The Moral Metacognition Scale: Development and Validation

Cruikshanks²

2019

A random sample of 207 counselor educators used 4 ethical information resources in the context of 16 boundary-crossing scenarios. Burian and Slimp's (2000) social dual-role relationship model was the only resource to change counselor educators' boundary-crossing decision-making in a manner that could mitigate boundary-crossing concerns with students. Curiously, almost 60% of counselor educators stated that they would not use Burian and Slimp's model in the future when this was the only ethical decision-making resource that made a difference in boundary-crossing decision-making for counselor educators.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Selected Ethical Information Resources on Counselor Educators' Decision‐Making Regarding Boundary Crossings

Cruikshanks²

2019

“…In contrast, participants reviewing Kitchener's () five moral principles and Gottlieb's () model rated only two boundary crossings as slightly more ethical at a negligible magnitude. It appears, then, that Kitchener's five moral principles and Gottlieb's model offered minimal protection from ethical decision making being subsumed by subconscious reasoning (Drumwright et al, ) and cognitive shortcuts (McMahon & Good, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drumwright et al () expressed concern that the foundation of ethical decision making occurs before conscious thought is involved. Furthermore, McMahon and Good () reported that individuals in general look to “cognitive shortcuts” (p. 357) in order to streamline the ethical decision‐making processes. Once ethical decision making reaches the cognitive level, individuals immediately look toward a simplified ethical decision‐making process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Ethical Information Resources on Independently Licensed Counselors

Cruikshanks²

2017

A random sample of 430 independently licensed counselors evaluated 4 ethical information interventions in the context of 16 boundary‐crossing scenarios. Results indicated that counselors have serious reservations about any form of boundary crossing. They reported mostly reviewing various codes of ethics, reviewing state laws and rules, consulting with others, working from gut instincts, and reflecting on personal experience when confronted with boundary‐crossing issues. Participants clearly preferred streamlined ethical information interventions.

“…T he ethical decision‐making process begins when conclusions are made subconsciously in the human brain (Drumwright, Prentice, & Biasucci, ), and when the conclusions reach conscious perception, the process immediately shifts to the use of “cognitive shortcuts” to solve the dilemma with the least amount of effort (McMahon & Good, ). Additionally, personal dispositions and characteristics can easily dominate an individual's ethical decision‐making, thereby diminishing the impact of ethics codes, laws, and ethical decision‐making models (Birrell & Bruns, ; Fialkov, Jackson, & Rabinowitz, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Students' Ethical Decision‐Making When Considering Boundary Crossings With Counselor Educators

2019

Counselor education students (N = 224) rated 16 boundary‐crossing scenarios involving counselor educators. They viewed boundary crossings as unethical and were aware of power differentials between the 2 groups. Next, they rated the scenarios again, after reviewing 1 of 4 ethical informational resources: relevant standards in the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association, 2014), 2 different boundary‐crossing decision‐making models, and a placebo. Although participants rated all resources except the placebo as moderately helpful, these resources had little to no influence on their ethical decision‐making. Only 47% of students in the 2 ethical decision‐making model groups reported they would use the model they were exposed to in the future when contemplating boundary crossings