APA Ethics Code Standards 7 & 8

Why These Ethics Standards Matter for Your Career

Think about the last time someone promised you something that didn't match what you actually got. Maybe it was a job description that said "collaborative team environment" but turned out to be everyone working in isolation. Or a subscription service that advertised "cancel anytime" but made canceling nearly impossible. That frustration you felt? That's exactly what the APA Ethics Code Standards 7 and 8 aim to prevent in psychology.

These standards cover two massive areas: how we train future psychologists (Standard 7) and how we conduct research (Standard 8). If you're preparing for the EPPP, you'll need to know these cold because they govern the everyday decisions you'll make as a professional. More importantly, they protect students, supervisees, research participants, and ultimately, the integrity of our entire field.

Let's break this down into something you can actually use.

Standard 7: Education and Training – Setting Honest Expectations

Describing Programs Accurately: No Catfishing Allowed

Remember when dating apps first became popular and people would show up looking nothing like their photos? The APA basically said "we're not doing that with education programs." Standard 7.02 requires psychologists to take reasonable steps to ensure program descriptions are accurate.

If you're advertising a continuing education course on hypnotherapy as "interactive and experiential," it better not be just a two-hour lecture where everyone sits passively. Think of it like streaming services: if Netflix advertised a show as "interactive" (like Black Mirror's Bandersnatch), you'd expect to make choices that affect the outcome, not just watch regular episodes.

Standard 7.03 extends this to course syllabi. Your syllabus needs to accurately describe what topics you'll cover, how you'll evaluate student progress, and what kind of learning experiences students will have. Here's the flexibility part though: you CAN change requirements mid-course if it benefits students. But you must tell them about changes in a way that gives them time to adapt and still meet the new requirements. It's like when your workout trainer adjusts your program halfway through—they need to explain what's changing and make sure you can still reach your goals.

Personal Disclosure: The Boundaries of "Sharing"

Here's where things get tricky. Standard 7.04 addresses when you can require students to disclose personal information in classes or programs. You can only do this if:

1. The requirement was clearly stated in admissions materials from the start, OR
2. The information is necessary to evaluate whether personal problems are preventing the student from functioning competently or creating safety risks

Think of this like workplace accommodations. Your employer can't suddenly demand medical information from you unless it was part of your job agreement or unless something's affecting your ability to do the job safely. Similarly, a psychology program can't spring personal disclosure requirements on students without warning.

Therapy as a Requirement: Protecting Power Dynamics

Standard 7.05 handles situations where personal therapy is required as part of training. If therapy is mandatory, students must have the option to choose a therapist who isn't affiliated with the program. Most importantly, faculty members who evaluate students academically cannot be the ones providing therapy to those students.

Imagine if your performance review at work was conducted by someone who also knew your deepest insecurities and relationship struggles. That's a recipe for exploitation, even unintentional. The Ethics Code prevents this by keeping evaluation and therapy roles separate.

Fisher (2017) offers helpful guidelines for mandatory therapy programs:

Evaluating Performance: Judge the Work, Not the Person

Standard 7.06 requires psychologists to establish a clear, timely process for giving feedback to students and supervisees. You need to tell them how evaluation works right at the beginning of the relationship. Evaluations must be based on actual performance related to established program requirements—not personality traits, personal characteristics, or factors unrelated to their professional work.

This is like the difference between a manager saying "You're not a team player" versus "You've missed three project deadlines this month and haven't responded to team emails within the agreed 24-hour timeframe." One is vague and personal; the other is specific and behavioral.

Dismissing Supervisees: Last Resort, Not First Response

While dismissal isn't explicitly in the Ethics Code, professional guidelines (Corey et al., 2010) clarify that supervisees have due process rights. Dismissal should be the absolute last resort after other interventions have failed.

Think of it like progressive discipline in any professional setting. Before firing someone, you typically:

1. Provide regular constructive feedback
2. Offer specific remediation options
3. Document everything
4. Give opportunities to improve

For supervisees showing problems, interventions might include:

• Increasing supervision frequency
• Changing supervision format or focus
• Recommending personal therapy
• Reducing workload temporarily
• Requiring additional coursework
• Suggesting a leave of absence or alternative placement

Only after these fail would you move to formal actions like probation, limited endorsement (they can only work in certain settings), or program termination. And all of this must follow due process procedures with proper documentation.

