MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2113142825 · doi:10.1037/h0086979

Psychology for Sale: The Ethics of Advertising Professional Services.

2004· article· en· W2113142825 sur OpenAlexaffabout
N. Will Shead, Keith S. Dobson

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCounseling Practices and Supervision
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyProfessional ethicsProfessional servicesApplied psychologyEngineering ethicsPublic relations

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Policies regarding advertising of professional services by psychologists have become somewhat less restrictive over time; however, there remains a tradition within the discipline to avoid any semblance of competitive advertising practices. This paper presents an historic review of policies concerning self-advertising by psychologists in the United States and Canada. Although not currently prohibited by Canadian guidelines, three advertising practices are still generally regarded as failing to meet expectations of professional integrity: 1) claims of unique abilities; 2) claims of comparative desirability; and 3) appeals to a client's fear and anxiety. The position is taken that psychologists can stay within their ethical boundaries using these types of advertising practices while promoting the welfare of clients and maintaining the profession's ethical standards. Significant changes have been made to the ethical and codes of conduct concerning the advertising of psychological services (Frisch & Rebcrg, 1991; Koocher, 1977, 1994). It was not very long ago that even the use of boldface type was considered a violation of the American Psychological Association's (APA) policies regarding appropriate advertisements in telephone directories (Gocbel & Beach, 1981). Canadian guidelines regarding advertising have also become somewhat more liberal in recent years, yet there remains some stigma within the profession associated with advertising practices that have the slightest semblance of competing for clients. The argument most often made against these practices is that they fail to meet expectations of integrity and, in doing so, harm public confidence in the discipline (College of Alberta Psychologists, (IAP, 2002). For example, the following advertising practices are still generally discouraged within the psychological community: 1) claims of unusual, unique, or one-of-a-kind abilities; 2) claims of the comparative desirability of one service over another; and 3) the use of statements appealing to a client's ear and anxiety if services are not obtained. This paper discusses the evolution of restrictions on advertising by psychologists in the United States and Canada. The discussion will focus on the cowieM/ of conventional advertising by psychologists rather than on different yorwi of advertising that may be generally regarded as distasteful (e.g., television commercials). With this review completed, it will be argued that it is possible to abide by the ethical of the profession and maintain public confidence in the profession, even while using more assertive advertising strategies in the announcement of psychological services. In contrast to previous stances that individual advertising is not in the best interests of the profession (Frisch & Reberg, 1991), we offer the position that individual advertising is feasible and that fewer selfimposed restraints on these practices can promote the welfare of clients and maintain the ethical of the profession. The paper concludes with a general injunction that encourages more bold advertising practices among psychologists, both as an expression of freedom of advertising, and as a service to psychological clients. The History of Restrictions on Advertising by Psychologists As early as 1953, one of the APA's ethical principles regarding advertisements stated that a psychologist should describe his /Mc^ services with accuracy and dignity, adhering to professional rather than to commercial standards (APA, 1953, p. 27). These principles became even more specific over time. For example, Principle 1Ob of APA's 19R7 Ethical Standards of Psychologists stated that: Individual listings in telephone directories are limited to name, highest relevant degree, certification status, address, and telephone number. They may also include identification in a few words of the psychologist's major areas of practice; for example, child therapy, personnel selection, industrial psychology. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,319
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,635

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,020
Communication savante0,0130,003
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0090,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,071
Tête enseignante GPT0,411
Écart entre enseignants0,340 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneMême sujetCounseling Practices and SupervisionTravaux en français237 207