9.04 graded assignment writing skills responding to a prompt

• One way to soften negative news in a message is by suggesting a compromise or an _________________ ... - Business
• Because bad news can be difficult for a reader to accept, it must always be delivered using the ... - Business
• Katelyn must turn down a request to speak at a conference, and she's not sure how her reader will ... - Business
• Bad things that require the delivery of negative messages happen in all businesses. - Business
• We again extend our sincere apologies for shipping your order late is NOT an effective closing for a ... - Business
• Colton has analyzed his purpose and his audience and has considered how he will adapt his message to ... - Business
• A gift-shop manager plans to send an e-mail sales message announcing a special sale. Which of the ... - Business
• In a negative news message, a pleasant statement that promotes goodwill should be included in the ... - Business
• We cannot allow you to return the tablet since you purchased it over 30 days ago effectively uses ... - Business
• Because we value loyal customers like you, we have enclosed a coupon for $20 for your next meal at ... - Business

Impact of social media on learning English language during the COVID-19 pandemic

PSU Research Review

ISSN : 2399-1747

Article publication date: 21 January 2022

This research shows how social media has affected learning at present during the COVID-19 pandemic and how it has become the largest and most convenient area of communication. In the current scenario, it seems that social networking sites not only had a profound impact on our social structure and intra-social interaction, but also affected education in general and learning English language in particular. It has been proven that these various social media platforms have created a realm of digital environment in today's new-age learning. Social media platforms are social networking sites through which people interact and communicate with each other easily and conveniently. Undoubtedly and unquestionably, social networking has been proven to be a global phenomenon that has caused a vast paradigm shift in the world of Learning and education during the current pandemic. Therefore, the present study aims to reach the extent of the impact of the various social media platforms on learning English language during the COVID-19 pandemic from the students' point of view.

Design/methodology/approach

The study was conducted at the undergraduate level for English language learners. The sample comprised 166 undergraduate students at Najran University. A survey questionnaire was administered to find out the impact of various social media platforms and social networking sites on learning English language in the academic year of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and to highlight possible suggestions for improving future virtual language learning.

The findings of the study contributed to the area of online learning of English language during the COVID-19 pandemic. Final results confirmed that the utilization of social media has been significantly perceived to have positively impacted learning English language in terms of writing style, reading skills, listening and lexical variation, communication skills and grammar usage.

Practical implications

The findings of the study can serve as fundamental indicators to implement prompt pedagogical reformations, for which a number of pedagogical implications can be proposed. Another equally important pedagogical implication is to design and provide professional development and training sessions to both students and educators on the ultimate utilization of social media as instructional technologies in the context of English language teaching and learning.

Originality/value

This research provides insights in developing policies to assist with the integration and utilization of social media platforms as instructional technologies in the context of English language teaching and learning and how institutions can respond to the advent of advancing technology, especially during and after the COVID-19 era. A model to improve online English language learning process is recommended as a guideline for all educators offering online learning.

• Social media in education
• English language learning
• L2 learning style
• COVID-19 pandemic

Muftah, M. (2022), "Impact of social media on learning English language during the COVID-19 pandemic", PSU Research Review , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRR-10-2021-0060

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Muneera Muftah

Published in PSU Research Review . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

Social media is constantly changing the way people live in different aspects. Nowadays, various social media platforms are affecting communication, information delivery, knowledge exchange, commerce, education and all different aspects of life ( Rieger and Christoph, 2018 ; Bhatti et al. , 2019 ; Amin et al. , 2020 ). With the vast spread of various social networking sites on the Internet, researchers from different fields have started to direct their attention and shed more light on the importance and impact of social media on different aspects of life including social as well as educational aspects.

To pursue their constant efforts and to look at those aspects as an area of concentration that needs to be investigated further, Language learning professionals and instructors specifically have attempted to investigate the effect of social media and social networking sites in second language acquisition and second/foreign language learning. In one of the researches, it was found out that the group who got learning, commitment and inspiration through social media sites has indicated higher results in an English proficiency test compared to the other one that got training on an eye-to-eye premise ( Wamba and Carter, 2016 ).

Up-to-date data available on Statista (2020) have indicated that there are about 3.96 billion social media users across the world. Social media networking sites range from microblogs such as Twitter and sites and applications such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn and Snapchat. Yet, these different platforms have influenced the individuals' social, educational and personal aspects of life.

In the area of education, a significant number of research studies have been conducted to estimate their effectiveness in different disciplines. Linguistically speaking, the influx of linguistic output on social media represents numerous opportunities for language learners to process language and obtain input, as young users of social media networks spend more than half of their days using and interacting on these networking sites using their language and communication skills ( Al Jahromi, 2020 ).

