Content uploaded by Allison Baier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Allison Baier on Oct 24, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
The Ethical Implications of Social Media: Issues and Recommendations for Clinical
Practice
Allison L. Baier
Case Western Reserve University
This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in Ethics
& Behavior on 10/11/2018, available online:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10508422.2018.1516148
Author Note
Correspondence for this article should be addressed to Allison L. Baier, M.A., Case
Western Reserve University, Department of Psychological Sciences, 11220 Bellflower Road,
Cleveland, Ohio 44106. Email: alb184@case.edu.
Appreciation is expressed to James Overholser, Rebecca Schwartz-Mette, and Bryan
Pillai for their support of this paper.
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
2
Abstract
The Internet and electronic communication technologies have taken the psychological field by
storm. From the innovations of new web interventions for easier access to care to the increased
ease of client scheduling and communication, these developments have greatly advanced mental
health care. However, these advantages are also laced with ethical implications that warrant
attention. Without judicious consideration, social media use by psychotherapists can lead to
inadvertent self-disclosures to clients that risk damaging the therapeutic alliance, interfering with
therapeutic processes, and placing both the client and clinician at risk. A better understanding of
the ethical implications of social media use is warranted so that guidelines for appropriate use
can be developed and implemented. This manuscript highlights the potential risks associated
with social media use by psychotherapists and, in absence of formalized guidelines, offers
recommendations for best practices.
Keywords: Social media, self-disclosure, ethics, professionalism
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
3
The Ethical Implications of Social Media: Issues and Recommendations for Clinical Practice
Psychotherapist self-disclose to clients has been the subject of longstanding ethical
debate in clinical psychology. Freud proposed that a therapist ought to act as a blank slate and,
“like a mirror, should show them [the client] nothing but what is shown to him [the therapist]”
(Freud, 1912). While a therapist arguably cannot remain anonymous today, Freud’s suggestion is
rooted in the conception of self-disclosure as the intentional release of personal information
within the psychotherapy setting. However, this definition must be expanded to include
nonverbal and unintentional disclosure (Zur, Williams, Lehavot, & Knapp, 2009). Clients can
obtain a wealth of information from simply spending five minutes in a therapist’s office. From
inferring therapist interests through office décor, marital status from a worn wedding band, and
religious affiliation from holidays observed, total neutrality is nearly impossible for therapists
(Zur et al., 2009). Thus, the traditional view of self-disclosure has shifted over the course of the
century as clinicians have begun to acknowledge the inevitability of some disclosures (Zur et al.,
2009) as well as the potential utility of the practice in psychotherapy (Simonds & Spokes, 2017).
At its core, therapist self-disclosure may risk negatively affecting the client-therapist
relationship by blurring professional boundaries necessary for clinical effectiveness and
therapeutic change (Barnett, 2011; Gibson, 2012), and can result in licensing sanctions or
financial penalties (Williams, 1997). Despite these risks, the practice of divulging personal
information is not unheard of; in fact, over 90% of practitioners reported self-disclosure of
personal information to at least one client on at least one occasion (Henretty & Levitt, 2010).
While self-disclosure can be benign and even appropriate at times, guidelines have proposed that
intentional disclosure be restricted and clinically driven as well as done within the context of
psychotherapy with the client’s best interests in mind (Frankish, Ryan, & Harris, 2012; Williams,
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
4
1997). Thus, as much as possible, self-disclosure is limited and accomplished in a controlled,
thoughtful manner. However, such guidelines have been based on self-disclosure when in direct
contact with clients; less attention has been afforded to how the Internet and social media might
expand the potential avenues of self-disclosure and subsequent risks to both clients and
therapists. This manuscript explores the advancement of online communication technology, the
ethical concerns of social media use by psychotherapists, and recommendations for best practices
moving forward in an increasingly digital world.
