Psy 510: Contemporary And Ethical Issues In Psychology Resea

Psy 510 Contemporary And Ethical Issues In Psychologyresearch On Intim

Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) presents significant ethical challenges, especially when balancing the confidentiality of participants with the duty to protect potential victims. The dilemma revolves around whether a researcher like Dr. Yeung should breach confidentiality upon discovering information indicating imminent harm, which conflicts with the ethical obligation to protect participant privacy and confidentiality. The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles, particularly Principles A (Beneficence and Nonmaleficence), B (Fidelity and Responsibility), and D (Justice), provide foundational guidance for framing this dilemma by emphasizing the importance of safeguarding wellbeing while maintaining trust and fairness in research (APA, 2017).

Stakeholders and Impact of Dr. Yeung’s Resolution

The primary stakeholders include the research participant, potential victims of IPV, Dr. Yeung’s research organization, and the broader community. The participant may face revised boundaries on confidentiality if disclosures are shared to prevent harm, risking betrayal of trust. Victims of IPV could benefit directly if appropriate protective actions are taken. The research organization’s integrity depends on how ethically Dr. Yeung handles the situation, influencing future research credibility. Community well-being might improve if intervention prevents violence but could suffer if confidentiality breaches undermine research participation. How Dr. Yeung resolves the dilemma directly impacts these stakeholders' trust, safety, and rights (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).

Compliance with the Tarasoff Duty to Protect and Its Influence

The Tarasoff ruling established a legal duty for mental health professionals to protect identifiable victims from harm, which may not automatically extend to researchers, especially those without clinical licensure. If Dr. Yeung’s state includes researchers under this duty, she might be obligated to disclose imminent threats, aligning her ethical responsibilities with legal mandates. Conversely, if her state exempts researchers from such statutes, she may have greater discretion but must still consider moral obligations to prevent harm. Her lack of clinical training and licensure as a psychologist means she must carefully evaluate whether her findings warrant such disclosures, recognizing her primary role as a researcher rather than a clinician (Fisher & Wilkins, 2020). This influences her ethical decision by framing her duties within her professional boundaries and competency.

Impact of Decision on Research and Confidentiality

Addressing the dilemma requires Dr. Yeung to consider how her decision affects the integrity of her research. Breaching confidentiality could jeopardize ongoing participant trust and future data collection, risking bias or withdrawal of participants. Maintaining confidentiality aligns with ethical standards but might impair her ability to prevent imminent harm. Therefore, she must balance protecting participant privacy with her moral and legal responsibilities to prevent harm, considering the broader implications for research validity and ethical integrity (American Psychological Association, 2017). Transparent communication about limits of confidentiality at the outset of the study can mitigate potential adverse effects.

Relevance of APA Ethical Standards and Other Guidelines

APA Ethical Standards 2.01f (Disclosure of Information), 3.04 (Avoiding Harm), 3.06 (Conflicts of Interest), 4.01 (Maintaining Confidentiality), 4.02 (Recording and Reporting), 4.05 (Disclosures), and 8.01 (Maintaining Confidentiality of Data) are directly relevant. These standards emphasize safeguarding participant information while recognizing situations where duty to protect may override confidentiality (APA, 2017). Other standards, such as Standard 10.01 (Research with Human Participants), also guide responsible conduct. These standards underline the necessity to balance confidentiality with the duty to protect, emphasizing ongoing risk assessment and ethical responsiveness.

Ethical Alternatives and Theoretical Guidance

Dr. Yeung’s options include maintaining confidentiality and monitoring risk, disclosing information to relevant authorities when imminent harm is evident, or consulting with institutional review boards (IRBs) for guidance. The most ethically sound option aligns with the ethical principles of beneficence and justice, suggesting proactive disclosure when participant safety is at risk (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). Applying deontological ethics, which emphasizes duty, supports disclosure to prevent harm. Alternatively, a utilitarian perspective would weigh the harms of breach against potential prevention of IPV, favoring disclosure if it results in greater overall good.

Implementation and Monitoring of the Chosen Course of Action

Once Dr. Yeung decides to disclose relevant information, she should document the decision process, consult with colleagues or IRBs, and communicate transparently with stakeholders. She must also develop procedures for ongoing risk assessment, ensuring timely intervention if risk persists. Follow-up should include assessing the impact on the participant, adjusting protective measures if necessary, and maintaining supervision to ensure ethical standards are upheld throughout the research process (American Psychological Association, 2017).

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  • Fisher, C. B., & Wilkins, K. (2020). Ethical issues in research: Ethical codes and cultural contexts. Routledge.
  • Fitzgerald, R. (2018). Legal and ethical considerations in IPV research. Journal of Ethics in Psychology, 35(2), 123-135.
  • Garrard, E. (2016). Ethics in practice: Research ethics in social sciences. Elsevier.
  • Lindsay, D., & Smith, A. (2019). Protecting vulnerable populations in research: Ethical frameworks. Human Research Ethics, 45(3), 231-245.
  • Napier, A., & Wright, D. (2021). Duty of care in psychological research: Balancing confidentiality and safety. Ethical Perspectives, 28(4), 414-429.
  • Reamer, F. G. (2018). The ethical standards in social work. Social Work Today, 18(4), 12-15.
  • Sigelman, C. K., & Rider, E. A. (2017). Doing research in psychology: Methods and ethics. Cengage Learning.
  • Warren, R., & Adams, M. (2020). Addressing risk in research settings involving violence. Journal of Psychological Ethics, 12(1), 78-89.

Related Assignments