Students' Ethical Decision-Making When Considering Boundary Crossings With Counselor Educators

IF 0.7 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Counseling and Values Pub Date : 2019-04-10 DOI:10.1002/cvj.12094
Stephanie T. Burns
{"title":"Students' Ethical Decision-Making When Considering Boundary Crossings With Counselor Educators","authors":"Stephanie T. Burns","doi":"10.1002/cvj.12094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Counselor education students (<i>N</i> = 224) rated 16 boundary-crossing scenarios involving counselor educators. They viewed boundary crossings as unethical and were aware of power differentials between the 2 groups. Next, they rated the scenarios again, after reviewing 1 of 4 ethical informational resources: relevant standards in the <i>ACA Code of Ethics</i> (American Counseling Association, 2014), 2 different boundary-crossing decision-making models, and a placebo. Although participants rated all resources except the placebo as moderately helpful, these resources had little to no influence on their ethical decision-making. Only 47% of students in the 2 ethical decision-making model groups reported they would use the model they were exposed to in the future when contemplating boundary crossings</p>","PeriodicalId":56157,"journal":{"name":"Counseling and Values","volume":"64 1","pages":"53-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/cvj.12094","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Counseling and Values","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cvj.12094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Counselor education students (N = 224) rated 16 boundary-crossing scenarios involving counselor educators. They viewed boundary crossings as unethical and were aware of power differentials between the 2 groups. Next, they rated the scenarios again, after reviewing 1 of 4 ethical informational resources: relevant standards in the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association, 2014), 2 different boundary-crossing decision-making models, and a placebo. Although participants rated all resources except the placebo as moderately helpful, these resources had little to no influence on their ethical decision-making. Only 47% of students in the 2 ethical decision-making model groups reported they would use the model they were exposed to in the future when contemplating boundary crossings

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
学生在考虑与辅导员教育者跨界时的伦理决策
接受咨询教育的学生(N = 224)对涉及咨询教育者的16个跨界场景进行了评分。他们认为越界是不道德的,并且意识到两个群体之间的权力差异。接下来,他们在回顾了四种伦理信息资源中的一种后,再次对场景进行评级:ACA道德准则中的相关标准(美国咨询协会,2014年),两种不同的跨界决策模型,以及安慰剂。尽管参与者认为除了安慰剂之外的所有资源都有中等程度的帮助,但这些资源对他们的道德决策几乎没有影响。在两个道德决策模型组中,只有47%的学生报告说,他们将来在考虑跨越边界时,会使用他们接触到的模型
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 去求助
来源期刊
Counseling and Values
Counseling and Values PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A review of empirical treatments focused on mind-body and spiritually grounded complementary practices for moral injury among veterans. Virtues as Correlates and Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress and Growth Discerning Student Depression: Religious Coping and Social Support Mediating Attachment Counseling and Values Metastudy: An Analysis of Publication Characteristics From 2000 to 2019 A Dilemma Within Doctoral Supervision: Applying an Ethical Decision-Making Model
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1