The Rise of Internet and Social Media Use
The Internet and electronic communication technologies (e.g., e-mail, text messaging,
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) are rapidly changing the landscape of psychotherapy. Web-based
interventions are being developed (Josephine, Josefine, Philipp, David, & Harald, 2017), client
records are often being maintained in electronic databases (Cederberg, 2017), client scheduling
and appointments can now be made through electronic platforms (Zilberstein, 2015), research
data can be collected via online survey platforms (Hitlin, 2016), online psychoeducational tools
and resources are more readily available to clients (Blasko, 2015), and psychological agencies
have greater opportunities to market their services online (Cederberg, 2017). Amidst these
innovative developments, the ensuing ethical implications are evident and predominantly
concern client confidentiality and privilege (Jerome et al., 2000; Kaslow, Patterson, & Gottlieb,
2011; Lehavot, 2009). However, less attention has been afforded to the implications of social
media use—particularly with regard to the effects of therapist self-disclosure on both the
therapeutic relationship and the safety of both clients and practitioners.
According to data collected by the U.S. Department of Commerce, 87% of households
have at least one type of computer with access to the internet such as a desktop, laptop, or
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
5
smartphone (Ryan & Lewis, 2015). Since 2005, social media use by American adults rose from
just 5% to almost 70%, with rates as high as 86% for adults under age 30 (Greenwood, Perrin, &
Duggan, 2016). Social media enables users to quickly communicate with people around the
globe through sharing news, photographs, videos, stories, and personal thoughts (O'Keeffe &
Clarke-Pearson, 2011). The use of social media platforms—including Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter, blogs, and others—by psychologists, counselors, and other allied mental health
professionals is increasingly common and arguably, now ubiquitous (Lehavot, Barnett, &
Powers, 2010). Facebook now boasts over 2.07 billion monthly active users worldwide with the
United States leading this figure and contributing 240 million users (Statista, 2017). The
prevalence with which social media platforms are used illustrates a growing trend and overall
interest with utilizing electronic technologies.
While many practitioners may choose to create professional webpages, studies suggest as
many as 81% also have their own personal social media profiles (Lehavot et al., 2010), with
figures as high as 94% amongst trainees who are typically of a younger generation (Jent et al.,
2011). As such, social media use is often inversely associated with age such that the younger
generation of psychologists—who are inevitably less experienced clinicians—are on the
frontlines of a critical and contentious ethical debate concerning professional boundaries in a
digital age (Lannin & Scott, 2013; Taylor, McMinn, Bufford, & Chang, 2010). It is therefore
important to understand how emerging psychologists and other allied mental health professionals
utilize and perceive social media use, particularly in the context of ethical considerations for
psychotherapy.
Potential Problems with Social Media Use
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
6
While social networking sites have a number of positive attributes, they also risk making
personal information available to individuals well beyond originally intended audiences
including to professional colleagues, clients, and complete strangers (Frankish et al., 2012). The
accessibility of such information risks having an adverse effect on professional relationships and
can be especially damaging to the client-therapist alliance, regardless of intent when the
information is first posted online (Kolmes & Taube, 2016). Consider the following scenario:
Susan is a 30-year-old doctoral student in a clinical psychology program studying substance use
disorders and preparing for internship interviews. She is socially active and enjoys attending
parties with friends and exploring local neighborhood bars. A prolific social media user with
unrestricted privacy settings, nearly every picture posted of her on Facebook—accessible to the
over 2.07 billion other users (Statista, 2017)—shows Susan with a drink in hand. While there is
nothing wrong with spending time with friends and enjoying an adult beverage, how might these
images thwart Susan’s chances of landing internship interviews? How might these images
suggest an inconsistency between Susan’s work with substance use disorders and own personal
practices and behavior? Consider Susan’s client, a young man seeking treatment for his alcohol
abuse. How might these social media postings affect the client’s adherence to treatment and
willingness to experiment with alternative, more adaptive ways of handling his own distress?
Perhaps the client will be unmotivated to engage in therapy and, as a consequence, will see little
improvement in his symptoms and ability to tolerate stress more functionally leading him to
dropout of treatment after concluding that therapy does not work.
Consider another, perhaps more extreme political example: imagine that a client’s
Facebook search on their therapist reveals the therapist’s participation in a rally supporting either
pro-choice or pro-life policies while the client is struggling with making a decision whether or
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
7
not to abort an unplanned pregnancy. How might this knowledge affect the client? A reasonable
assumption would purport that the client’s perception of therapist objectivity and neutrality in the
treatment is now lost. Perhaps the client will become more reluctant to share their thoughts with
the therapist and fear whether or not their therapist does or does not agree with their ultimate
decision regarding the pregnancy. While therapists may regard the presence of seemingly
inconsequential information online as innocuous (e.g., a post about one’s favorite vacation
destination, pictures from a wedding or other celebration, or a “status update” about how hard
work was that day), anecdotal statements from respondents in a survey previously referenced
proved otherwise (Kolmes & Taube, 2016). For example, one respondent remarked that trust in
the therapist was “shattered” upon discovering via social media that the breed of the therapist’s
dog was different than what the therapist had originally shared in session (Kolmes & Taube,
2016).
