Kim Driggers and Tasha Helms, members of Psi Chi, the National Honor Society for
ID: 3484960 • Letter: K
Question
Kim Driggers and Tasha Helms, members of Psi Chi, the National Honor Society for Psychology, performed a study that involved an evaluation of salary as a factor in dating at Oklahoma State University (Driggers & Helms, 2000). They asked college students to view pictures of people of the opposite sex, told the college students the people in each picture earned $20,000, $60,000, or $100,000 per year, and asked the students to indicate how willing they would be to go on a date with each of the people in the pictures. They found that the participants’ willingness to date increased with salary. This was especially true among women viewing men who earned $100,000 per year. The Informed Consent Form used by Driggers and Helms did not inform students that the purpose of the study was to explore salary as a factor in dating. 5. In order for the Driggers and Helms’ study to be ethical, the researchers would have to: a. explain any reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence the student participants’ willingness to participate in the study (such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects). b. All of the above are true. c. offer the student participants another activity (besides participating in an experiment) to fulfill the research participation requirement or to earn extra credit in the course. d. let the participants know that they can leave the experiment at any time after signing the Informed Consent Form without experiencing any adverse consequences. 3 points Question 6 Scenario #3: A psychologist in independent private practice who provides individual, couple, and family counseling to adolescent and adult patients received a crisis call from a current patient. This new client of the psychologist calls to schedule a crisis session after normal business hours. The psychologist unlocks the building and waits for the client to arrive. The client is upset due to an event that involves sexual rejection by the clients’ lover. As the session progresses the client uses more explicit sexual language with the psychologist about the relationship and asks the psychologist if these kinds of things have occurred in the life of the psychologist. The psychologist self-discloses about a similar event and the client/psychologist relationship becomes very personal with both parties crying and consoling each other. 6. Thinking about the above scenario and the psychologist. Which of the following statements is true? a. The psychologist should have shared more about times of vulnerability and victimization with the client. b. The psychologist should have recognized the vulnerable state of the client and withheld sharing personal information during this session. c. The psychologist performed appropriate behavior and was sharing with the client to build rapport and to assist the client in healing d. The psychologist should have held the client and each could have consoled the other during the session.
Explanation / Answer
5.a. Explain any possibly foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence students willingness to participate in the study ( such as potential riske5 , discomfort or adve6 effect))
6.b. The psychologist should have recognized the vulnerable state and withheld sharing personal information during the session.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.