Consequently, online chats and discussions, whether oral or written, have replaced conventional face-to-face dialogues, leading to substantial changes in the users' daily language and language skills. The extensive use of smartphones, laptops, and tablets along with prosperous social media applications has perhaps availed rich linguistic input at the fingertips of their users and has contributed in the production of comprehensible L2 output ( Al Jahromi, 2020 ; Pikhart and Botezat, 2021 ).

Regardless of the inevitable impact of social media in individuals' lives everywhere, and taking into account that the students of today are insubordinate to old-fashioned instructing methods and learning techniques, there are not many studies that explore their effects in learning and education particularly in the English language context. Therefore, the present study aims to identify the impact of social media on learning English during the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve this aim, the present work specifically seeks to address the following research questions.

In what way did social media platforms impact the learning of English Language during the COVID-19 pandemic?

In order to answer this question, the following sub-question was developed to direct the scope of the study: How do Saudi university students perceive the impacts of using social media platforms on their learning of English language during the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to (1) Positive and negative effect? (2) Number of social media platforms used? (3) Motives for using Social Media platforms? (4) Frequency and time spent in using Social Media? (5) Educational or communicative tools? (6) The Rate of using social media on Learning English Language? (7) Aspects of language Skills improved via social media? and (8) Social media effects on students' studies?

2. Literature review

The COVID-19 pandemic led to shocking and unpredicted experiences for Saudi university students. The precautionary measures followed during the pandemic have had a wide impact on the students' social and educational life aspects ( Alghamdi, 2021 ). Recently, we have seen a radical change in favor of distance learning due to the COVID-19 pandemics, therefore, it could be worthwhile to investigate the impact of social media in the foreign language context as they have been used much more now ( Pikhart and Botezat, 2021 ). The current COVID-19 situation makes us aware that the impact of social media will increase due to social distancing.

Social media platforms are omnipresent and the research into the use of them in foreign language learning has become immense ( Yurdagül and Öz, 2018 ; Artyushina and Sheypak, 2018 ; Ayers, 2020 ). Today, with 2.95 billion social network users worldwide, social media usage is increasingly attractive and accessible, especially among the younger generation ( Pikhart and Botezat, 2021 ). Social network sites have become the main means of communicating and a way to maintain a social life ( Li and Croucher, 2020 ).

Social Media refers to websites, blogs, chats, computer programs, i.e. any content-based form of e-communication that enables users to share information and expose ideas. While social networking sites for language learning represent the corpus of those social media channels and service, mainly designed for specific purposes, devoted to foreign language learning. Furthermore, it is also proposed that English might now be the first truly global language, being the dominant or official language in over 60 countries. The English language as stated is one of the most widely spoken languages in the world ( Akinwamide, 2012 ).

Roelofse (2013) argues that exposure to new literacies found in new technologies definitely impacts the way in which second/foreign language learners perceive the world. Likewise, the amount of contact with these social utilities certainly influences literacy practices by learners. New technologies do not merely alter the way people live, but it influences the way they think. Moreover, Davies (2012, p. 21) in Roelofse (2013) argues that “texts of the new technologies have mutated into complex hybrid systems that have made new demands on reading and writing, viewing, social exchange, and communication”.

Facebook is no exception in that the use of this social network site requires a multimodal approach of embedding and combining words and written texts from many sites. In the same sense, WhatsApp is perceived by the researchers as having the same contaminating effect on learners' writing skills. In this regard, social media is a “dialogue” and “means [of] engaging with people” ( Coons, 2012 , p. 44).

The body of literature reveals a significant number of studies in the area of the impact of social media on the linguistic output of non-native speakers of English. Chomsky (2014) has stated that our language is constantly, inevitably, and naturally changing, transforming and becoming more adaptive to its users due to the changes in our contemporaries. More particularly, the initiation and rapid development of social media networking sites as eminent activity has created a distinguishing language system necessary for practical communication ( Attila, 2017 ).

Baldwin (2012) suggests that social media can be both a friend and a foe for natural language processing. While he considers social media a cause for “spelling inconsistencies, the free-form adoption of new terms, and regular violations of English grammar norms,” he refers to the advantage of “lexical normalization” in the same linguistic setting. In this regard, Thurairaj et al. (2015) examined whether social media networks were “making or marring academic English” and whether infrequent online code-switching and inconsistent spelling affect non-native learners' language learning process. Their findings revealed that the discourse used on social media had not influenced the learners' English language proficiency due to their higher awareness of the deviations between their online informal meta-language and their formal academic language.

