongoing studies of HM be important? (Think about memory, neuroplasticity and neurogenesis) ( Analysis/Synthesis/Evaluation )
• How can findings from this case study be used to support and/or challenge the Multi-store Model of Memory? ( Application / Synthesis/Evaluation )

Exam Tips This study can be used for the following topics: Localization – the role of the hippocampus in memory Techniques to study the brain – MRI has been used to find out the exact location and size of damage to HM’s brain Bio and cognitive approach research method s – case study Bio and cognitive approach ethical considerations – anonymity Emotion and cognition – the follow-up study on HM and memories of famous people could be used in an essay to support the idea that emotion affects memory Models of memory – the multi-store model : HM’s study provides evidence for the fact that our memories all aren’t formed and stored in one place but travel from store to store (because his transfer from STS to LTS was damaged – if it was all in one store this specific problem would not occur)

Milner, Brenda. Scoville, William Beecher. “Loss of Recent Memory after Bilateral Hippocampal Lesions”. The Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry. 1957; 20: 11 21. (Accessed from web.mit.edu )

The man who couldn’t remember”. nova science now. an interview with brenda corkin . 06.01.2009.       .

  Here’s a good video recreation documentary of HM’s case study…

Travis Dixon is an IB Psychology teacher, author, workshop leader, examiner and IA moderator.

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

History and effective date.

Effective date December 1, 1992. Copyright © 1992 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

APA's Ethics Code has been revised.

Introduction

The American Psychological Association's (APA's) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code) consists of an Introduction, a Preamble, six General Principles (A - F), and specific Ethical Standards. The Introduction discusses the intent, organization, procedural considerations, and scope of application of the Ethics Code. The Preamble and General Principles are aspirational goals to guide psychologists toward the highest ideals of psychology. Although the Preamble and General Principles are not themselves enforceable rules, they should be considered by psychologists in arriving at an ethical course of action and may be considered by ethics bodies in interpreting the Ethical Standards. The Ethical Standards set forth enforceable rules for conduct as psychologists. Most of the Ethical Standards are written broadly, in order to apply to psychologists in varied roles, although the application of an Ethical Standard may vary depending on the context. The Ethical Standards are not exhaustive. The fact that a given conduct is not specifically addressed by the Ethics Code does not mean that it is necessarily either ethical or unethical.

Membership in the APA commits members to adhere to the APA Ethics Code and to the rules and procedures used to implement it. Psychologists and students, whether or not they are APA members, should be aware that the Ethics Code may be applied to them by state psychology boards, courts, or other public bodies.

This Ethics Code applies only to psychologists' work-related activities, that is, activities that are part of the psychologists' scientific and professional functions or that are psychological in nature. It includes the clinical or counseling practice of psychology, research, teaching, supervision of trainees, development of assessment instruments, conducting assessments, educational counseling, organizational consulting, social intervention, administration, and other activities as well. These work-related activities can be distinguished from the purely private conduct of a psychologist, which ordinarily is not within the purview of the Ethics Code.

The Ethics Code is intended to provide standards of professional conduct that can be applied by the APA and by other bodies that choose to adopt them. Whether or not a psychologist has violated the Ethics Code does not by itself determine whether he or she is legally liable in a court action, whether a contract is enforceable, or whether other legal consequences occur. These results are based on legal rather than ethical rules. However, compliance with or violation of the Ethics Code may be admissible as evidence in some legal proceedings, depending on the circumstances.

In the process of making decisions regarding their professional behavior, psychologists must consider this Ethics Code, in addition to applicable laws and psychology board regulations. If the Ethics Code establishes a higher standard of conduct than is required by law, psychologists must meet the higher ethical standard. If the Ethics Code standard appears to conflict with the requirements of law, then psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner. If neither law nor the Ethics Code resolves an issue, psychologists should consider other professional materials and the dictates of their own conscience, as well as seek consultation with others within the field when this is practical.

The procedures for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints of unethical conduct are described in the current Rules and Procedures of the APA Ethics Committee. The actions that APA may take for violations of the Ethics Code include actions such as reprimand, censure, termination of APA membership, and referral of the matter to other bodies. Complainants who seek remedies such as monetary damages in alleging ethical violations by a psychologist must resort to private negotiation, administrative bodies, or the courts. Actions that violate the Ethics Code may lead to the imposition of sanctions on a psychologist by bodies other than APA, including state psychological associations, other professional groups, psychology boards, other state or federal agencies, and payors for health services. In addition to actions for violation of the Ethics Code, the APA Bylaws provide that APA may take action against a member after his or her conviction of a felony, expulsion or suspension from an affiliated state psychological association, or suspension or loss of licensure.

Psychologists work to develop a valid and reliable body of scientific knowledge based on research. They may apply that knowledge to human behavior in a variety of contexts. In doing so, they perform many roles, such as researcher, educator, diagnostician, therapist, supervisor, consultant, administrator, social interventionist, and expert witness. Their goal is to broaden knowledge of behavior and, where appropriate, to apply it pragmatically to improve the condition of both the individual and society. Psychologists respect the central importance of freedom of inquiry and expression in research, teaching, and publication. They also strive to help the public in developing informed judgments and choices concerning human behavior. This Ethics Code provides a common set of values upon which psychologists build their professional and scientific work.

This Code is intended to provide both the general principles and the decision rules to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its primary goal the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work. It is the individual responsibility of each psychologist to aspire to the highest possible standards of conduct. Psychologists respect and protect human and civil rights, and do not knowingly participate in or condone unfair discriminatory practices.

The development of a dynamic set of ethical standards for a psychologist's work-related conduct requires a personal commitment to a lifelong effort to act ethically; to encourage ethical behavior by students, supervisees, employees, and colleagues, as appropriate; and to consult with others, as needed, concerning ethical problems. Each psychologist supplements, but does not violate, the Ethics Code's values and rules on the basis of guidance drawn from personal values, culture, and experience.

