| Course | PSYCH 660 Ethics and Professional Issues (PSYCH/660) |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Practice dilemma analysis |
| Length | about 1,179 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSYCH 660 Week 5
A Friend Request From a Former Participant and an Order to Lead a Therapy Group: Two Practice Dilemmas for a Master's-Level Worker
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
PSYCH/660: Ethics and Professional Issues
Week 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The lab, the residential program, the people and the dilemmas are composites written for a model paper; ethical standards and research findings come from the sources listed.
Ethical dilemmas in practice rarely announce themselves. They arrive as friendly messages and reasonable-sounding requests from supervisors. This paper examines two that I faced in the same month, one from my research job and one from my weekend work.
Two Roles
I coordinate a university sleep lab in Tucson during the week and work weekend shifts as a behavioral health technician at a residential program for adolescents in treatment for mental health and substance use problems. As a technician, I supervise daily activities, lead structured skills groups using a written curriculum and support residents under the direction of licensed therapists. I am completing an MS in Psychology, which does not lead to licensure.
The First Dilemma: A Friend Request
A sixteen-year-old who completed our sleep study a month ago sent me a friend request on a social media platform with a message: "Thanks for helping me with the study, it made me think about my sleep a lot. You were really nice." Her participation is over, and she is not a client. Yet she is a minor, she shared mood data with the lab and she may see me as a trusted adult.
Why It Is a Dilemma
Ignoring the request risks seeming cold to a teen who reached out with gratitude. Accepting it would create a personal connection that could expose her to my personal life and me to hers, blur the line between researcher and friend and potentially compromise confidentiality, since others might infer she was in the study. The APA Ethics Code (American Psychological Association, 2017) directs psychologists to avoid multiple relationships that could reasonably be expected to impair objectivity or risk exploitation or harm, and our lab could contact her again for follow-up studies.
What Research on Dilemmas Shows
Pope and Vetter (1992) surveyed a random sample of APA members and asked them to describe ethically troubling incidents from their work. The most frequently reported categories were confidentiality, blurred or dual relationships, payment issues and academic and training dilemmas. Many respondents described situations in which the code did not provide clear guidance or in which obligations conflicted, and some called for more guidance on everyday boundary questions.
Lehavot et al. (2010) analyzed how social networking affects professional relationships, noting that clients can find personal information about psychologists online and that online contact can blur boundaries in ways that face-to-face practice does not. They recommended that psychologists consider their online presence carefully, avoid accepting clients' friend requests and discuss online contact policies with clients.
Lannin and Scott (2013) offered best practices for social networking ethics, recommending that psychologists develop explicit social media policies, discuss them during informed consent and respond to unsolicited contact in ways that preserve the professional relationship without shaming the person.
A thank-you deserved a reply; a friend connection was not the right one.
My Response
I declined the friend request and replied through the lab's official email, with the principal investigator copied: "Thank you so much for your kind message and for being part of our study. Lab policy is that we don't connect with participants on personal social media, but we really appreciated your help, and we'll share a summary of what we learned when the study is done." The lab added a sentence about social media contact to its consent materials.
The Second Dilemma: A Therapy Group Beyond My Training
One Saturday, the program's therapist called in sick, and my supervisor asked me to lead the trauma processing group she runs weekly, in which residents share traumatic experiences and work through them using a structured therapy model. "You've seen her do it," he said. "Just follow the workbook."
Why It Is a Dilemma
The residents depend on the group, and canceling it could leave them disappointed and unsettled. My supervisor has authority over my schedule and evaluations. But trauma processing can evoke intense distress, and leading it requires clinical training and supervision I do not have. Section 2 of the code limits psychologists to work their training and supervised experience have prepared them for, and it bars handing tasks to anyone not equipped to do them. Although I am not a psychologist, these principles describe my professional obligation as well.
My Response
I told my supervisor that I was not trained to lead trauma processing and was concerned about harming residents, and offered an alternative within my role: a structured coping skills group from our curriculum, covering grounding and relaxation techniques, with the on-call clinician available by phone. He agreed. Afterward I wrote a short note of what was said and, on Monday, asked the program director what the plan should be the next time the therapist is out.
What the Two Dilemmas Share
The two situations differ in setting but share a structure. In each, a person in a weaker position, a teen participant or residents in treatment, could be harmed by a choice that seemed kind or convenient in the moment. In each, someone with more power, the teen through her gratitude or my supervisor through his authority, made the risky option feel natural. And in each, a rule alone did not settle the matter; I had to weigh the relationship, the risk and the alternatives. Decision-making models help precisely because they slow this process down: identify the issue, consult the code, consider the people affected, generate options, choose and then reflect.
The Limits of a Master's-Level Role
Working in behavioral health with a master's degree in general psychology carries a particular risk. Programs often rely on technicians and other unlicensed staff to fill gaps, and staff may be asked to do more than their training supports, especially during shortages. Knowing the boundaries of my role, and being able to explain them without seeming unwilling to help, is part of practicing ethically. My job description, which lists skills groups but not therapy, gave me a concrete reference point when I declined.
