Dr. Daniela Yeung, a community psychologist, has been conducting a federally funded ethnographic study of men’s attitudes toward intimate partner violence following conviction and release from prison for spousal abuse

 

 

 

Dr. Daniela Yeung, a community psychologist, has been conducting a federally funded

ethnographic study of men’s attitudes toward intimate partner violence following

conviction and release from prison for spousal abuse. Over the course of a year, she has

had individual monthly interviews with 25 participants while they were in jail and

following their release. Aiden, a 35-year-old male parolee convicted of seriously injuring

his wife, has been interviewed by Dr. Yeung on eight occasions. The interviews have

covered a range of personal topics including Aiden’s problem drinking, which is

marked by blackouts and threatening phone calls made to his parents and girlfriend

when he becomes drunk, usually in the evening. To her knowledge, Aiden has never

followed through on these threats. It is clear that Aiden feels very comfortable discussing

his life with Dr. Yeung. One evening Dr. Yeung checks her answering machine and

finds a message from Aiden. His words are slurred and angry: “Now that you know the

truth about what I am you know that there is nothing you can do to help the evil inside

me. The bottle is my savior and I will end this with them tonight.” Each time she calls

Aiden’s home phone she gets a busy signal.

Ethical Dilemma

Dr. Yeung has Aiden’s address, and after 2 hours, she is considering whether or

not to contact emergency services to go to Aiden’s home or to the homes of his

parents and girlfriend.

 

Discussion Questions (Answer in APA format)

1. Why is this an ethical dilemma? Which APA Ethical Principles help frame the

nature of the dilemma?

2. Who are the stakeholders and how will they be affected by how Dr. Yeung

resolves this dilemma?

3. Does this situation meet the standards set by the Tarasoff decision’s “duty to

protect” statute (see Chapter 7)? How might whether or not Dr. Yeung’s state

includes researchers under such a statute influence Dr. Yeung’s ethical decision

making? How might the fact that Dr. Yeung is a research psychologist without

training or licensure in clinical practice influence the ethical decision?

4. In addressing this dilemma, should Dr. Yeung consider how her decision may

affect the completion of her research (e.g., the confidentiality concerns of

other participants)?

5. How are APA Ethical Standards 2.01f, 3.04, 3.06, 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, and 8.01

relevant to this case? Which other standards might apply?

6. What are Dr. Yeung’s ethical alternatives for resolving this dilemma? Which

alternative best reflects the Ethics Code aspirational principles and enforceable

standards, legal standards, and obligations to stakeholders? Can you identify

the ethical theory (discussed in Chapter 3) guiding your decision?

7. What steps should Dr. Yeung take to implement her decision and monitor

its effect?