General Principles

Principle A: Competence

Psychologists strive to maintain high standards of competence in their work. They recognize the boundaries of their particular competencies and the limitations of their expertise. They provide only those services and use only those techniques for which they are qualified by education, training, or experience. Psychologists are cognizant of the fact that the competencies required in serving, teaching, and/or studying groups of people vary with the distinctive characteristics of those groups. In those areas in which recognized professional standards do not yet exist, psychologists exercise careful judgment and take appropriate precautions to protect the welfare of those with whom they work. They maintain knowledge of relevant scientific and professional information related to the services they render, and they recognize the need for ongoing education. Psychologists make appropriate use of scientific, professional, technical, and administrative resources.

Principle B: Integrity

Psychologists seek to promote integrity in the science, teaching, and practice of psychology. In these activities psychologists are honest, fair, and respectful of others. In describing or reporting their qualifications, services, products, fees, research, or teaching, they do not make statements that are false, misleading, or deceptive. Psychologists strive to be aware of their own belief systems, values, needs, and limitations and the effect of these on their work. To the extent feasible, they attempt to clarify for relevant parties the roles they are performing and to function appropriately in accordance with those roles. Psychologists avoid improper and potentially harmful dual relationships.

Principle C: Professional and scientific responsibility

Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior, and adapt their methods to the needs of different populations. Psychologists consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and institutions to the extent needed to serve the best interests of their patients, clients, or other recipients of their services. Psychologists' moral standards and conduct are personal matters to the same degree as is true for any other person, except as psychologists' conduct may compromise their professional responsibilities or reduce the public's trust in psychology and psychologists. Psychologists are concerned about the ethical compliance of their colleagues' scientific and professional conduct. When appropriate, they consult with colleagues in order to prevent or avoid unethical conduct.

Principle D: Respect for people's rights and dignity

Psychologists accord appropriate respect to the fundamental rights, dignity, and worth of all people. They respect the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination, and autonomy, mindful that legal and other obligations may lead to inconsistency and conflict with the exercise of these rights. Psychologists are aware of cultural, individual, and role differences, including those due to age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone unfair discriminatory practices.

Principle E: Concern for others' welfare

Psychologists seek to contribute to the welfare of those with whom they interact professionally. In their professional actions, psychologists weigh the welfare and rights of their patients or clients, students, supervisees, human research participants, and other affected persons, and the welfare of animal subjects of research. When conflicts occur among psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts and to perform their roles in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm. Psychologists are sensitive to real and ascribed differences in power between themselves and others, and they do not exploit or mislead other people during or after professional relationships.

Principle F: Social responsibility

Psychologists are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to the community and the society in which they work and live. They apply and make public their knowledge of psychology in order to contribute to human welfare. Psychologists are concerned about and work to mitigate the causes of human suffering. When undertaking research, they strive to advance human welfare and the science of psychology. Psychologists try to avoid misuse of their work. Psychologists comply with the law and encourage the development of law and social policy that serve the interests of their patients and clients and the public. They are encouraged to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no personal advantage.

Ethical standards

1. General standards

These General Standards are potentially applicable to the professional and scientific activities of all psychologists.

1.01 Applicability of the ethics code

The activity of a psychologist subject to the Ethics Code may be reviewed under these Ethical Standards only if the activity is part of his or her work-related functions or the activity is psychological in nature. Personal activities having no connection to or effect on psychological roles are not subject to the Ethics Code.

1.02 Relationship of ethics and law

If psychologists' ethical responsibilities conflict with law, psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner.

1.03 Professional and scientific relationship

Psychologists provide diagnostic, therapeutic, teaching, research, supervisory, consultative, or other psychological services only in the context of a defined professional or scientific relationship or role. (See also Standards 2.01, Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Interventions in Professional Context, and 7.02, Forensic Assessments.)

1.04 Boundaries of competence

(a) Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, or appropriate professional experience.

(b) Psychologists provide services, teach, or conduct research in new areas or involving new techniques only after first undertaking appropriate study, training, supervision, and/or consultation from persons who are competent in those areas or techniques.

(c) In those emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for preparatory training do not yet exist, psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect patients, clients, students, research participants, and others from harm.

1.05 Maintaining expertise

Psychologists who engage in assessment, therapy, teaching, research, organizational consulting, or other professional activities maintain a reasonable level of awareness of current scientific and professional information in their fields of activity, and undertake ongoing efforts to maintain competence in the skills they use.

1.06 Basis for scientific and professional judgments

Psychologists rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge when making scientific or professional judgments or when engaging in scholarly or professional endeavors.

1.07 Describing the nature and results of psychological services

(a) When psychologists provide assessment, evaluation, treatment, counseling, supervision, teaching, consultation, research, or other psychological services to an individual, a group, or an organization, they provide, using language that is reasonably understandable to the recipient of those services, appropriate information beforehand about the nature of such services and appropriate information later about results and conclusions. (See also Standard 2.09, Explaining Assessment Results.)

(b) If psychologists will be precluded by law or by organizational roles from providing such information to particular individuals or groups, they so inform those individuals or groups at the outset of the service.

1.08 Human differences

Where differences of age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status significantly affect psychologists' work concerning particular individuals or groups, psychologists obtain the training, experience, consultation, or supervision necessary to ensure the competence of their services, or they make appropriate referrals.

1.09 Respecting others

In their work-related activities, psychologists respect the rights of others to hold values, attitudes, and opinions that differ from their own.

1.10 Nondiscrimination. In their work-related activities, psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, socio-economic status, or any basis proscribed by law.

1.11 Sexual harassment

(a) Psychologists do not engage in sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is sexual solicitation, physical advances, or verbal or nonverbal conduct that is sexual in nature, that occurs in connection with the psychologist's activities or roles as a psychologist, and that either: (1) is unwelcome, is offensive, or creates a hostile workplace environment, and the psychologist knows or is told this; or (2) is sufficiently severe or intense to be abusive to a reasonable person in the context. Sexual harassment can consist of a single intense or severe act or of multiple persistent or pervasive acts.

