K. Multhaup, Dustin Smith, Adam Hunter, M. M. Boyd, Scott Tonidandel
{"title":"心理学教授行为的伦理:讲台两侧的感悟","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":"{\"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}","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}
The Ethics of Psychology Professors’ Behaviors: Perceptions From Both Sides of the Podium
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).
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.