Furthermore, simplified online interactions help speakers produce meaningful exchanges whilst using the target language in useful manners ( Mutum and Wang, 2010 ). Another advantage of social media is the reduced communication anxiety. People often exchange and share information and construct new personal and linguistic identities on social media because of being at ease with revealing their preferred identities behind monitors as a result of the anonymity expedited in such situations ( Blattner and Fiori, 2011 ). Lowered anxiety in online settings coined with heightened motivation and self-confidence have been shown to provide L2 learners with anxiety-free zones that enable them to produce language spontaneously and creatively ( Al Jahrami, 2019 ).

Studies conducted by Slim and Hafedh (2019) , Thurairaj et al. (2015) have revealed that social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter enhance students' overall language learning process. In connection with particular language skills, a significant number of studies have found that the use of social media enhances learners' grammatical complexity and vocabulary acquisition and learning ( Al Jahrami, 2019 ; Attila, 2017 ; Mills, 2011 ; Stevenson and Liu, 2010 ). Mason and Rennie (2008) notice that vocabulary acquisition on social media has become a phenomenon due to the employment of techniques such as coining and compounding to produce words such as Face + book, Snap + chat and Blog + sphere.

Another employed technique is sound imitation resulting in words such as Twitter which comes from the verb tweet, and Boo which reflects the sound of contempt. Similarly, social media have affected the forms of different words. For instance, the proper names of social media applications and websites have become verbs and adjectives (e.g. Google it, I'll Instagram this). Another technique is the change in the negative form of the verb like and the noun friend to become unlike and unfriend. Additionally, the semantic connotations of many words have undergone change on social media (e.g. wall on Facebook, spam, steam, etc.).

As to the writing skill, the fact that social media exchanges are more written than spoken in what is referred to as “text speak”. Attila (2017) argues that the use of logograms, abbreviations, acronyms and paralinguistic features (e.g. b4 = before, Gr8 = great) has made writing easier, faster and more liberated from the normal constraints of traditional writing. However, spelling can accordingly be negatively affected when frequently using logograms and abbreviations (e.g. 2 day = today).

Longitudinal studies have also indicated a significant improvement of oral proficiency with particular reference to speaking and listening ( Chen, 2013 ; Lin et al. , 2016 ). Lin et al. , however, have asserted caution that learners would need carefully planned instructional guidance and tailored activities in order to be able to use social media efficiently to enhance their language learning process.

Despite the positive effects of social media on language proficiency and language learning, many researchers are more concerned with the harmful effects these networking sites might have on L2 learners' interlanguage with particular reference to inconsistent spelling and violated grammatical rules ( Baldwin, 2012 ). Lin et al. (2016 , p. 143) claim that “language use on the Internet is often criticized as being less correct and less coherent than other forms of language use, and as having disrupted adjacency.” Effects of social media on Pakistani students' L2 learning process have also been reported in a study conducted by Tariq et al. (2012) . Similarly, Akram and Albalawi (2016) found Facebook to be a negative learning distraction for their Saudi students.

Amidst these incompatible claims, the present study aims to confirm the possible impact of social media platforms on learning English language during the Covid-19 Pandemic from the perspectives of undergraduate students in the Saudi context. The precautionary measures followed during the pandemic have led the Saudi government to abundantly utilize the World Wide Web and all its facets for different socioeconomic and educational purposes. It is not surprising, then, that social media platforms and social networking sites are heavily used by L2 learners. Consequently, the purpose of the current study is to evaluate the possible gains of the broad use of social media platforms on the learning of the English language during the pandemic and to view the perceptions of the learners in regard to these possible gains, which is a gap in the literature that the current study aims to fill.

3. Methodology

The purpose of the current study is to find out the impact of various social media platforms and social networking sites on learning English language in the academic year of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and to highlight possible suggestions for improving future virtual language learning.

3.1 Participants

The study was conducted at the undergraduate level for English language learners in the College of Languages and Translation–Najran University, KSA. It was performed after completing a full year of online education and teaching classes and during the final examinations in the second semester of 2020. The sample comprised 166 students: 66 male and 100 female students in all bachelor's degrees with English language majors. Students in the English department form the highest number of students with their ages ranging from below 20 years–23 years old. The participants are native speakers of Arabic. Their interaction outside the classroom is low. That's to say, most of them had very little interaction with native English speakers outside the classroom and in most cases no contact at all.

Most of the students do not have any prior experience with online learning. Requirement courses including Arabic, Religious Culture and other general courses were conducted online on the main campus before the recent crisis, and it was optional. However, the examinations were conducted on campus. The following Figure 1 displays the percentage of the participants.