(b) Psychologists accord sexual harassment complainants and respondents dignity and respect. Psychologists do not participate in denying a person academic admittance or advancement, employment, tenure, or promotion, based solely upon their having made, or their being the subject of, sexual harassment charges. This does not preclude taking action based upon the outcome of such proceedings or consideration of other appropriate information.

1.12 Other harassment

Psychologists do not knowingly engage in behavior that is harassing or demeaning to persons with whom they interact in their work based on factors such as those persons' age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status.

1.13 Personal problems and conflicts

(a) Psychologists recognize that their personal problems and conflicts may interfere with their effectiveness. Accordingly, they refrain from undertaking an activity when they know or should know that their personal problems are likely to lead to harm to a patient, client, colleague, student, research participant, or other person to whom they may owe a professional or scientific obligation.

(b) In addition, psychologists have an obligation to be alert to signs of, and to obtain assistance for, their personal problems at an early stage, in order to prevent significantly impaired performance.

(c) When psychologists become aware of personal problems that may interfere with their performing work-related duties adequately, they take appropriate measures, such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance, and determine whether they should limit, suspend, or terminate their work-related duties.

1.14 Avoiding harm

Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their patients or clients, research participants, students, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.

1.15 Misuse of psychologists' influence

Because psychologists' scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence.

1.16 Misuse of psychologists' work

(a) Psychologists do not participate in activities in which it appears likely that their skills or data will be misused by others, unless corrective mechanisms are available. (See also Standard 7.04, Truthfulness and candor.)

(b) If psychologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation of their work, they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation.

1.17 Multiple relationships

(a) In many communities and situations, it may not be feasible or reasonable for psychologists to avoid social or other nonprofessional contacts with persons such as patients, clients, students, supervisees, or research participants. Psychologists must always be sensitive to the potential harmful effects of other contacts on their work and on those persons with whom they deal. A psychologist refrains from entering into or promising another personal, scientific, professional, financial, or other relationship with such persons if it appears likely that such a relationship reasonably might impair the psychologist's objectivity or otherwise interfere with the psychologist's effectively performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or might harm or exploit the other party.

(b) Likewise, whenever feasible, a psychologist refrains from taking on professional or scientific obligations when pre-existing relationships would create a risk of such harm.

(c) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the psychologist attempts to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal compliance with the Ethics Code.

1.18 Barter (with patients or clients)

Psychologists ordinarily refrain from accepting goods, services, or other nonmonetary remuneration from patients or clients in return for psychological services because such arrangements create inherent potential for conflicts, exploitation, and distortion of the professional relationship. A psychologist may participate in bartering only if (1) it is not clinically contraindicated, and (2) the relationship is not exploitative. (See also Standards 1.17, Multiple Relationships, and 1.25, Fees and Financial Arrangements.)

1.19 Exploitative relationships

(a) Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as students, supervisees, employees, research participants, and clients or patients. (See also Standards 4.05 - 4.07 regarding sexual involvement with clients or patients.)

(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual relationships with students or supervisees in training over whom the psychologist has evaluative or direct authority, because such relationships are so likely to impair judgment or be exploitative.

1.20 Consultations and referrals

(a) Psychologists arrange for appropriate consultations and referrals based principally on the best interests of their patients or clients, with appropriate consent, and subject to other relevant considerations, including applicable law and contractual obligations. (See also Standards 5.01, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality, and 5.06, Consultations.)

(b) When indicated and professionally appropriate, psychologists cooperate with other professionals in order to serve their patients or clients effectively and appropriately.

(c) Psychologists' referral practices are consistent with law.

1.21 Third-party requests for services

(a) When a psychologist agrees to provide services to a person or entity at the request of a third party, the psychologist clarifies to the extent feasible, at the outset of the service, the nature of the relationship with each party. This clarification includes the role of the psychologist (such as therapist, organizational consultant, diagnostician, or expert witness), the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained, and the fact that there may be limits to confidentiality.

(b) If there is a foreseeable risk of the psychologist's being called upon to perform conflicting roles because of the involvement of a third party, the psychologist clarifies the nature and  direction of his or her responsibilities, keeps all parties appropriately informed as matters develop, and resolves the situation in accordance with this Ethics Code.

1.22 Delegation to and supervision of subordinates

(a) Psychologists delegate to their employees, supervisees, and research assistants only those responsibilities that such persons can reasonably be expected to perform competently, on the basis of their education, training, or experience, either independently or with the level of supervision being provided.

(b) Psychologists provide proper training and supervision to their employees or supervisees and take reasonable steps to see that such persons perform services responsibly, competently, and ethically.

(c) If institutional policies, procedures, or practices prevent fulfillment of this obligation, psychologists attempt to modify their role or to correct the situation to the extent feasible.

1.23 Documentation of professional and scientific work

(a) Psychologists appropriately document their professional and scientific work in order to facilitate provision of services later by them or by other professionals, to ensure accountability, and to meet other requirements of institutions or the law.

(b) When psychologists have reason to believe that records of their professional services will be used in legal proceedings involving recipients of or participants in their work, they have a responsibility to create and maintain documentation in the kind of detail and quality that would be consistent with reasonable scrutiny in an adjudicative forum. (See also Standard 7.01, Professionalism, under forensic activities.)

1.24 Records and data

Psychologists create, maintain, disseminate, store, retain, and dispose of records and data relating to their research, practice, and other work in accordance with law and in a manner that permits compliance with the requirements of this Ethics Code. (See also Standard 5.04, Maintenance of Records.)

1.25 Fees and financial arrangements

(a) As early as is feasible in a professional or scientific relationship, the psychologist and the patient, client, or other appropriate recipient of psychological services reach an agreement specifying the compensation and the billing arrangements.

(b) Psychologists do not exploit recipients of services or payors with respect to fees.

(c) Psychologists' fee practices are consistent with law.

(d) Psychologists do not misrepresent their fees.

