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.