A sample (N= 102) of mental health practitioners (75% nondoctoral; 25% doctoral) participated in a survey study that assessed reasons used by clinicians to resolve professional ethical conflicts. Results were consistent with expectations and suggested that although practitioners do evaluate what should be done in ethical conflict situations in line with existing ethical guidelines, they may not always be willing to implement this ideal. This study suggested that when faced with an ethical conflict, professionals tend to think in terms of formal codes of ethics and relevant legal guidelines in determining what they should do, but are more likely to respond to personal values and practical considerations in determining what they actually would do if faced with the situation.The present research assessed reasons used by clinicians to justify their resolutions of professional ethical conflicts. Specifically, a sample of front-line mental health practitioners was surveyed in an attempt to validate previous research (Bernard &

This study assessed the client's understanding/valuing of confidentiality and privilege in the therapeutic relationship. Attitudes of 126 individuals were assessed. A 20-item questionnaire surveyed four areas relevant to privacy in psychotherapy. Scores based on the Total and General questions revealed that subjects significantly valued confidentiality.

The current study attempted to measure the effects of varying degrees of assurance of confidentiality on frequency of self-disclosure in a junior high school population. A selfdisclosure questionnaire was administered to 45 male and 45 female subjects. Male and female subjects were randomly divided into one of three treatment conditions: confidentiality explicitly assured, no instructions regarding confidentiality, and confidentiality explicitly not assured. A self-disclosure score was derived by summing the number of "true" responses to a 74-item questionnaire. Results did not support the main hypothesis. Across conditions, males were found to disclose significantly more frequently than females. Responses to a posttest questionnaire revealed significant overreporting of confidentiality instructions among males and females.The right to privacy or confidentiality not only is an ethical responsibility of therapists to their clients but more importantly is a fundamental human and legal right of all persons. Because successful therapeutic treatment depends on a client's ability to disclose personal, sensitive information, confidentiality must be assured.The right to confidentiality in the relationship between adult client and therapist is generally accepted. There is confusion, and perhaps less agreement, about the rights of the child in the therapeutic relationship. Some differences are derived from legal questions about the rights and competencies of minors (Foster & Freed, 1972;Glenn, 1980; "Parental Consent," 1975;Slovenko, 1978). Additionally, some therapists see the need for confidentiality with children as differing from that of adults. Ross (1966), for example, disputes the therapeutic necessity of blanket assurances of confidentiality for minor patients and thinks each case should be decided individually. Few empirical studies, however, have attempted to assess relationships between levels of assured confidentiality and outcome variables relevant to the therapeutic situation.

Recent research suggests a discrepancy between understanding vs. implementation of ethical principles. The present study investigated the relationship between decisions with regard to what “should” vs. what “would” be done in a variety of ethical conflict situations. Additionally, this research examined the influence of the degree of closeness of the respondent to the identified person‐of‐reference in each conflict scenario. The results strongly supported the conclusion that while professional clinicians are capable of recognizing conduct that falls below accepted ethical standards, they are less willing to follow through with required action. Restrictiveness of conflict resolution was related to both person‐of‐reference group and to specific ethical situation. The results are discussed in terms of attribution theory and actor‐observer effects.

No abstract