(e) If limitations to services can be anticipated because of limitations in financing, this is discussed with the patient, client, or other appropriate recipient of services as early as is feasible. (See also Standard 4.08, Interruption of services.)

(f) If the patient, client, or other recipient of services does not pay for services as agreed, and if the psychologist wishes to use collection agencies or legal measures to collect the fees, the psychologist first informs the person that such measures will be taken and provides that person an opportunity to make prompt payment. (See also Standard 5.11, Withholding Records for Nonpayment.)

1.26 Accuracy in reports to payors and funding sources

In their reports to payors for services or sources of research funding, psychologists accurately state the nature of the research or service provided, the fees or charges, and where applicable, the identity of the provider, the findings, and the diagnosis. (See also Standard 5.05, Disclosures.)

1.27 Referrals and fees

When a psychologist pays, receives payment from, or divides fees with another professional other than in an employer - employee relationship, the payment to each is based on the services (clinical, consultative, administrative, or other) provided and is not based on the referral itself.

2. Evaluation, assessment, OR intervention

2.01 Evaluation, diagnosis, and interventions in professional context

(a) Psychologists perform evaluations, diagnostic services, or interventions only within the context of a defined professional relationship. (See also Standards 1.03, Professional and Scientific Relationship.)

(b) Psychologists' assessments, recommendations, reports, and psychological diagnostic or evaluative statements are based on information and techniques (including personal interviews of the individual when appropriate) sufficient to provide appropriate substantiation for their findings. (See also Standard 7.02, Forensic Assessments.)

2.02 Competence and appropriate use of assessments and interventions

(a) Psychologists who develop, administer, score, interpret, or use psychological assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments do so in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.

(b) Psychologists refrain from misuse of assessment techniques, interventions, results, and interpretations and take reasonable steps to prevent others from misusing the information these techniques provide. This includes refraining from releasing raw test results or raw data to persons, other than to patients or clients as appropriate, who are not qualified to use such information. (See also Standards 1.02, Relationship of Ethics and Law, and 1.04, Boundaries of Competence.)

2.03 Test construction

Psychologists who develop and conduct research with tests and other assessment techniques use scientific procedures and current professional knowledge for test design, standardization, validation, reduction or elimination of bias, and recommendations for use.

2.04 Use of assessment in general and with special populations

(a) Psychologists who perform interventions or administer, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques are familiar with the reliability, validation, and related standardization or outcome studies of, and proper applications and uses of, the techniques they use.

(b) Psychologists recognize limits to the certainty with which diagnoses, judgments, or predictions can be made about individuals.

(c) Psychologists attempt to identify situations in which particular interventions or assessment techniques or norms may not be applicable or may require adjustment in administration or interpretation because of factors such as individuals' gender, age, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status.

2.05 Interpreting assessment results

When interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations, psychologists take into account the various test factors and characteristics of the person being assessed that might affect psychologists' judgments or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant reservations they have about the accuracy or limitations of their interpretations.

2.06 Unqualified persons

Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons. (See also Standard 1.22, Delegation to and Supervision of Subordinates.)

2.07 Obsolete tests and outdated test results

(a) Psychologists do not base their assessment or intervention decisions or recommendations on data or test results that are outdated for the current purpose.

(b) Similarly, psychologists do not base such decisions or recommendations on tests and measures that are obsolete and not useful for the current purpose.

2.08 Test scoring and interpretation services

(a) Psychologists who offer assessment or scoring procedures to other professionals accurately describe the purpose, norms, validity, reliability, and applications of the procedures and any special qualifications applicable to their use.

(b) Psychologists select scoring and interpretation services (including automated services) on the basis of evidence of the validity of the program and procedures as well as on other appropriate considerations.

(c) Psychologists retain appropriate responsibility for the appropriate application, interpretation, and use of assessment instruments, whether they score and interpret such tests themselves or use automated or other services.

2.09 Explaining assessment results

Unless the nature of the relationship is clearly explained to the person being assessed in advance and precludes provision of an explanation of results (such as in some organizational consulting, pre-employment or security screenings, and forensic evaluations), psychologists ensure that an explanation of the results is provided using language that is reasonably understandable to the person assessed or to another legally authorized person on behalf of the client. Regardless of whether the scoring and interpretation are done by the psychologist, by assistants, or by automated or other outside services, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that appropriate explanations of results are given.

2.10 Maintaining test security

Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of tests and other assessment techniques consistent with law, contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits compliance with the requirements of this Ethics Code. (See also Standard 1.02, Relationship of Ethics and Law.)

3. Advertising and other public statements

3.01 Definition of public statements

Psychologists comply with this Ethics Code in public statements relating to their professional services, products, or publications or to the field of psychology. Public statements include but are not limited to paid or unpaid advertising, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal resumes or curriculum vitae, interviews or comments for use in media, statements in legal proceedings, lectures and public oral presentations, and published materials.

3.02 Statements by others

(a) Psychologists who engage others to create or place public statements that promote their professional practice, products, or activities retain professional responsibility for such statements.

(b) In addition, psychologists make reasonable efforts to prevent others whom they do not control (such as employers, publishers, sponsors, organizational clients, and representatives of the print or broadcast media) from making deceptive statements concerning psychologists' practice or professional or scientific activities.

(c) If psychologists learn of deceptive statements about their work made by others, psychologists make reasonable efforts to correct such statements.

(d) Psychologists do not compensate employees of press, radio, television, or other communication media in return for publicity in a news item.

(e) A paid advertisement relating to the psychologist's activities must be identified as such, unless it is already apparent from the context.

3.03 Avoidance of false or deceptive statements

(a) Psychologists do not make public statements that are false, deceptive, misleading, or fraudulent, either because of what they state, convey, or suggest or because of what they omit, concerning their research, practice, or other work activities or those of persons or organizations with which they are affiliated. As examples (and not in limitation) of this standard, psychologists do not make false or deceptive statements concerning (1) their training, experience, or competence; (2) their academic degrees; (3) their credentials; (4) their institutional or association affiliations; (5) their services; (6) the scientific or clinical basis for, or results or degree of success of, their services; (7) their fees; or (8) their publications or research findings. (See also Standards 6.15, Deception in Research, and 6.18, Providing Participants With Information About the Study.)