While social media platforms can be restricted to certain audiences, research suggests
many users do not do so. Furthermore, research suggests clients are curious about their providers
and may take many steps to gather information about them. In a large (N = 322) survey
investigating intentional client searches of psychotherapist information, 70% of clients reported
finding personal information pertaining to their therapist online with only one-quarter reporting
that they shared their discovery with their therapist (Kolmes & Taube, 2016). While almost all
participants in this study utilized general search engines, over half (54.5%) additionally used a
social networking site. Almost two-thirds of the respondents reported finding information about
the therapist’s family and one-third or more were able to find information regarding therapist
dating history and relationships, personal interests and hobbies, personal photographs, home
addresses of therapist and family members, educational information, and birthdate (Kolmes &
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
8
Taube, 2016). Even when a therapist has restricted privacy settings on their accounts, many
social media platforms enable people to “tag” others and link profiles to those of close family
members such as a spouse, sibling, cousin, or other relative (Luo, 2009) who may have
unrestricted profile settings thereby enabling a client to obtain information through other, less
direct avenues. For example, in a survey of client searches for clinician information, one
respondent reported regularly following her therapist’s family members online via open social
media platforms and noted, “I was obsessed with trying to find out as much information as
possible about my therapist and all members of her extended family…Because her college-aged
kids were such prolific Internet posters, I felt like I got to know the entire family very well”
(Kolmes & Taube, 2016).
Thus, it is likely therapists are not acutely aware of how often clients utilize the Internet
and social media to search for personal information about them and, moreover, the alarming ease
with which such comprehensive Internet searches are conducted and personal data is uncovered.
Furthermore, only one-quarter of clients share their search and discovery with their therapist
(Kolmes & Taube, 2016) and in a graduate student survey, participants reported only 7% of their
clients disclosed their search for therapist information on the Internet (Lehavot et al., 2010).
While judicious self-disclosure can be used as a therapeutic tool in psychotherapy (Miller &
McNaught, 2018) how can a therapist respond to a client’s reaction to self-disclosure if they (the
therapist) are not aware that it happened, as is often the case with social media? Such situations
deny the client and therapist the opportunity to process the disclosure within the therapeutic
environment.
Additionally, while Facebook is the largest social media platform available to consumers,
additional information about a person can be accessed through a simple Google search of
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
9
newspaper articles, interviews, YouTube videos, blogs, and more (DiLillo & Gale, 2011). For
example, an emerging literature has discussed the implications of therapists maintaining online
dating profiles and using mobile and web-based applications for casual romantic encounters that
promote personal disclosure of intimate details including sexual preferences, political beliefs,
and extracurricular activities (Berlin, 2014). Such information in the hands of a client could be
detrimental to the therapeutic relationship and interfere with treatment by encouraging boundary
crossings, potentially introducing perceived bias and prejudice against the client (e.g., if the
therapist’s political views differ from the client’s), or burdening the client with unnecessary
information (e.g., knowledge of their therapist’s recent breakup).
Although the majority of client searches of therapists are to satisfy curiosity (Kolmes &
Taube, 2016), other intentions may be less innocuous. Given the ease of access to personal
information on the Internet and social media, psychologists may want to be mindful of how this
information could, in some rare cases, be potentially used more maliciously. Research has begun
to more seriously examine the prevalence and types of stalking, threatening, and harassing
behavior against psychologists. Studies suggest prevalence of such behavior against mental
health providers is likely between 10 to 20% (Gentile, Asamen, Harmell, & Weathers, 2002;
Hudson-Allez, 2002; McIvor, Potter, & Davies, 2008; Purcell, Powell, & Mullen, 2005) and can
range from intrusive telephone calls and receipt of unsolicited letters and emails to being
followed and kept under surveillance (Purcell et al., 2005), with perceived motives including
infatuation, resentment, boredom, loneliness, and an interest in testing the psychologist’s
tolerance (Kivisto, Berman, Watson, Gruber, & Paul, 2015; Purcell et al., 2005). In a recent
survey of North American psychologists (N = 157), researchers found 71% of the sample
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
10
endorsed being subjected to harassment by clients, 14% had been stalked, 21% had been directly
threatened, and of those threatened, 12% had been physically attacked (Kivisto et al., 2015).
