Re: Random Thought: On Lying, Cheating, and Plagiarism

[Wallace Dixon]

Title: Re: Random Thought:  On Lying, Cheating, and Plagiarism

Hmmm.  I guess I don't see the public humiliation of a student for lying, lying having been determined to have taken place by the faculty member involved, as that much of a close call, regardless of the heavenliness of the intentions in teaching the lesson.  Indeed, I'm pretty sure it's part of the American Psychological Association's code of ethical conduct that psychologists NOT humiliate students.  And matters wouldn’t be resolved had this demeaning treatment been included in the syllabus in advance, e.g., “Any students caught lying or cheating will be expected to purchase Krispy Kreme doughnuts from Food City for the whole class,” because the treatment would still be demeaning.  There are no doubt other nontraditional ways to deal with lying, cheating, and plagiarizing that avoid humiliation, and psychologists should strive to develop those techniques (consistent with Principle C below).  At least the traditional way of responding to cheating, by flunking the student for the assignment or the course, is confidential; and because it is confidential, reduces the demeaningness of the consequence.

Just for the heck of it, I perused the new 2002 (approved 2003) APA code of ethics.  Under the assumption that I am allowed to view the act described as humiliating, which I am and I do, then I can determine that the act, had it been perpetrated by a psychologist, violates at least Principle A, Principle C, and Principle E, and Ethical Standard 3.03 (reproduced below).  I’ve highlighted a few portions of the code that strike me as relevant to the scenario under discussion.

In reviewing the code, I discovered that I was wrong in indicating that psychologists would have to turn-in any other psychologists who engaged in the unethical act.  I found out, via ethical principal 1.04, that I’m first supposed to bring the questionable behavior to the attention of the person engaging in the behavior.  Then, pending a failure to informally resolve the issue, I would be expected to report the act, via ethical principle 1.05.

I expect that many people may think these kinds of mistreatments are trivial or harmless, and that bringing in the APA code of conduct is heavy-handed.  Perhaps.  However, having dealt with a person who engaged in all manner of humiliating, demeaning, and highly questionable pedagogical practices, and as one whose job it was to manage the psychological aftermath of the victimized students (“victim” is the most appropriate term I can generate), I have found the APA code to be the only formal defense we psychologists can bring into play to protect the welfare of the students from these kinds of practices.

Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. In their professional actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons, and the welfare of animal subjects of research. When conflicts occur among psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm. Because psychologists' scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence. Psychologists strive to be aware of the possible effect of their own physical and mental health on their ability to help those with whom they work.

Principle C: Integrity
Psychologists seek to promote accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the science, teaching, and practice of psychology. In these activities psychologists do not steal, cheat, or engage in fraud, subterfuge, or intentional misrepresentation of fact. Psychologists strive to keep their promises and to avoid unwise or unclear commitments. In situations in which deception may be ethically justifiable to maximize benefits and minimize harm, psychologists have a serious obligation to consider the need for, the possible consequences of, and their responsibility to correct any resulting mistrust or other harmful effects that arise from the use of such techniques.

Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity
Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices.

1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations
When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved. (See also Standards 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, and 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands.)

1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations
If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations, or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities. This standard does not apply when an intervention would violate confidentiality rights or when psychologists have been retained to review the work of another psychologist whose professional conduct is in question. (See also Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority.)

2.01 Competence
(c) Psychologists planning to provide services, teach, or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques, or technologies new to them undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation, or study.

3.04 Avoiding Harm
Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.


On 6/2/04 3:15 PM, "Peterson, Douglas (USD)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I must admit that at first pass, I was shocked by Louis' action but as I
> read on I began to see the bigger picture, that of helping the student
> change their behavior.  Will the student remember their behavior and think
> about it? I suspect much more so than if a grade have been issued.
>
> Was it in violation of professional ethics?  Close call*, but certainly no
> more so than allowing a student to continue with such behavior.   
>
> *I noted it is a close call because of the required monetary expense.
>
> Next time you see an accountant, physician, psychologist, day care worker,
> school teacher, attorney or auto mechanic think about whether you want them
> to have been in a class like Louis' or some other class were they got "the
> traditional" punishment.  
>
> On a final note, I don't care whose e-mail you filter or auto-delete but
> there is nothing to be gained by announcing it to the whole list.  
>
> Doug    
>
>
> Doug Peterson
> Associate Professor of Psychology
> The University of South Dakota
> Vermillion SD 57069
> (605) 677-5295
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wallace E. Dixon, Jr.              |     
Chair and Associate Professor      |     Rocket science is child's play
  of Psychology                    |     compared to understanding  
Department of Psychology           |     child's play
East Tennessee State University    |       -unknown
Johnson City, TN 36714             |         
(423) 439-6656                     |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]