(b) Psychologists claim as credentials for their psychological work, only degrees that (1) were earned from a regionally accredited educational institution or (2) were the basis for psychology licensure by the state in which they practice.

3.04 Media presentations

When psychologists provide advice or comment by means of public lectures, demonstrations, radio or television programs, prerecorded tapes, printed articles, mailed material, or other media, they take reasonable precautions to ensure that (1) the statements are based on appropriate psychological literature and practice, (2) the statements are otherwise consistent with this Ethics Code, and (3) the recipients of the information are not encouraged to infer that a relationship has been established with them personally.

3.05 Testimonials

Psychologists do not solicit testimonials from current psychotherapy clients or patients or other persons who because of their particular circumstances are vulnerable to undue influence.

3.06 In-person solicitation

Psychologists do not engage, directly or through agents, in uninvited in-person solicitation of business from actual or potential psychotherapy patients or clients or other persons who because of their particular circumstances are vulnerable to undue influence. However, this does not preclude attempting to implement appropriate collateral contacts with significant others for the purpose of benefiting an already engaged therapy patient.

4.01 Structuring the relationship

(a) Psychologists discuss with clients or patients as early as is feasible in the therapeutic relationship appropriate issues, such as the nature and anticipated course of therapy, fees, and confidentiality. (See also Standards 1.25, Fees and financial arrangements, and 5.01, Discussing the limits of confidentiality.)

(b) When the psychologist's work with clients or patients will be supervised, the above discussion includes that fact, and the name of the supervisor, when the supervisor has legal responsibility for the case.

(c) When the therapist is a student intern, the client or patient is informed of that fact.

(d) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to answer patients' questions and to avoid apparent misunderstandings about therapy. Whenever possible, psychologists provide oral and/or written information, using language that is reasonably understandable to the patient or client.

4.02 Informed consent to therapy

(a) Psychologists obtain appropriate informed consent to therapy or related procedures, using language that is reasonably understandable to participants. The content of informed consent will vary depending on many circumstances; however, informed consent generally implies that the person (1) has the capacity to consent, (2) has been informed of significant information concerning the procedure, (3) has freely and without undue influence expressed consent, and (4) consent has been appropriately documented.

(b) When persons are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists obtain informed permission from a legally authorized person, if such substitute consent is permitted by law.

(c) In addition, psychologists (1) inform those persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent about the proposed interventions in a manner commensurate with the persons' psychological capacities, (2) seek their assent to those interventions, and (3) consider such persons' preferences and best interests.

4.03 Couple and family relationships

(a) When a psychologist agrees to provide services to several persons who have a relationship (such as husband and wife or parents and children), the psychologist attempts to clarify at the outset (1) which of the individuals are patients or clients and (2) the relationship the psychologist will have with each person. This clarification includes the role of the psychologist and the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained. (See also Standard 5.01, Discussing the limits of confidentiality.)

(b) As soon as it becomes apparent that the psychologist may be called on to perform potentially conflicting roles (such as marital counselor to husband and wife, and then witness for one party in a divorce proceeding), the psychologist attempts to clarify and adjust, or withdraw from, roles appropriately. (See also Standard 7.03, Clarification of role, under Forensic activities.)

4.04 Providing mental health services to those served by others

In deciding whether to offer or provide services to those already receiving mental health services elsewhere, psychologists carefully consider the treatment issues and the potential patient's or client's welfare. The psychologist discusses these issues with the patient or client, or another legally authorized person on behalf of the client, in order to minimize the risk of confusion and conflict, consults with the other service providers when appropriate, and proceeds with caution and sensitivity to the therapeutic issues.

4.05 Sexual intimacies With current patients or clients

Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with current patients or clients.

4.06 Therapy with former sexual partners

Psychologists do not accept as therapy patients or clients persons with whom they have engaged in sexual intimacies.

4.07 Sexual intimacies with former therapy patients

(a) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with a former therapy patient or client for at least two years after cessation or termination of professional services.

(b) Because sexual intimacies with a former therapy patient or client are so frequently harmful to the patient or client, and because such intimacies undermine public confidence in the psychology profession and thereby deter the public's use of needed services, psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former therapy patients and clients even after a two-year interval except in the most unusual circumstances. The psychologist who engages in such activity after the two years following cessation or termination of treatment bears the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation, in light of all relevant factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since therapy terminated, (2) the nature and duration of the therapy, (3) the circumstances of termination, (4) the patient's or client's personal history, (5) the patient's or client's current mental status, (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on the patient or client and others, and (7) any statements or actions made by the therapist during the course of therapy suggesting or inviting the possibility of a post-termination sexual or romantic relationship with the patient or client. (See also Standard 1.17, Multiple relationships.)

4.08 Interruption of services

(a) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to plan for facilitating care in the event that psychological services are interrupted by factors such as the psychologist's illness, death, unavailability, or relocation or by the client's relocation or financial limitations. (See also Standard 5.09, Preserving records and data.)

(b) When entering into employment or contractual relationships, psychologists provide for orderly and appropriate resolution of responsibility for patient or client care in the event that the employment or contractual relationship ends, with paramount consideration given to the welfare of the patient or client.

4.09 Terminating the professional relationship

(a) Psychologists do not abandon patients or clients. (See also Standard 1.25e, under Fees and Financial Arrangements.)

(b) Psychologists terminate a professional relationship when it becomes reasonably clear that the patient or client no longer needs the service, is not benefiting, or is being harmed by continued service.

(c) Prior to termination for whatever reason, except where precluded by the patient's or client's conduct, the psychologist discusses the patient's or client's views and needs, provides appropriate pre-termination counseling, suggests alternative service providers as appropriate, and takes other reasonable steps to facilitate transfer of responsibility to another provider if the patient or client needs one immediately.

