BOUNDARIES AND SOCIAL MEDIA
● Use of online advertising was viewed as unquestionably ethical (22.2%) or ethical under many circumstances (60.3%). However, 12.7% indicated that they did not know or were unsure if this was ethical or if it was a boundary crossing. ● Providing online education via social media like YouTube was found to be unquestionably ethical (14.3%) or ethical under many circumstances (57.1%), but 18.3% did not know or were unsure if this was a boundary crossing. ● They also looked at views regarding nonsexual multiple relationships, which were defined as a social media relationship between therapist and client or between therapist and someone close to the client. They found that the majority of participants (78.4%) rated this as unquestionably unethical or ethical only in rare circumstances (19.2%). Only 0.8% expressed uncertainty about the ethicality of this boundary crossing. These findings suggest a good deal of uncertainty on the therapists’ part about whether boundaries are crossed in some social media situations. protection of the client or other people from serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm (Standard 1.03). They should avoid searching or gathering client information electronically unless there are compelling professional reasons and when appropriate, with the client’s informed consent (Standard1.07). ● NBCC (2023) states that counselors must respect the privacy of the client’s social media accounts and shall not access those accounts without specific client permission, a discussion with the client, documentation of risks and benefits, and for a specific clinical purpose (Standard 113). ● ACA (2014) states that counselors respect the privacy of their clients’ presence on social media unless they are given consent by the client to view social media information (Standard H.6.c). ● APA (2017) is silent on the use of social media. However, the code does state that psychologists should avoid multiple relationships if they could impair their objectivity or if there is risk of exploitation or harm to the client. relationships, or harm to clients. The code specifically states that social workers should avoid accepting requests from or engaging in personal relationships with clients on social networking sites (Standard 1.06). They should avoid communication with clients using technology such as social networking sites, texting, or online chat for personal or non-work-related reasons (Standard 1.06). ● NBCC (2023) states that counselors shall avoid nonprofessional relationships with clients online, and the restriction includes connecting with or following client social media accounts (Standard 114). ● ACA (2014) states that counselors are prohibited from engaging in a personal virtual relationship with current clients through social and other media (Standard A.5.e). ● In contrast, the most current Ethical Principles of Psychologists (2017) does not address standards for social media use. However, when considering the principles of privacy and confidentiality and avoidance of multiple relationships, it can be inferred that social media relationships may cross that ethical boundary.
In the age of social media, it has become increasingly difficult to avoid inadvertently entering into a social relationship with a client. The rapid expansion of virtual personal, social, and professional relationships has blurred boundaries. A Pew Research Center (2021) public study found that in 2021, 7 in 10 Americans reported using social media to connect with each other, share information, and entertain themselves. This includes 84% of individuals ages 18-29, 81% of individuals ages 30-49, 73% of individuals ages 50-64, and 45% of individuals ages 65+. You Tube was the most popular social media platform (81%) followed by Facebook (69%), Instagram (40%), and Pinterest (31%). The Pew social media study also found that for many individuals, social media use was part of their daily routine. Among U.S. adults who reported that they use social media, over 70% use it on a daily basis. Given the widespread use of social media and online platforms, Wu and Sonne (2021) surveyed therapists’ understanding of the ethicality and boundary issues related to several common online behaviors. They found that: Targeted Searches Consider this scenario: Joe meets his therapist for the first time and leaves the session feeling that he will have a good working relationship with the counselor. When he gets home, he uses search engines and social media links to find out information about the therapist’s education and training, his social relationships, and even his political views. At the same time, after the session the counselor googles his new client and also searches for him on Facebook and Instagram. Do these behaviors constitute a boundary crossing or violation? Wu and Sonne (2021) found that most therapists viewed client-targeted googling as a boundary crossing. One-third (31.0%) rated this crossing as unquestionably unethical, and one-half (48.4%) rated the crossing as ethical only under rare circumstances. Interestingly, 10.3% expressed uncertainty about whether patient-targeted internet searches were unethical or a boundary crossing. Fortunately, professional codes of ethics have adapted and most specifically address the issue of information searches on a client. ● NASW (2021) states that social workers should obtain consent from the client before conducting an electronic search on the client. The only exceptions are for the “Friending” or “Following” Healthcare professionals who participate on social media are likely to face dilemmas related to boundary crossings and boundary violations due to the inherent self-disclosure that posting on social media sites entails. Clinicians and clients alike knowingly and willingly post personal information on various social media sites. Accepting a client’s “friend” request or a client “following” you on your social media accounts are potentially problematic. Loss of therapist privacy, loss of therapist objectivity in treatment, inappropriate therapist self-disclosure, or issues with power differentials may come into play. “Friending” a client may lead them to believe that a relationship exists outside of the online platform. Becoming social friends with a former client deprives them of the therapist’s professional services if they need therapy in the future and may create unrealistic expectations on the part of the client if they see a new therapist. Fortunately, some of the professional ethics codes do address the issue of connecting with a client on social media. ● NASW (2017) states that social workers should be aware that posting personal information on media sites might cause boundary confusion, inappropriate dual
EliteLearning.com/Psychology
Book Code: PYTX1325
Page 76
Powered by FlippingBook