PSYC 3099 Case of the Abnormal Psychology Professor

Your Name
PSYCHOLOGY
PSYC 3099
Name of University
Date of Submission
1.0 Introduction
According to the case study, the abnormal psychology professor’s action was in contravention of the American Psychological Association’s code of ethics and conduct. Although the professor has multiple professional roles, in the current case, he was a trainer and not a psychotherapist. He violated the APA ethical standards and general code when he declared that he was a private psychotherapist and willing to provide services to his students. This essay will review how his action would have affected both the students who would have either accepted or rejected his offer. The paper will further evaluate how his action violated the American Psychological Association (APA) general principles and ethical standards, and what corrective actions should have to been taken to remedy the situation by both parties.
2.0 Case Study Analysis
The professor overstepped his mandate as an educator when he introduced himself to the class as a privately practicing psychotherapist. Although legally permitted to teach and practice, his action was unwarranted as it amounted to conflict of interest (APA Code, 2016). His affirmation that he specialized in trauma and abuse victims could have been misconstrued to imply that his students were possible victims of trauma and abuse. This assertion could have psychologically affected his students. The professor’s action was in breach of the principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence which requires that psychologists’ refrain from activities that would make them unduly benefit from their clients (APA Code, 2016). On the realization that he had breached the code, the professor should have taken corrective action to minimize possible harm on his professionalism and reputation. He should have invited a fellow psychology professor to come and evaluate the harm caused. The relationship between him and the students should have remained purely educational. His actions further contravened the code provision on fidelity and responsibility (APA, 2012). The student could no longer trust him given his exploitative actions. On realizing the professor’s unprofessional conduct, the students ought to have sought for clarification from the department dean. The professor’s actions further violated the third principle of integrity which requires that psychologists conduct themselves in absolute honesty and truthfulness in both teaching and practice of psychology (APA, 2012). His actions amounted to intentional misrepresentation. Moreover, he breached the fiduciary relationship with his students. The students should have sought further clarification from the professor with regard to the motive of his public declaration. On realization of the breach, the professor should have sought for the intervention of a fellow professor to try and resolve the conflict in a manner that is consisted with the ethics code (APA, 2016).
Respect for people’s rights and dignity was violated. The professor’s utterances denied students the right to self-determination hence autonomous decision making with regard to the choice of a psychotherapist (APA, 2012). According to this principle, psychologists are required to eliminate the impact of workplace biases. His actions could lead to bias given likelihood that he would favor those students who would seek for his private psychotherapy services as opposed to those who would not (APA, 2012). This would not only lead to favoritism, but would also have a negative psychological impact on the students who would not have opted for the professor’s private services. On this realization, students who might have felt prejudiced should have reported the violation to the university authorities requesting that the professor be replaced. On the other hand, the professor should have sought for informal conflict resolution as provided under standard 1.04 (APA, 2016). In the event that the interv...