Sexual Relationships: The Hard No

Standard 7.07 is straightforward: psychologists cannot have sexual relationships with students or supervisees in their department, agency, or training center, or anyone they have (or are likely to have) evaluative authority over.

This isn't complicated. The power differential makes genuine consent impossible. It's similar to why companies prohibit managers from dating their direct reports—the person with less power can never truly say no without fear of consequences.

Standard 8: Research Ethics – Protecting Participants and Scientific Integrity

Getting Institutional Approval: No Shortcuts

Standard 8.01 requires that when institutional approval is needed for research, psychologists must provide accurate information about their proposals and get approval before starting. In the U.S., this means Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for projects involving human subjects that meet the federal definition of research: "a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge."

IRBs review proposals at three levels:

Once approved, you must:

• Get informed consent from participants (unless IRB waives this)
• Get IRB approval for modifications before implementing them
• Report any changes made to eliminate immediate hazards to participants as soon as possible

Minor modifications (changing recruitment materials, removing questionnaire items) need IRB review for full/expedited research but not exempt research. Major modifications (adding risky procedures, including vulnerable populations, adding sensitive questions) always need IRB review.

Informed Consent: Eight Essential Elements

Standard 8.02 spells out what prospective participants need to know:

1. Purpose, duration, and procedures: What's happening and why
2. Right to decline and withdraw: You can say no or quit anytime
3. Consequences of declining/withdrawing: What happens if you opt out
4. Foreseeable risks or discomfort: Potential downsides
5. Prospective benefits: Possible upsides
6. Limits of confidentiality: Who might see your information
7. Incentives: What you'll receive for participating
8. Contact information: Who to ask if you have questions

For experimental treatment research, add:

• The treatments are experimental
• What alternative treatments exist
• How assignment to groups works
• What services control group participants won't receive

Think of informed consent like those terms and conditions we actually wish we'd read before downloading an app. Except this time, people really need to understand what they're agreeing to because it affects their wellbeing, not just their data.

Special Considerations for Children and Vulnerable Populations

Standard 3.10(b) requires getting assent from minors and others legally incapable of informed consent. Federal regulations allow waiving a child's assent when:

• The child can't provide meaningful assent, OR
• The research offers health benefits unavailable outside the study

Here's an important distinction: A guardian's consent typically overrides a child's dissent when the research offers direct health benefits to that child. But when research doesn't offer direct health benefits, the child's dissent usually overrides the guardian's consent. It's about respecting autonomy while protecting wellbeing.

When You Can Skip Informed Consent

Standard 8.05 allows dispensing with informed consent when:

• Law or regulations permit it, AND
• The research isn't likely to cause distress or harm, AND it involves:
  • Studying normal educational practices in schools
  • Studying organizational effectiveness when confidentiality is maintained and there's no employment risk
  • Using anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research with confidentiality protection

Standard 8.03 adds that you might not need consent before recording voices or images when:

• You're doing naturalistic observation in public places where people have no expectation of privacy and won't be personally identified, OR
• The study involves deception and you'll get consent to use recordings during debriefing

Incentives: The Goldilocks Principle

Standard 8.04 says that when participation is required or offers extra credit, students must have "equitable alternative activities." You can't force research participation just because someone's in your class.

Standard 8.06 requires avoiding "excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements" that would coerce participation. The incentive can't be so large that people feel they can't say no. It's like job offers—a reasonable salary attracts qualified candidates, but an absurdly high salary might make people ignore red flags or take risks they normally wouldn't.

You can offer professional services in exchange for participation, but participants must understand the nature, risks, limitations, and obligations involved.

Deception: Necessary Evil with Strict Conditions

Standard 8.07 allows deception only when:

1. It's justified by significant scientific, educational, or applied value
2. Non-deceptive alternatives aren't available
3. Participants aren't deceived about things likely to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress
4. Participants can withdraw their data anytime
5. Participants are debriefed about the deception as early as feasible (preferably when they finish, but no later than when data collection ends)

Think of deception like undercover journalism. It's sometimes necessary to reveal important truths, but you can't use it to trick people into situations that harm them, and you need to come clean as soon as possible.