Obtaining data to facilitate stalking, threatening, and harassing a therapist is made much
easier when sensitive, personal information about the therapist is easily accessible via the
Internet and social media. In addition to obtaining information about family members’ names,
addresses, and telephone numbers, many social media platforms enable users to “check-in” to a
particular location such as a café, shopping center, or park accompanied by precise GPS
coordinates (Fodor & Brem, 2015; Vicente, Freni, Bettini, & Jensen, 2011). Such information
can lead someone with malintent directly to a therapist (or to a therapist’s family member) in real
time or, at the very least, clearly establish patterns of behavior, such as identifying the coffee
shop one regularly uses (Chaulk & Jones, 2011). In addition to the real-time threat of “checking-
in,” exact GPS coordinates of where a particular photograph was taken can be lifted relatively
easily through an understanding of geotagging technologies, further enabling others to build a
profile tracking someone’s whereabouts and daily habits (Albrecht & McIntyre, 2014). Thus,
social media not only poses dangers to the client in psychotherapy, but to clinicians as well.
Mental health professionals are constantly assessing a client’s risk to oneself or others
(Silverman & Berman, 2014). Considering the vulnerable population psychologists care for,
violence, stalking, and related malicious behaviors targeted against providers, while rare, is not
unheard of (Kivisto, 2015). For a profession so focused on risk assessment of others, it is
important that we apply our own advice to ourselves as well.
Online Self-Disclosure and The Ethics Code
Although the American Psychological Association (APA) does not specifically speak to
social media use in the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (Ethics Code),
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
11
the document does outline a number of guiding principles and standards that encourage
psychologists take reasonable action to minimize the potential harm of social media use (APA,
2002). Firstly, while intended to apply to and guide professional conduct, the Ethics Code
acknowledges the many contexts in which psychologists might find themselves in a professional
role, including the Internet, suggesting that despite false expectations of privacy with Internet
usage (Martin, 2016), psychologists and trainees ought to be more mindful of their online
interactions and conduct, particularly with regard to the use of social media and the
consequences of online self-disclosure. Furthermore, adoption of the Ethics Code requires a
“personal commitment and lifelong effort to act ethically” that arguably extends beyond
traditional professional environments (APA, 2002, p. 1062).
A review of the guiding general principles provides a context with which to understand
the ethical implications of social media (APA, 2002). Principle A (Beneficence and
Nonmaleficence) encourages the practitioner to act in ways that maximally benefit the client and
minimize foreseeable harm. As noted above in the discussion regarding the potential harm of
online self-disclosure, inappropriate social media use could be seen as a violation of this
principle from indirectly encouraging boundary crossings to burdening the client with
unnecessary information that could compromise the therapeutic environment. Principle B
(Fidelity and Responsibility) urges the establishment of trust with others and ownership over
one’s behavior. While it may intuitively seem that inadvertent self-disclosure by means of social
media is accidental or even unavoidable, it is not. Therapists have the ability to regulate and
restrict their social media profiles and therefore have a responsibility to ensure their online
conduct is in accordance with professional and appropriate presentations and does not risk
jeopardizing trust in the therapeutic relationship. Principle C (Integrity) encourages
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
12
psychologists to act in accordance with ideals of honesty and truthfulness, and Principle D
(Justice) and Principle E (Respect for People’s Rights and Dignities) requires equitable treatment
to all persons and safeguarding against any biases that could lead to inappropriate treatment or
the perception of compromised care.
