APA Ethics Code Standards 7 & 8

Why Standards 7 and 8 Matter for Your Future Practice

You're about to step into a career where you'll wear many hats: educator, researcher, supervisor, mentor. Standards 7 and 8 of the APA Ethics Code cover the nitty-gritty of how you operate in these roles. These aren't abstract rules. They're practical guidelines that protect both you and the people you work with from real problems that happen all the time in psychology.

Standard 7 focuses on education and training, while Standard 8 covers research and publication. {{M}}Think of these as your professional GPS for two major highways you'll travel regularly in your career{{/M}}. Let's break down what you actually need to know.

Standard 7: Education and Training

Accurate Program Descriptions (7.02 & 7.03)

Here's the basic principle: Don't oversell what you're offering. If you're advertising a workshop on hypnotherapy, and it's actually just a two-hour lecture with no hands-on practice, you can't call it "interactive" or "experiential."

{{M}}It's like advertising a cooking class where participants will "prepare a gourmet meal" but then just watching you cook while they take notes{{/M}}. People signed up expecting one thing and got another. That's a problem.

The same goes for course syllabi. You need to accurately describe:

• What topics you'll cover
• How you'll evaluate students
• What the course experience will actually be like

Now, life happens. Sometimes you need to change course requirements mid-semester. That's allowed. But you must tell students about the change in a way that gives them enough time to meet the new requirements. {{M}}You can't change the rules of the game in the fourth quarter without making sure everyone knows the new playbook{{/M}}.

Personal Disclosure Requirements (7.04)

This standard addresses a tricky situation: requiring students to share personal information in class or training programs. You can only require this disclosure when:

1. You clearly stated this requirement in the admissions materials before students signed up, OR
2. You need the information to evaluate whether personal problems are preventing a student from performing competently or posing a threat to themselves or others

{{M}}Imagine applying for a job and then finding out on day one that you're required to share intimate details about your family history with your coworkers{{/M}}. That would feel like a bait-and-switch, right? That's what this standard prevents.

Mandatory Therapy Requirements (7.05)

Some graduate programs require students to undergo personal therapy. If you're running such a program, Standard 7.05 has clear rules:

Students must be able to choose a therapist who isn't affiliated with the program. Additionally, faculty members who evaluate students' academic performance cannot provide that therapy themselves.

Fisher (2017) provides helpful guidelines for programs with mandatory therapy:

Evaluating Student Performance (7.06)

When you're supervising students or supervisees, you need to establish a clear, timely process for giving feedback. Tell them at the beginning of your relationship how and when they'll receive evaluations.

Here's the crucial part: Evaluations must be based on actual performance related to established program requirements. You can't downgrade a supervisee because you don't like their personality or because they remind you of someone you dislike. Your evaluations need to be tied to observable, relevant behaviors and competencies.

When a supervisee isn't performing well, dismissal should be the last resort. Before you get there, you should try interventions like:

• Increasing supervision frequency
• Changing the supervision format or focus
• Recommending personal therapy
• Reducing their workload
• Requiring additional coursework
• Suggesting a leave of absence or second internship

{{M}}It's similar to performance improvement plans in corporate settings{{/M}}. You document the problems, provide support and opportunities for improvement, and only move to termination if nothing else works. Throughout this process, you must respect due process rights and keep thorough documentation.

Sexual Relationships (7.07)

This one's straightforward: Don't become sexually involved with students or supervisees over whom you have or might have evaluative authority. The power differential makes genuine consent impossible, and the potential for harm is significant.

Standard 8: Research and Publication

Getting Institutional Approval (8.01)

Before you start research involving human subjects, you need approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Research is defined as "a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge."

IRBs conduct three types of reviews:

1. Full review: For research with more than minimal risk
2. Expedited review: For certain categories of minimal-risk research
3. Exempt review: For research that poses minimal risk and meets specific criteria

Once you get approval, you must obtain informed consent from participants (unless the IRB waives this requirement) and get IRB approval before making modifications to your study.