Animal Research: Humane Treatment Required

Standard 8.09 requires that animal care, use, and disposal be humane and comply with all relevant laws and professional standards. Specifically:

• Psychologists trained in research methods and experienced with animal care must supervise all procedures
• They're responsible for animals' comfort, health, and humane treatment
• Everyone working with animals must receive appropriate instruction
• Procedures causing pain, stress, or privation are allowed only when alternatives are unavailable and justified by scientific, educational, or applied value
• When termination is necessary, it must be rapid, minimize pain, and follow accepted procedures

This standard recognizes that animal research can be valuable but requires balancing scientific goals with ethical treatment.

Research Publication Ethics: Giving Credit Where Due

Correcting Errors

Standard 8.10(b) requires psychologists who discover significant errors in published data to take reasonable steps to correct them through corrections, retractions, errata, or other appropriate means. If you realize your published article contains an error that would affect readers' interpretation, contact the journal editor to request a published correction.

It's like recalling a defective product—once you know there's a problem that could mislead or harm people, you have a responsibility to fix it.

Publication Credit: Who Gets Listed as Author?

Standard 8.12 states that psychologists take credit only for work they actually performed or substantially contributed to. Principal authorship should accurately reflect relative contributions, regardless of status. Minor contributions get acknowledged in footnotes or introductory statements, not authorship.

Important exception: Except in exceptional circumstances, students must be listed as principal author on articles substantially based on their doctoral dissertations—even if a faculty advisor made significant contributions.

The APA Publication Manual (2020) clarifies that substantial contributions warranting authorship include:

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

Lesser contributions that don't warrant authorship:

• Suggesting or advising about analysis
• Collecting or entering data
• Recruiting participants

Think of authorship like band credits on an album. The people who wrote the songs and performed them get artist credit. The sound engineer, producer, and session musicians get acknowledged in the liner notes. Everyone's contribution matters, but the level of involvement determines the type of credit.

Plagiarism: Don't Pass Off Others' Work as Yours

Standard 8.11 prohibits presenting portions of another's work or data as your own, even if you occasionally cite the source. Plagiarism includes word-for-word copying and paraphrasing without appropriate citations.

Self-plagiarism (presenting your own previously published work as new) isn't in the Ethics Code but is covered in the Publication Manual. It's generally unethical, though limited duplication of your own words may be acceptable when rewording would create inaccuracies.

Duplicate and Piecemeal Publication

Standard 8.13 prohibits publishing previously published data as original data (though you can republish with proper acknowledgment). The Publication Manual adds that both duplicate and piecemeal publication misrepresent the amount of original research in scientific literature.

Duplicate publication = publishing the same data or ideas in two separate works

Piecemeal publication = splitting findings from one study into multiple works

Exceptions exist. For example, a manuscript published in limited-circulation conference proceedings can be republished in a widely circulated journal. For piecemeal publication, it's "a matter of editorial judgment"—you must inform the editor about overlap with other manuscripts so they can decide if the new submission is acceptable.

Concurrent submission (sending the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously) isn't in the Ethics Code but APA policy explicitly prohibits it. Submit to one journal at a time and wait for rejection before trying another. It's like dating etiquette: you don't propose to multiple people simultaneously and then see who says yes first.

Sharing Data for Verification

Standard 8.14 requires that after publication, psychologists share research data with competent professionals who want to reanalyze it to verify findings, as long as participant confidentiality is protected.

How long must you retain data? The requirements vary:

• APA's 6th edition Publication Manual: at least 5 years after publication
• Current APA journal guidelines: throughout editorial review and at least 5 years post-publication
• 7th edition Publication Manual: no specific timeframe, but says to follow institutional requirements, funder requirements, and participant agreements
• HIPAA regulations (for identifiable health information): at least 6 years after authorization signing

For your exam, know that sharing data for verification is required and that retention periods vary by source, with 5 years being a common benchmark.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Standard 8.15 applies when reviewing grant applications, manuscripts, or conference submissions. Reviewers must:

• Treat content as confidential (don't share documents or information without permission)
• Respect intellectual property rights (don't use proprietary ideas without permission)
• Not cite or reference unpublished manuscripts in their own work
• Get permission before having a colleague or student review a manuscript
• Avoid reviewing when conflicts of interest exist
• Return or destroy documents after submitting reviews

Think of reviewing like being a judge in a competition. You see contestants' performances before the public does, but you can't leak footage, steal their ideas for yourself, or vote on someone you're related to. The system only works if reviewers maintain confidentiality and fairness.