Importantly, the principles noted above are ethical ideals rather than mandates. The
Ethics Code has a number of standards that additionally suggest psychologists ought to be more
thoughtful with regard to how their social media usage might impact clients. The document calls
for psychologists “take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients… and to
minimize harm where it is foreseeable” (APA, 2002, Section 3.04). Given the implications of
indiscriminate self-disclosure, psychologists ought to take action to minimize the extent to which
personal information is posted online and restrict the ease with which clients can potentially
search and obtain such information. Additionally, the Ethics Code requires psychologists to
refrain from engaging in multiple relationships (APA, 2002, Section 3.05). Engaging with
clients online risks blurring client perception of professional therapeutic boundaries such that
clients may regard the therapeutic relationship to be more causal which could have negative
consequences for psychotherapy work including perception of the therapist as a friend rather
than a professional and inappropriate boundary violations (Kaslow, 2011). Furthermore, such
online encounters risks violating confidentiality (APA, 2002, Section 4.01), particularly if clients
and therapists formally connect on social media (e.g., becoming “friends” on Facebook).
Some have approached the potential problems with social media use as akin to “small
world” rural settings (e.g., Lannin & Scott, 2013); however, this mindset risks psychologists
perceiving an inaccurate element of inevitability to self-disclosure online. Given the foreseeable
potential harm to clients from discovering personal information about their therapist on social
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
13
media coupled with the numerous options for increasing online privacy and safeguarding
personal information online, therapists have an ethical obligation to minimize this risk by
maximizing use of privacy settings or abstaining from social media altogether. Failure to
appropriately regulate one’s online profile could be seen as a violation of the APA’s ethical code
of conduct and an act of maleficence, ignorance of which does not preclude a therapist from
suffering potential professional consequences (APA, 2002).
Recommendations
Therapists should carefully consider privacy options, the benefit of participation with
various online platforms, and whether the available privacy options meet their personal needs
and ethical obligation for discretion. At minimum, therapists should ensure adequate
understanding of privacy options with each social media platform and evaluate the extent to
which online information may jeopardize their professional image (Demers & Sullivan, 2016).
Given the prevalence of social media use, it is important for the field to develop best-practice
guidelines. In the absence of formalized guidelines, the following recommendations are offered
and listed in Table 1: (1) Providers should examine the extent to which they can increase their
online anonymity such as through the use of pseudonyms and through blocking personal
information from public view including friend lists, birthday, hometown, educational
background, and relatives. The presence of personal information—even when coupled with a
pseudonym such as the therapist’s first and middle name—can make the therapist more easily
searchable and identifiable. For example, consider how simple it would be to identify a therapist
if their profession listed on their social media profile is “clinical psychology doctoral student at
ABC University.” By increasing anonymity, therapists can enjoy the helpful uses of social media
(e.g., staying connected with distant relatives and old friends) in a responsible way that is
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
14
cognizant of professional roles. (2) Clinicians should aim to decrease their social networks by
being selective when accepting friend requests and limiting the visibility of posts to others.
Friending individuals prematurely (e.g., an acquaintance met at a child’s soccer practice) could
lead to ethical complications in the future (e.g., if that parent is then referred to the clinician for
therapy services). And, by limiting visibility of social media posts to “friends”, mental health
professionals can limit what information is shared publicly. (3) Social media profiles should be
hidden from search engines to remove profiles from public previews on Google, Bing, or Yahoo
search returns. Enabling such privacy options will ensure social media profiles are less easily
accessible to curious clients who may google their therapist. (4) GPS functions should be turned
off and providers should avoid “checking-in” or using geotagging technologies. Clinicians
should also avoid posting their schedules, vacation plans, event locations and other sensitive data
on their social media accounts. (5) Clinicians should review their profiles often to ensure
sensitive and personal information is not available to the public such as through old Facebook
posts, photographs, or videos and, should consider the impact viewing such posts could have on
clients. (6) Passwords should be 14 characters long created with numbers, special characters,
upper-case and lower chase characters, and changed every 60 days. (7) Clinicians should Google
themselves regularly to understand what information is available on the Internet and Social
Media platforms, and consider what is unavoidable (e.g., professional awards, profile on
university or hospital website) and what could be altered or taken down (e.g., a friend’s old
photographs from college publicly viewable on Facebook). (8) Clinicians should consider the
potential need and benefit of having explicit discussions with clients about their expectations and
policies regarding social media use. Such discussions might lend themselves particularly well
during early conversations with clients regarding routine matters such as confidentiality, client
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
15
rights, and other policies of the therapy practice. As social media use becomes more ubiquitous,
therapists might find it advantageous to address potential concerns upfront with clients.
