Introduction
This case concerns a local shelter which is the recipient of funding from the National Institute of Health and Mental Health. Currently, it is in the process of improving its website with the help of a web developer and consultant. The consultant has suggested that the shelter might add a testimonial web page which includes a feed from such public rating sites as Yelp or Angie's list with posts by people who have utilized the services. The developer suggests that the site use a feed which includes the already publicly available ratings information from Angie's List or Yelp and hook it into their website in order to have automatic access to ratings that can be displayed on the website. The goal of course is to get the website up, functional, and running as soon as possible. The ethical dilemma that presents itself in this case has to do with the ethics of advertising for psychological services. The director of the shelter is on board with the testimonial idea as she is also eager to spread information to the public of the great work that the shelter is doing, and the myriad of positive reviews will help others confirm in their minds what great work is going on. It may also help with grant applications, for that matter. The shelter has some reservations, however, when considering the APA ethics code. She is unsure whether this approach may violate any part of the ethics code and if this is the case, then it could negatively affect funding sources. To discuss the matter and get a more definitive answer, the shelter director has called me in for a consult.
Ethical Issues In my professional opinion and after a period of research considering this case, I identify at least 3 areas of the APA Professional Code of Ethics of 2002 that apply directly to this situation concerning advertising ethics in psychological services. The APA speaks to this situation specifically in section 5, which concerns Public Statements and Advertising (APA 2002). The first issue is Principle C, which is the principle of Integrity: “Psychologists aspire to promote accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the practice of psychology and do not engage in subterfuge or intentional misrepresentation of fact”(APA 2002) In acknowledging this principle, the shelter also wants to consider the importance of Standard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements. Standard 5.01a “prohibits false, deceptive, or fraudulent public statements regarding work activities or the activities of persons or organizations with which psychologists are affiliated.”(APA 2002) In the context of the internet, these public statements would be the ones made in the context of advertising or endorsements as well as web brochures or other matter which describe a psychologist's services. They may also include web-linked columns containing information about the psychologist or the psychologist's group that he or she works with and for.
Concerns About Web Developer's Strategies In this context of this particular situation and based on knowledge of the ethics code, it seems that the following constraints apply. Testimonials from former clients are not forbidden by the ethics code unless the former client is bribed or subject to other undue influence. However, the web developer's strategies may put the shelter in a grey area because they are not in control of the client testimonials themselves. If Angie's List or Yelp happens to commit an ethical breach and it turns out that these lists or ratings review services have bribed or paid for reviews, the shelter would be in violation of the APA ethical code by extension for using this information.
Recommendations
I would recommend that the shelter refrain from using third party reviews on its sites based on the above concerns. While mere reviews of a practitioner are acceptable just as in any other medical profession where clients post their ratings of the professional online. In the ethics code section that does discuss testimonials, the issue of former clients is actually absent and not brought up. What does seem clear however, is that the practitioner should probably avoid using the reviews or words of former clients that have been posted on other websites. The clients who have posted this information on other websites may not have intended for the psychologist or practitioner to use them on his or her personal website. Also, this approach gives somewhat of a gimmicky, marketing feeling to the psychologist approach which could detract from his or her perceived professionalism.
References
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060-1073.
“Vignette 14 – Psychology of Advertising.” Retrieved from http://www.ethicalpsychology.com/2012/06/vignette-14-psychology-of-advertizing.html
