The Ethics of Psychology Professors’ Behaviors: Perceptions From Both Sides of the Podium

IF 0.7 4区 心理学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
K. Multhaup, Dustin Smith, Adam Hunter, M. M. Boyd, Scott Tonidandel
{"title":"The Ethics of Psychology Professors’ Behaviors: Perceptions From Both Sides of the Podium","authors":"K. Multhaup, Dustin Smith, Adam Hunter, M. M. Boyd, Scott Tonidandel","doi":"10.1177/00986283221095045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic role (undergraduates, professors) and institutional context (liberal arts colleges, research universities) may affect how ethical psychology professors’ behaviors seem. This study assessed whether academic role and institutional context related to ratings of professorial behaviors’ ethicality. A national sample ( N = 608) rated 70 professorial behaviors (e.g., unethical in virtually all circumstances to ethical in virtually all circumstances) across four domains: teaching, grading, relationships, and professional procedure. G-test of independence analyses yielded differences across academic role (student, professor) for 57% of teaching behaviors, 50% of grading behaviors, 63% of relationship behaviors, and 52% of professional procedure behaviors, although the difference was often a matter of degree rather than kind (ethical or unethical). Differences across institution type (liberal arts college, research university) were largest for relationship behaviors (25%) compared with teaching, grading, and policy behaviors (5%, 0%, 4%, respectively). The data highlight the need for professors’ transparency and reinforce calls for the APA Ethics Code to consider context when defining ethical standards for psychologists’ behaviors. The data set can enhance undergraduate education about the APA Ethics Code and spark discussion about sampling (e.g., limitations of this study are homogenous samples, including high-achieving undergraduates).","PeriodicalId":47708,"journal":{"name":"Teaching of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283221095045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Academic role (undergraduates, professors) and institutional context (liberal arts colleges, research universities) may affect how ethical psychology professors’ behaviors seem. This study assessed whether academic role and institutional context related to ratings of professorial behaviors’ ethicality. A national sample ( N = 608) rated 70 professorial behaviors (e.g., unethical in virtually all circumstances to ethical in virtually all circumstances) across four domains: teaching, grading, relationships, and professional procedure. G-test of independence analyses yielded differences across academic role (student, professor) for 57% of teaching behaviors, 50% of grading behaviors, 63% of relationship behaviors, and 52% of professional procedure behaviors, although the difference was often a matter of degree rather than kind (ethical or unethical). Differences across institution type (liberal arts college, research university) were largest for relationship behaviors (25%) compared with teaching, grading, and policy behaviors (5%, 0%, 4%, respectively). The data highlight the need for professors’ transparency and reinforce calls for the APA Ethics Code to consider context when defining ethical standards for psychologists’ behaviors. The data set can enhance undergraduate education about the APA Ethics Code and spark discussion about sampling (e.g., limitations of this study are homogenous samples, including high-achieving undergraduates).
心理学教授行为的伦理:讲台两侧的感悟
学术角色(本科生、教授)和制度背景(文科学院、研究型大学)可能会影响伦理心理学教授的行为。本研究评估了学术角色和制度背景是否与教授行为的道德性评级有关。全国样本(N=608)对教学、评分、人际关系和专业程序四个领域的70种教授行为(例如,在几乎所有情况下都不道德到在几乎所有条件下都合乎道德)进行了评级。独立性G检验分析显示,57%的教学行为、50%的评分行为、63%的关系行为和52%的专业程序行为在学术角色(学生、教授)之间存在差异,尽管这种差异通常是程度问题,而不是种类问题(道德或不道德)。与教学、评分和政策行为(分别为5%、0%、4%)相比,不同机构类型(文科学院、研究型大学)的关系行为差异最大(25%)。这些数据强调了教授透明度的必要性,并强化了APA道德准则在定义心理学家行为的道德标准时考虑背景的呼吁。该数据集可以加强本科生对APA道德规范的教育,并引发关于抽样的讨论(例如,本研究的局限性是同质样本,包括成绩优异的本科生)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
22.20%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Basic and introductory psychology courses are the most popular electives on college campuses and a rapidly growing addition to high school curriculums. As such, Teaching of Psychology is indispensable as a source book for teaching methods and as a forum for new ideas. Dedicated to improving the learning and teaching process at all educational levels, this journal has established itself as a leading source of information and inspiration for all who teach psychology. Coverage includes empirical research on teaching and learning; studies of teacher or student characteristics; subject matter or content reviews for class use; investigations of student, course, or teacher assessment; professional problems of teachers; essays on teaching.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信