Conclusion
Although technology has advanced the field of clinical psychology in a number of ways,
the ethical implications of the continuously expansive amount of data on the Internet and social
media, coupled with the overwhelming percentage of clients who search for personal information
on their therapist (Kolmes & Taube, 2016), cannot be ignored. Online self-disclosure risks
negatively impacting the therapeutic relationship and is exacerbated by the likelihood that clients
will not subsequently share with their therapist any knowledge gained via Internet searches
(Kolmes & Taube, 2016; Zur et al., 2009). In accordance with ethical guidelines (APA, 2002),
knowledge of these negative consequences of providers’ online footprints calls for clinicians to
take corrective action to mitigate the extent to which their online profiles are accessible to the
public and to understand how the online presence of others might jeopardize their attempts at
anonymity. Furthermore, the ease with which identifiable information can be obtained via social
media poses a risk to personal provider safety (Vicente et al., 2011), including facilitating the
ease with which a client could engage in stalking, threatening, and harassing behaviors (Kivisto
et al., 2015) thereby unfortunately increasing therapist vulnerability to criminal victimization.
While such precautions may seem unwarranted at first glance, other professions where family
members may also be placed at risk, such as the U.S. Armed Forces, now train both employees
and family members on Internet and social media security as well as personal safety precautions
(Department of Defense, 2015; U.S. Army, 2015). A therapist’s failure to safeguard personal
information online and encourage the same of family members, especially in light of the
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
16
substantial likelihood of unintentional self-disclosure, could be seen as a possible violation of the
ethical principles and code of conduct put forth by the field’s governing association (APA, 2002).
Mental health training programs should begin to integrate issues of social media and self-
disclosure into their core curricula and publish expectations and guidelines for clinical and
counseling psychology trainees (Kolmes, 2012). Similar discussions should revolve around the
implications of trainees connecting with supervisors and professors on social media (Lehavot et
al., 2010). Furthermore, the dissemination of such guidelines should extend beyond the graduate
training classroom to more seasoned practitioners through continuing education opportunities,
in-person trainings at conferences, peer mentorship and consultation, and national publications.
While there is currently a paucity of quantitative research on the implications of social media
usage, more data will aid practitioners in developing guidelines as the benefits and drawbacks of
social media are better understood. As formalized guidelines emerge, it will be critical for the
field to be an active voice in their development.
While technological advancement has likely taken with it the age of therapist anonymity,
therapists must take advantage of all tools at their disposal to reasonably control what
information is shared with clients in accordance with their wellbeing and care. This right and
responsibility should extend to virtual interactions including those of social media. Lack of
awareness with personal security measures can be harmful to patients as well as to providers and
their family members and simply cannot serve as an excuse for inaction. While the Internet age
has given rise to greater accessibility to resources and ease of communication, it is a luxury that
must be respected and monitored.
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
17
References
Albrecht, K., & McIntyre, L. (2014). Psst…Your location is showing: Metadata in digital photos
adn posts could be revealing more than you realize. IEEE Consumer Electronics, 4(1),
94-96. doi:10.1109/MCE.2014.2360059
American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060-1073. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.57.12.1060
Barnett, J. E. (2011). Psychotherapist self-disclosure: Ethical and clinical considerations.
Psychotherapy, 48(4), 315-321. doi:10.1037/a0026056
Berlin, R. (2014). The professional ethics of online dating: Need for guidance. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(9), 935-937.
doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2014.05.017
Blasko, K. A. (2015). MilitaryKidsConnect: Web-based prevention services for military children.
Psychological Services, 12(3), 261-266. doi:10.1037/ser0000025
Cederberg, C. D. (2017). Personal branding for psychologists: Ethically navigating an emerging
vocational trend. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(3), 183-190.
doi:10.1037/pro0000129
Chaulk, K., & Jones, T. (2011). Online Obsessive Relational Intrusion: Further concerns about
Facebook. Journal of Family Violence, 26(4), 245-254. doi:10.1007/s10896-011-9360-x
Demers, J. A., & Sullivan, A. L. (2016). Confronting the ubiquity of electronic communication
and social media: Ethical and legal considerations for psychoeducational practice.