Minor modifications include things like:

• Adding new minimal-risk procedures
• Changing recruitment materials
• Removing questions from a survey
• Making minor changes to consent forms

Major modifications include:

• Adding procedures that increase risk beyond minimal
• Major changes to research design
• Adding vulnerable populations
• Adding sensitive questions
• Adding procedures that might breach confidentiality

The one exception: If you need to make immediate changes to eliminate hazards to participants, you can do that first and report to the IRB as soon as possible.

Informed Consent for Research (8.02-8.05)

When someone agrees to participate in your research, they need to know what they're signing up for. Standard 8.02 requires you to tell prospective participants:

If your study involves experimental treatments, you also need to tell participants about:

• The experimental nature of the treatments
• Available alternative treatments
• How people get assigned to groups
• What services won't be provided to control group members

Special considerations for children: Children typically need to give assent in addition to their parents' consent. However, federal regulations allow waiving a child's assent when the research offers health benefits they can't get elsewhere. Generally speaking, when research offers direct health benefits, parents' consent can override a child's dissent. But when research doesn't offer direct health benefits to the child, the child's dissent usually overrides parental consent.

When you can skip informed consent: Standard 8.05 allows you to dispense with informed consent when the research isn't likely to cause harm and involves:

• Studying normal educational practices in schools
• Studying job effectiveness in organizations (with confidentiality protected)
• Using anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research (with confidentiality protected)

Research Incentives (8.04 & 8.06)

Offering incentives for research participation is okay, but there are rules. If participation is required for a course or offered for extra credit, students must have equitable alternative options.

You also can't offer incentives so excessive that they coerce participation. {{M}}It's like offering a struggling college student $10,000 to participate in a risky study, the money might be so tempting that it overrides their better judgment about the risks{{/M}}.

You can offer professional services in exchange for participation, but participants need to understand the nature of those services and any associated risks or limitations.

Using Deception (8.07)

Deception in research is controversial because it prevents true informed consent. You can only use deception when:

1. It's justified by significant scientific, educational, or applied value
2. Non-deceptive alternatives aren't available
3. You're not deceiving people about procedures likely to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress

Additionally, participants must be allowed to withdraw their data at any time, and you must debrief them about the deception as early as feasible. Preferably right after their participation, but no later than when data collection ends.

Research with Animals (8.09)

Animal research must be conducted humanely and in compliance with all relevant laws and regulations. Key requirements include:

• Psychologists trained in research methods and animal care must supervise all procedures
• Animals should only experience pain, stress, or privation when alternatives aren't available and it's justified by the study's value
• Everyone working with animals must receive appropriate training
• When an animal's life must be terminated, it must be done rapidly and with minimal pain

Reporting Results and Publication Credit (8.10-8.13)

Correcting errors: If you discover significant errors in your published data, you must take reasonable steps to correct them through a correction, retraction, or erratum.

Publication credit: Standard 8.12 addresses who gets credit for published work. The principle is simple: Take credit only for work you actually did or substantially contributed to. Author order should reflect the relative contributions of each person involved.

Students must be listed as principal author on articles substantially based on their dissertations, except in exceptional circumstances.

What counts as substantial contribution? According to the APA Publication Manual:

• Formulating the problem or hypothesis
• Structuring the study design
• Organizing and conducting the analysis
• Interpreting results

Lesser contributions (like data entry, recruiting participants, or suggesting analyses) should be acknowledged in footnotes or introductory statements rather than through authorship.

Plagiarism: Standard 8.11 prohibits presenting others' work as your own, even if you cite the source occasionally. This includes both word-for-word copying and paraphrasing without proper citations.

Self-plagiarism (presenting your own previously published work as new) is generally considered unethical. However, it may be acceptable to reuse limited amounts of your own previously published wording when rewording would cause inaccuracies.

Duplicate and piecemeal publication: You can't publish the same data as original in multiple places without proper acknowledgment. Duplicate publication means publishing the same data in two separate works. Piecemeal publication means splitting findings from one study into multiple publications.

There are exceptions, for example, you can republish work that was previously published in limited-circulation venues. When in doubt, inform journal editors about any overlap with previously published work so they can make informed decisions.

