Clinical or research psychologist? In training? on Facebook? read on…
Given that these things are moving so quickly, it’s not surprising that these questions haven’t been asked before. However, the fact that this research seems to have found that psychological professionals aren’t being very clever about their use of social networking sites is a little bit worrying.
In an article entitled ‘Psychologists’ Attitudes and Ethical Concerns Regarding the Use of Social Networking Web Sites’, published this month in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Laura Taylor, Mark McMinn, Rodger Bufford and Kelly Chang report the results of a survey of graduate students and psychologists about their current use of social networking sites. What they were interested in was the how psychologists are handling issues of disclosure in this environment: basically, what to do when ‘friended’ by a client.
A large majority of their respondents reported having a presence on at least one of these sites, which is nothing unusual, but what is worrisome is the following observation. While a majority of the survey’s respondents reported thinking about the issues and ramifications of ethical behaviour on these sites, and also that they had either rejected or ignored friend requests from clients, but also often posted photographs or videos of themselves online. So what? Well, as the authors put it themselves
… unintentional disclosures can cause problems in psychotherapy if the disclosure involves something inappropriate according to professional boundaries, if it interferes with the treatment process, or if it damages the client’s view of the psychotherapist as a competent and trustworthy individual. (Taylor, McMinn, Bufford & Chang, 2010, p. 154).
Or, to put it another way, what do you do when your client casually asks how you recovered from your last night out, having seen your Facebook photos of you out on the town? That’s where the problem is: unintentional disclosure. More to the point, given that the APA’s code of conduct does not mention social networking sites (or any technological areas of rapid change), there is no reference point for this area. Even worse, as the authors mention, in any other area, a trainee psychologist could refer to their supervisor or other superior – but in this case, as their own data showed, the more senior the psychologist, the less likely they were to have a presence on a social network, and hence unlikely to be familiar with them enough to have an informed opinion.
The bottom line is that psychologists need to self-monitor their activity on the internet more intelligently because awkward situations are inevitable. Taylor et al. (2010) mention a few ‘dire possibilities’ that emerged during the survey:
Some respondents noted that they occasionally found pictures of clients on the Web sites of their friends or family members, and that they had no prior
knowledge of these relationships. A few participants even reported that they had been matched to current or former clients through anonymous dating Web sites. (p. 158).
Hence, there is a significant potential for unpleasantness and the authors recommend psychologists engage in a great degree of control and management of the data they present online. That’s good advice for all of us, but acutely so for those entrusted with our mental health.
For more information, email me: [email protected]
Taylor, L., McMinn, M.R., Bufford, R.K. & Chang, K.B.T. (2010). Psychologists’ attitudes and ethical concerns regarding the use of SNS. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41(2), 153-159.