Psychology in the Schools, 53(5), 517-532. doi:10.1002/pits.21920
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
18
Department of Defense (2015). Military One Source Social Media Guide. Military Community
and Family Policy, Office of Military Community Outreach. Retrieved from
http://militaryonesource.mil
DiLillo, D., & Gale, E. B. (2011). To Google or not to Google: Graduate students' use of the
Internet to access personal information about clients. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 5(3), 160-166. doi:10.1037/a0024441
Fodor, M., & Brem, A. (2015). Do privacy concerns matter for millennials? Results from an
empirical analysis of location-based services adoption in germany. Computers in Human
Behavior, 53, 344-353. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.048
Frankish, K., Ryan, C., & Harris, A. (2012). Psychiatry and online social media: Potential,
pitfalls and ethical guidelines for psychiatrists and trainees. Australasian Psychiatry,
20(3), 181-187. doi:10.1177/1039856212447881
Freud, S. (1912). Recommendations to physicians practicing psychoanalysis. In J. Strachey
(Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol.
XII). London, England: Hogarth Press.
Gentile, S. R., Asamen, J. K., Harmell, P. H., & Weathers, R. (2002). The stalking of
psychologists by their clients. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(5),
490-494. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.33.5.490
Gibson, M. F. (2012). Opening up: Therapist self-disclosure in theory, research, and practice.
Clinical Social Work Journal, 40(3), 287-296. doi:10.1007/s10615-012-0391-4
Greenwood, S., Perrin, A., & Duggan, M. (2016). Social media update: 2016. Retrieved from
Retrieved from Pew Research Center: http://www.pewinternet.org.
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
19
Henretty, J. R., & Levitt, H. M. (2010). The role of therapist self-disclosure in psychotherapy: A
qualitative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(1), 63-77.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.09.004
Hitlin, P. (2016). Research in the crowdsourcing age, a case study. Pew Research Center,
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/11/research-in-
the-crowdsourcing-age-a-case-study/
Hudson-Allez, G. (2002). The prevalence of stalking of psychological therapists working in
primary care by current or former clients. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 2(2),
139-146. doi:10.1080/14733140212331384917
Jent, J. F., Eaton, C. K., Merrick, M. T., Englebert, N. E., Dandes, S. K., Chapman, A. V., &
Hershorin, E. R. (2011). The decision to access patient information from a social media
site: What would you do? Journal of Adolescent Health, 49(4), 414-420.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.02.004
Jerome, L. W., DeLeon, P. H., James, L. C., Folen, R., Earles, J., & Gedney, J. J. (2000). The
coming of age of telecommunications in psychological research and practice. American
Psychologist, 55(4), 407-421. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.4.407
Josephine, K., Josefine, L., Philipp, D., David, E., & Harald, B. (2017). Internet- and mobile-
based depression interventions for people with diagnosed depression: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 223, 28-40.
doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.021
Kaslow, F. W., Patterson, T., & Gottlieb, M. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in psychologists accessing
Internet data: Is it justified? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(2), 105-
112. doi:10.1037/a0022002
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
20
Kivisto, A. J., Berman, A., Watson, M., Gruber, D., & Paul, H. (2015). North American
psychologists’ experiences of stalking, threatening, and harassing behavior: A survey of
ABPP diplomates. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(4), 277-286.
doi:10.1037/pro0000025
Kolmes, K., & Taube, D. O. (2016). Client discovery of psychotherapist personal information
online. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(2), 147-154.
doi:10.1037/pro0000065
Lannin, D. G., & Scott, N. A. (2013). Social networking ethics: Developing best practices for the
new small world. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44(3), 135-141.
doi:10.1037/a0031794
Lehavot, K. (2009). “MySpace” or Yours? The Ethical Dilemma of Graduate Students' Personal
Lives on the Internet. Ethics & Behavior, 19(2), 129-141.
doi:10.1080/10508420902772728
Lehavot, K., Barnett, J. E., & Powers, D. (2010). Psychotherapy, professional relationships, and
ethical considerations in the myspace generation. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 41(2), 160-166. doi:10.1037/a0018709
Luo, J. S. (2009). The Facebook phenomenon: Boundaries and controversies. Primary
Psychiatry, 16(11), 19-21.