How the Residents Experienced It
The residents were disappointed that their usual group was not meeting, and two asked whether the therapist was leaving. I explained that she was sick and would be back next week, and the skills group gave them a structured, calm hour. Afterward, one resident said it helped to practice grounding before a weekend visit with family. Meeting their need for structure and support did not require doing something I was not trained to do.
Consultation and Documentation
For both dilemmas, I consulted others: the principal investigator on the friend request and my faculty advisor about the group. Documentation protected both me and the people involved.
Both conversations took less than ten minutes, a reminder that ethical action is often a matter of saying the right sentence at the right moment.
Conclusion
A friendly message and a supervisor's request each created a dilemma. Research on common ethical dilemmas, social media and boundaries guided responses that respected the teen's gratitude without a personal connection and met residents' needs without exceeding my competence.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
Lannin, D. G., & Scott, N. A. (2013). Social networking ethics: Developing best practices for the new small world. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44(3), 135-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031794
Lehavot, K., Barnett, J. E., & Powers, D. (2010). Psychotherapy, professional relationships, and ethical considerations in the MySpace generation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41(2), 160-166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018709
Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. American Psychologist, 47(3), 397-411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.3.397
What the PSYCH 660 Week 5 instructions ask
Week 5 of PSYCH 660 usually asks students to analyze ethical dilemmas that arise in everyday practice, where rules alone rarely settle the question. Prompts commonly include boundaries and multiple relationships, social media and digital contact, practicing within competence, supervision and delegation, confidentiality in everyday settings and conflicts with employers. Students are often asked to use a decision-making model on one or two cases. Explain why each situation is a dilemma rather than a simple rule violation, identify the standards and interests involved, generate options, consider consequences for everyone affected and choose and justify a course of action, including consultation. List the code and journal sources in APA style.
How this PSYCH 660 Week 5 example is built
Two situations arrive for Daniel Reyes in the same month. A sixteen-year-old who finished the lab's sleep study sends him a friend request and a message thanking him. At his weekend job as a behavioral health technician at a youth residential program, his supervisor asks him to lead a trauma processing group because the therapist is out. A national survey shows that confidentiality and blurred boundaries are among the dilemmas psychologists report most often. An analysis of the social media era describes boundary risks of online contact. Guidance on social networking suggests clear policies. Daniel declines the request kindly and declines to lead therapy, offering to run a skills activity within his role instead.
PSYCH 660 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go
In this unit, practice dilemma papers are judged on whether the student recognizes the competing obligations, applies standards accurately and chooses actions that protect clients. Instructors look for each case to be framed as a dilemma with legitimate interests on several sides, for standards on multiple relationships, competence and delegation to be cited, for a decision-making process to be visible and for options and consequences to be weighed. Credit goes to responses that preserve relationships and meet real needs while staying within role and competence. Rigid answers that ignore context, or permissive ones that ignore risk, lose points; sources belong in APA style.
PSYCH 660 Week 5 help: mistakes to avoid
Dilemma papers often skip straight to an answer without explaining why the situation is hard, which misses the point of the assignment. Another common error is treating all contact outside a professional role as forbidden, rather than weighing risks of exploitation and impaired objectivity. Some students accept tasks beyond their training because a supervisor asked, overlooking that competence is the worker's responsibility. Others forget the client's perspective, such as how a teen might feel if a friend request is ignored. Name the competing interests, cite standards, consider options and their effects on the client and choose a course you can explain to the client and the supervisor. A tutor can help you apply a decision-making model to your case.
Related PSYCH 660 sample papers
Other PSYCH 660 week samples
- PSYCH 660 Week 1: The APA Ethics Code
- PSYCH 660 Week 2: Research Ethics and Review Boards
- PSYCH 660 Week 3: Consent and Confidentiality
- PSYCH 660 Week 4: Ethics in Assessment
- PSYCH 660 Week 6: Professional Responsibility
More MS in Psychology sample papers
- PSYCH 647 Week 5: Performance Management Systems
- PSYCH 650 Week 5: Substance Use and Personality
- PSYCH 655 Week 5: Personality and Career Assessment
- PSYCH 658 Week 5: Engagement, Burnout and Well-Being
PSYCH 660 Week 5 questions, answered
What does PSYCH 660 Week 5 usually cover?
Ethical dilemmas in practice, including boundaries, social media, competence, supervision and decision-making models.
Where can I find a free PSYCH 660 Week 5 sample paper?
The full PSYCH 660 Week 5 analysis of a friend request and a therapy group request is posted above, free.
Should psychologists accept friend requests from clients?
Generally no; personal social media connections can blur boundaries and compromise confidentiality, and clear policies help.
Can a master's-level worker lead therapy groups?
Only within their training, credentials and supervision; leading specialized therapy beyond competence is not appropriate.
What is an ethical dilemma?
A situation in which legitimate ethical obligations conflict, so that meeting one may mean compromising another.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All PSYCH 660 week samples · All courses