5. Privacy and confidentiality

These Standards are potentially applicable to the professional and scientific activities of all psychologists.

5.01 Discussing the limits of confidentiality

(a) Psychologists discuss with persons and organizations with whom they establish a scientific or professional relationship (including, to the extent feasible, minors and their legal representatives) (1) the relevant limitations on confidentiality, including limitations where applicable in group, marital, and family therapy or in organizational consulting, and (2) the foreseeable uses of the information generated through their services.

(b) Unless it is not feasible or is contraindicated, the discussion of confidentiality occurs at the outset of the relationship and thereafter as new circumstances may warrant.

(c) Permission for electronic recording of interviews is secured from clients and patients.

5.02 Maintaining confidentiality

Psychologists have a primary obligation and take reasonable precautions to respect the confidentiality rights of those with whom they work or consult, recognizing that confidentiality may be established by law, institutional rules, or professional or scientific relationships. (See also Standard 6.26, Professional Reviewers.)

5.03 Minimizing intrusions on privacy

(a) In order to minimize intrusions on privacy, psychologists include in written and oral reports, consultations, and the like, only information germane to the purpose for which the communication is made.

(b) Psychologists discuss confidential information obtained in clinical or consulting relationships, or evaluative data concerning patients, individual or organizational clients, students, research participants, supervisees, and employees, only for appropriate scientific or professional purposes and only with persons clearly concerned with such matters.

5.04 Maintenance of records

Psychologists maintain appropriate confidentiality in creating, storing, accessing, transferring, and disposing of records under their control, whether these are written, automated, or in any other medium. Psychologists maintain and dispose of records in accordance with law and in a manner that permits compliance with the requirements of this Ethics Code.

5.05 Disclosures

(a) Psychologists disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual only as mandated by law, or where permitted by law for a valid purpose, such as (1) to provide needed professional services to the patient or the individual or organizational client, (2) to obtain appropriate professional consultations, (3) to protect the patient or client or others from harm, or (4) to obtain payment for services, in which instance disclosure is limited to the minimum that is necessary to achieve the purpose.

(b) Psychologists also may disclose confidential information with the appropriate consent of the patient or the individual or organizational client (or of another legally authorized person on behalf of the patient or client), unless prohibited by law.

5.06 Consultations

When consulting with colleagues, (1) psychologists do not share confidential information that reasonably could lead to the identification of a patient, client, research participant, or other person or organization with whom they have a confidential relationship unless they have obtained the prior consent of the person or organization or the disclosure cannot be avoided, and (2) they share information only to the extent necessary to achieve the purposes of the consultation. (See also Standard 5.02, Maintaining Confidentiality.)

5.07 Confidential information in databases

(a) If confidential information concerning recipients of psychological services is to be entered into databases or systems of records available to persons whose access has not been consented to by the recipient, then psychologists use coding or other techniques to avoid the inclusion of personal identifiers.

(b) If a research protocol approved by an institutional review board or similar body requires the inclusion of personal identifiers, such identifiers are deleted before the information is made accessible to persons other than those of whom the subject was advised.

(c) If such deletion is not feasible, then before psychologists transfer such data to others or review such data collected by others, they take reasonable steps to determine that appropriate consent of personally identifiable individuals has been obtained.

5.08 Use of confidential information for didactic or other purposes

(a) Psychologists do not disclose in their writings, lectures, or other public media, confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their patients, individual or organizational clients, students, research participants, or other recipients of their services that they obtained during the course of their work, unless the person or organization has consented in writing or unless there is other ethical or legal authorization for doing so.

(b) Ordinarily, in such scientific and professional presentations, psychologists disguise confidential information concerning such persons or organizations so that they are not individually identifiable to others and so that discussions do not cause harm to subjects who might identify themselves.

5.09 Preserving records and data

A psychologist makes plans in advance so that confidentiality of records and data is protected in the event of the psychologist's death, incapacity, or withdrawal from the position or practice.

5.10 Ownership of records and data

Recognizing that ownership of records and data is governed by legal principles, psychologists take reasonable and lawful steps so that records and data remain available to the extent needed to serve the best interests of patients, individual or organizational clients, research participants, or appropriate others.

5.11 Withholding records for nonpayment

Psychologists may not withhold records under their control that are requested and imminently needed for a patient's or client's treatment solely because payment has not been received, except as otherwise provided by law.

6. Teaching, training supervision, research, and publishing

6.01 Design of education and training programs

Psychologists who are responsible for education and training programs seek to ensure that the programs are competently designed, provide the proper experiences, and meet the requirements for licensure, certification, or other goals for which claims are made by the program.

6.02 Descriptions of education and training programs

(a) Psychologists responsible for education and training programs seek to ensure that there is a current and accurate description of the program content, training goals and objectives, and requirements that must be met for satisfactory completion of the program. This information must be made readily available to all interested parties.

(b) Psychologists seek to ensure that statements concerning their course outlines are accurate and not misleading, particularly regarding the subject matter to be covered, bases for evaluating progress, and the nature of course experiences. (See also Standard 3.03, Avoidance of false or deceptive statements.)

(c) To the degree to which they exercise control, psychologists responsible for announcements, catalogs, brochures, or advertisements describing workshops, seminars, or other non-degree-granting educational programs ensure that they accurately describe the audience for which the program is intended, the educational objectives, the presenters, and the fees involved.

6.03 Accuracy and objectivity in teaching.

(a) When engaged in teaching or training, psychologists present psychological information accurately and with a reasonable degree of objectivity.

(b) When engaged in teaching or training, psychologists recognize the power they hold over students or supervisees and therefore make reasonable efforts to avoid engaging in conduct that is personally demeaning to students or supervisees. (See also Standards 1.09, Respecting others, and 1.12, Other harassment.)