Martin, K. (2016). Understanding privacy online: Development of a social contract approach to
privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 551-569. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2565-9
McIvor, R. J., Potter, L., & Davies, L. (2008). Stalking behaviour by patients towards
psychiatrists in a large mental health organization. International Journal of Social
Psychiatry, 54(4), 350-357. doi:10.1177/0020764008090690
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
21
Miller, E., & McNaught, A. (2018). Exploring decision making around therapist self‐disclosure
in cognitive behavioural therapy. Australian Psychologist, 53(1), 33-39.
doi:10.1111/ap.12260
O'Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The impact of social media on children,
adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800-804. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-0054
Purcell, R., Powell, M. B., & Mullen, P. E. (2005). Clients Who Stalk Psychologists: Prevalence,
Methods, and Motives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(5), 537-543.
doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.537
Ryan, C., & Lewis, J. (2017). Computer and internet use in the United States: 2015 (Report No.
ACS-37). Retrieved from United States Census Bureau: https://www.census.gov.
Silverman, M. M., & Berman, A. L. (2014). Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part I:
A focus on suicide ideation in assessing suicide risk. Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behavior, 44(4), 420-431. doi:10.1111/sltb.12065
Simonds, L. M., & Spokes, N. (2017). Therapist self-disclosure and the therapeutic alliance in
the treatment of eating problems. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment &
Prevention, 25(2), 151-164.
Statista. (2017). Number of Monthly Active Facebook Users Worldwide as of 3rd Quarter 2017.
Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-
facebook-users-worldwide/
Taylor, L., McMinn, M. R., Bufford, R. K., & Chang, K. B. T. (2010). Psychologists’ attitudes
and ethical concerns regarding the use of social networking web sites. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 41(2), 153-159. doi:10.1037/a0017996
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
22
U.S. Army (2015, May). Precautions for the use of social networking sites: For antiterrorism
awareness and community outreach. Office of the Provost Marshal Generald. Retrieved
from: http://www.myarmyonesource.com
Vicente, C., Freni, D., Bettini, C., & Jensen, C. (2011). Location-related privacy in geo-social
networks. IEEE Internet Computing, 15(3), 20-27.
Williams, M. H. (1997). Boundary violations: Do some contended standards of care fail to
encompass commonplace procedures of humanistic, behavioral, and eclectic
psychotherapies? Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 34(3), 238-249.
doi:10.1037/h0087717
Zilberstein, K. (2015). Technology, relationships and culture: Clinical and theoretical
implications. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 151-158. doi:10.1007/s10615-013-
0461-2
Zur, O., Williams, M. H., Lehavot, K., & Knapp, S. (2009). Psychotherapist self-disclosure and
transparency in the Internet age. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(1),
22-30. doi:10.1037/a0014745
ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL MEDIA
23
Table 1.
Online security: Recommendations for mental health practitioners
Recommendation
Description
Increase anonymity
Use pseudonyms. Block others from viewing your personal
information such as your friend list, birthday, hometown,
schooling, and relatives
Decrease your social network
Be selective with friend requests. Limit visibility of posts to just
friends (as opposed to “friends of friends” or “everyone”). This
will limit access to items (posts, photographs, videos) to only
those with whom you have a trusted relationship
Hide your profiles from search
engines
This will remove your profile from public previews from
Google, Bing, or Yahoo search returns
Turn off GPS functions and
limit posts
Turn off such functions on all devices (e.g., smartphone, tablet,
computer) and do not “check-in” or use geotagging
technologies. Check that these functions do not reset after
updating operating software. Do not post schedules, vacation
plans, event locations or other sensitive or personal information
online
Review your profile often
Closely review posts, photos, and videos you are tagged in to
ensure sensitive and personal information Is not released. Be
mindful of the privacy settings of the post’s owner. If a friend
has no privacy restrictions on Facebook, for example, consider
whether or not you need to be tagged in something accessible to
over 2.07 billion people. Consider the implications discovering
the post would have on clients, colleagues, future employers,
etc. Additionally, consider having conversations with close
relatives and friends about their own privacy settings
Protect your passwords
Do not autosave your passwords on your computer. Change
passwords every 60 days and create passwords containing at
least 14 characters including numbers, special characters,
upper-case characters, and lower-case characters
Search your online persona
Google yourself. Understand what clients will see when they
search for you. Consider what information is unavoidable (e.g.,
professional awards, profile on university website) and what
information could be altered or taken down (e.g., old YouTube
video goofing off with friends)
Have transparent discussions
with clients
Consider having explicit discussions with clients about your
expectations and policies regarding social media use.