Common Misconceptions to Avoid

Misconception #1: "As long as I eventually tell students about course changes, I'm fine." Reality: Changes must be communicated in a way that enables students to actually fulfill the new requirements. Last-minute surprises don't cut it.

Misconception #2: "If a student is struggling, I should require therapy and be their therapist so I can monitor progress." Reality: Faculty who evaluate students cannot provide therapy to them. This creates an inappropriate dual relationship.

Misconception #3: "Supervisees who aren't working out can be dismissed at any time." Reality: Dismissal should be a last resort after documented interventions and with due process protections.

Misconception #4: "I can have a relationship with a student as long as I'm not currently teaching them." Reality: The prohibition covers students in your department/agency/training center or those you have (or are likely to have) evaluative authority over—it's broader than just current students.

Misconception #5: "If my research is low-risk, I don't need IRB approval." Reality: You need IRB review to determine what level of approval is needed. You don't get to decide your research is exempt on your own.

Misconception #6: "Informed consent forms just need to cover the basics." Reality: Standard 8.02 requires eight specific elements, plus additional information for experimental treatment studies.

Misconception #7: "Children can't participate in research if they don't want to, even if their parents consent." Reality: It depends on whether the research offers direct health benefits to the child. When it does, parental consent typically overrides child dissent.

Misconception #8: "I can offer a large payment for research participation to ensure I get enough subjects." Reality: Incentives must not be so excessive that they coerce participation.

Misconception #9: "Deception is okay as long as I debrief participants afterward." Reality: Deception requires justification, lack of alternatives, and cannot involve procedures likely to cause severe distress—debriefing alone isn't sufficient.

Misconception #10: "First author should be the faculty member supervising the project." Reality: Except in exceptional circumstances, students must be first author on publications substantially based on their dissertations.

Memory Tips for the EPPP

For Standard 7 (Education and Training), remember "STEPS":

• Syllabus accuracy (describe courses honestly)
• Therapy separation (evaluators can't be therapists)
• Evaluation based on performance (not personality)
• Personal disclosure limited (only when stated or necessary)
• Sexual relationships prohibited (with students/supervisees under your authority)

For Standard 8 (Research), remember "I CAN SHARE":

• IRB approval (get it before starting)
• Consent informed (8 elements)
• Animals treated humanely
• No excessive inducements
• Share data for verification
• Honest about authorship
• Avoid plagiarism
• Reviewers maintain confidentiality
• Errors corrected in publications

For informed consent, remember "PP-RC-LIC":

• Purpose, duration, procedures
• Participation voluntary (can decline/withdraw)
• Risks foreseeable
• Consequences of declining/withdrawing
• Limits of confidentiality
• Incentives described
• Contact information provided

Key Takeaways

• Education programs and courses must be described accurately; changes to requirements must be communicated in ways that allow students to adapt
• Personal disclosure can only be required if stated in admissions materials or necessary for competency/safety evaluation
• Faculty evaluating students cannot provide therapy to those students; mandatory therapy programs must offer student choice
• Performance evaluations must be based on actual work performance, not personal characteristics
• Supervisee dismissal should be a last resort after documented interventions and must follow due process
• Sexual relationships with students/supervisees under your authority or in your department are prohibited
• Research involving human subjects requires IRB approval before starting
• Informed consent must include eight specific elements, plus additional information for experimental treatments
• Children's assent is generally required, but rules differ based on whether research offers direct health benefits
• Incentives for research participation cannot be coercive
• Deception requires justification, no alternatives, and cannot involve severe distress; debriefing is mandatory
• Animal research must be humane and supervised by appropriately trained psychologists
• Authors must correct significant published errors and give credit only for substantial contributions
• Students are typically first author on publications based on their dissertations
• Plagiarism includes both others' work and improper use of your own previously published work
• Duplicate and concurrent submission are generally prohibited; piecemeal publication requires editorial judgment
• Research data must be shared for verification (typically retained at least 5 years)
• Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and respect intellectual property rights

Understanding these standards isn't just about passing the EPPP—it's about building a career where you maintain trust with students, supervisees, research participants, and the profession as a whole. When you see these scenarios on the exam, think about the underlying principle: transparency, protection of vulnerable individuals, and maintaining scientific integrity. Get those right, and the specific standard will usually follow.