6.04 Limitation on teaching

Psychologists do not teach the use of techniques or procedures that require specialized training, licensure, or expertise, including but not limited to hypnosis, biofeedback, and projective techniques, to individuals who lack the prerequisite training, legal scope of practice, or expertise.

6.05 Assessing student and supervisee performance

(a) In academic and supervisory relationships, psychologists establish an appropriate process for providing feedback to students and supervisees.

(b) Psychologists evaluate students and supervisees on the basis of their actual performance on relevant and established program requirements.

6.06 Planning research

(a) Psychologists design, conduct, and report research in accordance with recognized standards of scientific competence and ethical research.

(b) Psychologists plan their research so as to minimize the possibility that results will be misleading.

(c) In planning research, psychologists consider its ethical acceptability under the Ethics Code. If an ethical issue is unclear, psychologists seek to resolve the issue through consultation with institutional review boards, animal care and use committees, peer consultations, or other proper mechanisms.

(d) Psychologists take reasonable steps to implement appropriate protections for the rights and welfare of human participants, other persons affected by the research, and the welfare of animal subjects.

6.07 Responsibility

(a) Psychologists conduct research competently and with due concern for the dignity and welfare of the participants.

(b) Psychologists are responsible for the ethical conduct of research conducted by them or by others under their supervision or control.

(c) Researchers and assistants are permitted to perform only those tasks for which they are appropriately trained and prepared.

(d) As part of the process of development and implementation of research projects, psychologists consult those with expertise concerning any special population under investigation or most likely to be affected.

6.08 Compliance with law and standards

Psychologists plan and conduct research in a manner consistent with federal and state law and regulations, as well as professional standards governing the conduct of research, and particularly those standards governing research with human participants and animal subjects.

6.09 Institutional approval

Psychologists obtain from host institutions or organizations appropriate approval prior to conducting research, and they provide accurate information about their research proposals. They conduct the research in accordance with the approved research protocol.

6.10 Research responsibilities

Prior to conducting research (except research involving only anonymous surveys, naturalistic observations, or similar research), psychologists enter into an agreement with participants that clarifies the nature of the research and the responsibilities of each party.

6.11 Informed consent to research

(a) Psychologists use language that is reasonably understandable to research participants in obtaining their appropriate informed consent (except as provided in Standard 6.12, Dispensing with informed consent). Such informed consent is appropriately documented.

(b) Using language that is reasonably understandable to participants, psychologists inform participants of the nature of the research; they inform participants that they are free to participate or to decline to participate or to withdraw from the research; they explain the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; they inform participants of significant factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate (such as risks, discomfort, adverse effects, or limitations on confidentiality, except as provided in Standard 6.15, Deception in research); and they explain other aspects about which the prospective participants inquire.

(c) When psychologists conduct research with individuals such as students or subordinates, psychologists take special care to protect the prospective participants from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation.

(d) When research participation is a course requirement or opportunity for extra credit, the prospective participant is given the choice of equitable alternative activities.

(e) For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless (1) provide an appropriate explanation, (2) obtain the participant's assent, and (3) obtain appropriate permission from a legally authorized person, if such substitute consent is permitted by law.

6.12 Dispensing with informed consent

Before determining that planned research (such as research involving only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or certain kinds of archival research) does not require the informed consent of research participants, psychologists consider applicable regulations and institutional review board requirements, and they consult with colleagues as appropriate.

6.13 Informed consent in research filming or recording

Psychologists obtain informed consent from research participants prior to filming or recording them in any form, unless the research involves simply naturalistic observations in public places and it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or harm.

6.14 Offering inducements for research participants

(a) In offering professional services as an inducement to obtain research participants, psychologists make clear the nature of the services, as well as the risks, obligations, and limitations. (See also Standard 1.18, Barter [with patients or clients].)

(b) Psychologists do not offer excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements to obtain research participants, particularly when it might tend to coerce participation.

6.15 Deception in research

(a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that equally effective alternative procedures that do not use deception are not feasible.

(b) Psychologists never deceive research participants about significant aspects that would affect their willingness to participate, such as physical risks, discomfort, or unpleasant emotional experiences.

(c) Any other deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment must be explained to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the research. (See also Standard 6.18, Providing participants with information about the study.)

6.16 Sharing and utilizing data

Psychologists inform research participants of their anticipated sharing or further use of personally identifiable research data and of the possibility of unanticipated future uses.

6.17 Minimizing invasiveness

In conducting research, psychologists interfere with the participants or milieu from which data are collected only in a manner that is warranted by an appropriate research design and that is consistent with psychologists' roles as scientific investigators.

6.18 Providing participants With information about the study

(a) Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research, and psychologists attempt to correct any misconceptions that participants may have.

(b) If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information, psychologists take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm.

6.19 Honoring commitments

Psychologists take reasonable measures to honor all commitments they have made to research participants.

6.20 Care and use of animals in research

(a) Psychologists who conduct research involving animals treat them humanely.

(b) Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with current federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards.

(c) Psychologists trained in research methods and experienced in the care of laboratory animals supervise all procedures involving animals and are responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration of their comfort, health, and humane treatment.

(d) Psychologists ensure that all individuals using animals under their supervision have received instruction in research methods and in the care, maintenance, and handling of the species being used, to the extent appropriate to their role.

(e) Responsibilities and activities of individuals assisting in a research project are consistent with their respective competencies. (f) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to minimize the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain of animal subjects.

(g) A procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation is used only when an alternative procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value.

(h) Surgical procedures are performed under appropriate anesthesia; techniques to avoid infection and minimize pain are followed during and after surgery.

(i) When it is appropriate that the animal's life be terminated, it is done rapidly, with an effort to minimize pain, and in accordance with accepted procedures.

6.21 Reporting of results

(a) Psychologists do not fabricate data or falsify results in their publications.

(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable steps to correct such errors in a correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate publication means.

6.22 Plagiarism

Psychologists do not present substantial portions or elements of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally.

