Ethical Implications Of Privacy, Confidentiality, And Informed Consent. Digital communications come with a variety of potential issues related to privacy and confidentiality, and there are ethical implications for these topics in a variety of psychology contexts. Individuals working in the field of psychology have an ethical responsibility to maintain appropriate privacy and confidentiality measures, and to relay this information to the individuals they communicate with.
Employing Social Media in Working with Athletes: A Case Study Discussing Ethical Implications for Applied Sport Psychology Consultants”
Provide an analysis of the legal and ethical standards presented in the cases.
Explain your position on the author’s point of view.
Explain how the ethical standards apply to these case studies. How would you address or resolve them?
Provide a rationale of the responsibility of psychology in your resolutions.
Ethical Implications of Digital Communications in Applied Psychology: Considerations from Case Studies
The rise of digital technologies in recent decades has transformed how individuals interact and share information. For the field of psychology, these advancements introduce both opportunities and responsibilities that must be navigated carefully. Two case studies examining the use of social media in applied sport psychology consulting demonstrate some of the privacy, consent, and boundary-related issues that can emerge from digital communications. This paper will analyze these cases through the lenses of established ethical standards, with the aim of clarifying psychologists’ obligations regarding informed consent, confidentiality, and dual relationships in digital contexts.
The first case study, “Employing Social Media in Working with Athletes” (Fletcher et al., 2006), describes a consultant who began following athletes on public social media platforms to build rapport and offer informal support. While well-intentioned, this approach risked undermining trust and professional boundaries. Viewing athletes’ personal online profiles and lives without their clear consent could be considered an invasion of privacy (American Psychological Association, 2017). It also opens the door for confusion regarding the consultant’s role—are they acting professionally in an evaluative capacity, or as an informal supporter on a personal level?
To avoid such dual relationship issues, psychologists must be transparent about how, when and why they interact with clients digitally (Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, 2000). One better approach may have involved using private and secured means of communication agreed upon through informed discussion of expectations for care, support and feedback (American Counseling Association, 2014). Overall, the case highlights how failure to prioritize consent can compromise a client’s autonomy and psychological well-being.
The second case study examined here involved a sports psychology consultant providing career counseling to an athlete via email (Fletcher et al., 2006). While digital counseling holds promise for increasing access to services, it also brings challenges regarding confidentiality, privacy and informed consent (Norcross & VandenBos, 2018). For example, emails are not a fully secure medium and could potentially be accessed without permission. The consultant in this case did not address how privacy and limits to confidentiality may differ in digital versus face-to-face contexts.
To resolve such issues, psychologists must apply ethical decision-making frameworks emphasizing respect for persons, beneficence, and non-maleficence (Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, 2000). When new technologies introduce ambiguity, transparency should take priority over convenience or other factors. Only with clear understanding can clients provide truly informed consent regarding collection, storage and sharing of personal information (American Counseling Association, 2014). Looking ahead, continued research and discussion on digital ethics will help shape more comprehensive guidelines for psychologists navigating evolving communication platforms.
In summary, the case studies demonstrate psychology’s responsibility to maintain appropriate privacy, confidentiality and consent measures regardless of service delivery method. While digital technologies offer opportunities to expand services, they also require diligence to avoid boundary crossings, dual relationships and other issues that could compromise care. Prioritizing transparency and informed consent is key to upholding the field’s duty of care as communications continue evolving.
Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2006). An organizational stress review: Conceptual and theoretical issues in competitive sport. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 321–374). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Norcross, J. C., & VandenBos, G. R. (Eds.). (2018). Leaving it at the office: A guide to psychotherapist self-care. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. (2000). Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 41(3), 98–104. https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Ethics/CPA_Code_2017_4thEd.pdf
American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf
