Sexual intimacy in psychology training: Results and implications of a national survey.

Abstract

In a nationwide survey of members of APA Division 29 (Psychotherapy), which had a 48% return rate (N = 481), 10% of the respondents reported sexual contact as students with their educators; 13% reported entering sexual relationships as educators with their students. However, only 2% believed that such relationships could be beneficial to trainees and educators. Gender differences were significant: 16.5% of the women, compared with 3% of the men, reported sexual contact as students; however, 19% of the men, compared with 8% of the women, reported such contact as psychology educators; and 12% of the males, compared with 3% of the females, reported sexual contact as psychotherapists with their clients. Sexual contact in psychology training programs seems to be increasing: 25% of the recent female graduates had had sexual contact, compared with only 5% of those with degrees for more than 21 years. The literature on ethics, standards, research, theory, and practice leaves both psychology graduate students and those psychologists responsible for their education without clear expectations, information, or guidelines concerning sexual intimacy in psychology training. This article represents an attempt to raise the issue and to present some initial information.The purpose of this article is to raise some issues about sexual relationships between students and educators in psychology training programs and to present some relevant information. In spite of suspicion, rumor, and an occasional accusation, the possibility of psychologists engaging in sex with those toward whom they hold a professional responsibility went unacknowledged until recently, both by the profession as a whole and by the public. Within the last decade, a drastic change occurred, precipitated by numerous factors including the consumer movement, the feminist movement, sex therapy, insurance companies and other organizations urging psychology to put its house in order, and an occasional vocal advocate of such 682 • AUGUST 1979 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

Mentoring, boundaries, and multiple relationships: opportunities and challenges

“…But, some types of multiple relationships in the academic setting may easily be seen as exploitative. Studies have found that between 10 and 15% of psychology faculty acknowledged sexually intimate relationships with at least one student (e.g., Pope, Levenson, & Schover, 1979;Tabachnick, Keith-Spiegel, & Pope, 1991). Yet, 71% of faculty acknowledge that engaging in these relationships is unquestionably unethical (Tabachnick et al, 1991).…”

Sexuelle Übergriffe in therapeutischen Beziehungen: Risikofaktoren, Folgen und rechtliche Schritte

“…Neben dem männlichen Geschlecht werden in der Literatur eine Reihe weiterer Charakteristika grenzverletzender Therapeuten aufgeführt, die als Risikofaktoren für sexuell übergriffiges Ver− halten gegenüber PatientInnen gewertet werden: Die Therapeu− ten sind häufig angesehen [13,17] und berufserfahren [11,18] in eigener Praxis tätig [16,19,20], befinden sich in schwierigen Le− benssituationen [18,21,22], haben narzisstische Defizite [23±25], weisen Problematiken im Umgang mit Nähe und Dis− tanz auf [21,26] und / oder sind selbst Opfer früherer Traumati− sierungen [27,28]. Auf Grundlage der Befunde ihrer Betroffenen− befragung Mitte der 1990er Jahre unterscheiden Becker−Fischer und Fischer [10,29] [36].…”

Psychotherapy in the UK: Results of a survey of registrants of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy

“…A literature review using PsyLit and Medline found only one survey of clients, that conducted by the American Consumer Reports magazine (Seligman, 1995). There have been surveys of psychotherapists focusing on the match of modality and client (Gibson, 1975), the difficulties of ending therapy with borderline patients (Sansone, Fine, & Dennis, 1991), the outcome of sex therapy (Kilmann et al, 1986), the management of memories of child sexual abuse (Poole et al, 1995), the significance of suggestibility for recovery of such memories (Yapko, 1994), attitudes to treatment manuals (Addis & Krasnow, 2000), experiences of personal therapy (Williams, Coyle, & Lyons, 1999), sexual contact during psychotherapy training (Pope, Levenson, & Schover, 1979) and the frequency of attack by clients (Guy, Brown, & Poelstra, 1990).…”