6.23 Publication credit

(a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed.

(b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as Department Chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are appropriately acknowledged, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement.

(c) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student's dissertation or thesis.

6.24 Duplicate publication of data

Psychologists do not publish, as original data, data that have been previously published. This does not preclude republishing data when they are accompanied by proper acknowledgment.

6.25 Sharing data

After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release.

6.26 Professional reviewers.

Psychologists who review material submitted for publication, grant, or other research proposal review respect the confidentiality of and the proprietary rights in such information of those who submitted it.

7. Forensic activities

7.01 Professionalism

Psychologists who perform forensic functions, such as assessments, interviews, consultations, reports, or expert testimony, must comply with all other provisions of this Ethics Code to the extent that they apply to such activities. In addition, psychologists base their forensic work on appropriate knowledge of and competence in the areas underlying such work, including specialized knowledge concerning special populations. (See also Standards 1.06, Basis for scientific and professional judgments; 1.08, Human differences; 1.15, Misuse of psychologists' influence; and 1.23, Documentation of professional and scientific work.)

7.02 Forensic assessments

(a) Psychologists' forensic assessments, recommendations, and reports are based on information and techniques (including personal interviews of the individual, when appropriate) sufficient to provide appropriate substantiation for their findings. (See also Standards 1.03, Professional and scientific relationship; 1.23, Documentation of professional and scientific work; 2.01, Evaluation, diagnosis, and interventions in professional context; and 2.05, Interpreting assessment results.)

(b) Except as noted in (c), below, psychologists provide written or oral forensic reports or testimony of the psychological characteristics of an individual only after they have conducted an examination of the individual adequate to support their statements or conclusions.

(c) When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not feasible, psychologists clarify the impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their reports and testimony, and they appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations.

7.03 Clarification of role

In most circumstances, psychologists avoid performing multiple and potentially conflicting roles in forensic matters. When psychologists may be called on to serve in more than one role in a legal proceeding — for example, as consultant or expert for one party or for the court and as a fact witness — they clarify role expectations and the extent of confidentiality in advance to the extent feasible, and thereafter as changes occur, in order to avoid compromising their professional judgment and objectivity and in order to avoid misleading others regarding their role.

7.04 Truthfulness and candor

(a) In forensic testimony and reports, psychologists testify truthfully, honestly, and candidly and, consistent with applicable legal procedures, describe fairly the bases for their testimony and conclusions. (b) Whenever necessary to avoid misleading, psychologists acknowledge the limits of their data or conclusions.

7.05 Prior relationships

A prior professional relationship with a party does not preclude psychologists from testifying as fact witnesses or from testifying to their services to the extent permitted by applicable law. Psychologists appropriately take into account ways in which the prior relationship might affect their professional objectivity or opinions and disclose the potential conflict to the relevant parties.

7.06 Compliance with law and rules

In performing forensic roles, psychologists are reasonably familiar with the rules governing their roles. Psychologists are aware of the occasionally competing demands placed upon them by these principles and the requirements of the court system, and attempt to resolve these conflicts by making known their commitment to this Ethics Code and taking steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner. (See also Standard 1.02, Relationship of ethics and law.)

8. Resolving ethical issues

8.01 Familiarity with ethics code

Psychologists have an obligation to be familiar with this Ethics Code, other applicable ethics codes, and their application to psychologists' work. Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an ethical standard is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.

8.02 Confronting ethical issues

When a psychologist is uncertain whether a particular situation or course of action would violate this Ethics Code, the psychologist ordinarily consults with other psychologists knowledgeable about ethical issues, with state or national psychology ethics committees, or with other appropriate authorities in order to choose a proper response.

8.03 Conflicts between ethics and organizational demands

If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and to the extent feasible, seek to resolve the conflict in a way that permits the fullest adherence to the Ethics Code.

8.04 Informal resolution of ethical violations

When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved.

8.05 Reporting ethical violations

If an apparent ethical violation is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 8.04 or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation, unless such action conflicts with confidentiality rights in ways that cannot be resolved. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics or to state licensing boards.

8.06 Cooperating with ethics committees

Psychologists cooperate in ethics investigations, proceedings, and resulting requirements of the APA or any affiliated state psychological association to which they belong. In doing so, they make reasonable efforts to resolve any issues as to confidentiality. Failure to cooperate is itself an ethics violation.

8.07 Improper complaints

Psychologists do not file or encourage the filing of ethics complaints that are frivolous and are intended to harm the respondent rather than to protect the public.

History and effective date

This version of the APA Ethics Code was adopted by the American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives during its meeting, August 13 and 16, 1992, and is effective beginning December 1, 1992. Inquiries concerning the substance or interpretation of the APA Ethics Code should be addressed to the Director, Office of Ethics, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.

This Code will be used to adjudicate complaints brought concerning alleged conduct occurring after the effective date. Complaints regarding conduct occurring prior to the effective date will be adjudicated on the basis of the version of the Code that was in effect at the time the conduct occurred, except that no provisions repealed in June 1989, will be enforced even if an earlier version contains the provision. The Ethics Code will undergo continuing review and study for future revisions; comments on the Code may be sent to the above address.

The APA has previously published its Ethical Standards as follows: American Psychological Association. (1953). Ethical standards of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association. (1958). Standards of ethical behavior for psychologists. American Psychologist, 13, 268- 271. American Psychological Association. (1963). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist, 18, 56-60. American Psychological Association. (1968). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist, 23, 357-361. American Psychological Association. (1977, March). Ethical standards of psychologists. APA Monitor, 22-23. American Psychological Association. (1979). Ethical standards of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author. American Psychological Association. (1981). Ethical principles of psychologists. American Psychologist, 36, 633-638. American Psychological Association. (1990). Ethical principles of psychologists (Amended June 2, 1989). American Psychologist, 45, 390-395.

Request copies of the APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct from the APA Order Department, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242, or phone (202) 336-5510.

Footnote 1:

Contact apa ethics office.