Concurrent submission: Although not explicitly in the Ethics Code, you cannot submit the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously. {{M}}It's like applying for multiple jobs and accepting offers from all of them. You can only work at one place at a time{{/M}}. Submit to one journal, wait for a decision, then move to the next if needed.

Sharing Data for Verification (8.14)

After publishing research, you must share your data with competent professionals who want to verify your findings, as long as you can protect participants' confidentiality. This means you need to retain your research data.

How long? Requirements vary:

• APA journal submission guidelines: At least 5 years after publication
• HIPAA regulations (for health information): At least 6 years after authorization is signed
• Institutional requirements: Varies by institution

Being a Reviewer (8.15)

If you review grant applications, manuscripts, or conference submissions, you must:

• Keep the content confidential (don't share documents or information about them without permission)
• Respect intellectual property rights (don't use ideas, techniques, or information from unpublished work without permission)
• Not cite unpublished manuscripts you're reviewing
• Avoid conflicts of interest
• Return or destroy documents after completing your review

If you want someone else to help review a document, get permission from the editor or program officer first.

Common Misconceptions

Misconception 1: "I can change course requirements whenever I want. I'm the instructor." Reality: You can change requirements, but you must inform students in a way that gives them time to meet the new requirements.

Misconception 2: "If I cite a source once, I can use their ideas throughout my paper without citing again." Reality: That's still plagiarism. You need to cite appropriately throughout your work.

Misconception 3: "Once the IRB approves my study, I can make minor tweaks without going back to them." Reality: Even minor modifications to approved or expedited research require IRB approval before implementation.

Misconception 4: "Students who need therapy should work with faculty. We know the program requirements best." Reality: Faculty who evaluate students cannot provide their therapy. Students must be able to choose unaffiliated therapists.

Misconception 5: "If I split my dissertation into three papers, I'm being productive." Reality: Piecemeal publication can be problematic. The question is whether each paper makes a meaningful, distinct contribution or if you're just slicing one study too thin.

Practice Tips for Remembering

For Standard 7 (Education/Training):

• The "Truth in Advertising" principle: Everything you describe about your program or course should be accurate and not oversold
• The "Clear Process" rule: Set up feedback and evaluation processes at the beginning of relationships
• The "No Surprises" approach: Students should know upfront about personal disclosure or therapy requirements

For Standard 8 (Research/Publication):

• The "Golden Rule of Informed Consent": Tell participants everything you'd want to know if you were in their shoes
• The "Credit Where Credit's Due" principle: Author order reflects actual contributions, not status or politics
• The "Verifiable Science" standard: Keep your data so others can check your work

Memory device for informed consent elements: Think "PPRRBLCI" (admittedly not catchy, but helpful):

• Purpose
• Procedures
• Right to decline/withdraw
• Risks
• Benefits
• Limits of confidentiality
• Contact information
• Incentives

Key Takeaways

• Accuracy is non-negotiable: Whether describing courses, reporting research, or giving credit, be honest and precise
• Transparency protects everyone: Clear communication about requirements, procedures, and expectations prevents problems
• Power differentials matter: Sexual relationships with students/supervisees and faculty providing therapy to students they evaluate are prohibited because of inherent power imbalances
• Informed consent is foundational: Research participants need comprehensive information to make voluntary decisions
• Multiple relationships create problems: Keep clear boundaries between roles (educator, therapist, supervisor, researcher)
• Documentation is your friend: Keep records of supervision, feedback, research data, and IRB communications
• Due process isn't optional: Students and supervisees have rights that must be respected throughout evaluation and dismissal processes
• Deception requires justification: Only use deception when scientifically necessary and never about procedures causing significant harm
• Publication ethics matter: Give appropriate credit, correct errors, avoid plagiarism, and share data for verification
• When in doubt, ask: Consult IRBs, journal editors, and ethics committees before making questionable decisions

These standards might seem like a lot of rules, but they're really about one thing: conducting yourself with integrity in teaching, training, and research roles. Master these, and you'll build a practice on solid ethical ground.