3.2 Research instrument

The method chosen for this study is quantitative; a more in-depth method was designed to estimate the impact of various social media platforms on learning English language during the COVID-19 pandemic. The quantitative method was used to conduct more detailed studies of a smaller area using closed-questionnaires. This survey-based questionnaire consists of 10 multiple choice questions, which covered the study objectives. The questionnaire was administered to 166 English language learners. It consists of different parts; the first part is looking at students' demographic information, the second part includes a set of multiple-choice questions about learners' experiences with social media platforms (e.g. Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Instagram, Google+, … etc.), and their effect on learning English during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of Social Media platforms they use and have access to, the motives for using social media during the pandemic, the Frequently used Social Media platforms, the extent to which social media is used for educational and communication purposes, The rate of social media use on learning English language during the COVID-19 pandemic, time spent on social media platforms, language skills improved via social media use and finally the effect of social networking sites Students' Studies. The questionnaire was checked for validity and reliability fulfillment.

3.3 Data analysis procedures

In this study, a quantitative approach to data collection has been employed. A descriptive analysis method was applied to analyze the research by counting the answers for every question to get the percentages. A questionnaire was the tool that was used in order to collect data. The questionnaire consisted of ten questions. Thick description and reflective thinking are the two most important elements that have been used while analyzing and interpreting the data. The data were carefully read for possible categories relevant to the purpose of the study. Then, these reported statements were categorized based on the purpose to be achieved.

4. Results and interpretation

The results of the present study were structured based on the varying types and length of questions applied in the close-ended questionnaire. In the scheduled questionnaire, the researchers set certain questions to gain a wide range of answers and opinions regarding the impact of social media platforms on learning English language during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Figure 2 displays the results of the students who think that social media can affect learning English positively during the pandemic. The results indicate that the majority of the participants use social media as a language learning tool. Almost 86.75% of the students believe that social media can affect learning English positively, while 13.25% of them think that it has a negative effect on the language learning process.

As to the number of social media platforms that students have access to and can straightforwardly use, Figure 3 indicates that 25.91% of the total respondents use only one social networking site, 22.29% use two sites and 37.35% of them use three social networking sites. Yet, only 14.45% of the students use more than three social media platforms.

Concerning the reasons and the motives for using social media during the pandemic, Figure 4 below shows that 60.84% of the participants use social networking sites for the purpose of studying. Likewise, the results indicate that 19.27% of them use social networking sites for playing games, while the students who use these sites for making friends and chatting with friends are 28.31 and 31.74% respectively. The remaining 24.09% reported that they use social networking sites for other purposes.

Figure 5 below shows the most frequently used social media platforms. The data indicate that the most popular online networking site was WhatsApp, with the highest percentage of 72.89% of all university students stating that they use it on a typical day. Facebook is the second mostly-used platform, with 53.01% of the students using it daily. It is also reported that only 31.32% use Twitter, another 26.50 and 21.68% use Google+ and Instagram respectively. The least used social media platform was WeChat, with 3.61% of students using it daily. Moreover, 18.07% of the students prefer to use different other social media platforms and no one of them uses LinkedIn.

Similarly, Figure 6 below presents results related to the use of social media as a communication tool during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The results point out that 81.92% of the students prefer to use social media platforms for learning purposes. They believe that social media provide the facility to communicate among the students during the pandemic, i.e. to communicate with their teachers and classmates. On the other hand, 18.07% did not use social media for educational purposes, as they believe that social networking platforms did not support their studies. They believe that these platforms are supposed to make them feel more connected.

Figure 7 reflects the students' perception towards using social media as an educational tool and as a support for their studies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results point out that the majority of the students 84.94% are interested in using social media as an educational tool as it helps them to get more useful information and to interact with learning groups and other educational systems that make the learning process more convenient. However, only a few students, 15.06% mention that social media platforms did not support their own studies.

Results reported prove that the majority of the students are interested in using social media as an educational tool and that almost 51.20 and 18.08% of the students use social media to learn English language at higher rates “good” and “excellent” respectively. Moreover, it is also reported that only 21.09% of the students rate the use of social media on learning English language during the COVID-19 pandemic as “average”, another 7.23% rate it as “poor” and only 2.40% rate using social media in learning English as “very poor” (see Figure 8 ).

Concerning how much time do students actively spend on social networking sites, Figure 9 shows that 6.02% of the students do not spend a moment on social networking sites during a typical day, almost 21.08% of them spend 10–30 min a day. Most of the students 31.93% spend about one to two hours on social networking sites during their typical day, while 27.71% spend from 2 to 3 h of their time. It is also reported that 4.22% of the participants spend between 4 and 5 h on social networking sites, and only 9.04% of the participants spend more than 5 h on social networking sites daily.

Interactive social media channels to language learning enable students to develop communication and language skills. Regarding the different aspects of language skills the students improve via social media platforms, the results presented in Figure 10 below showed that 40.96% of the students improved their writing skill, 39.15% improved their reading skill, the third skill is listening and vocabulary with a ratio of 31.92%. In addition, their speaking skill was improved with a percentage of 31.32% and only 22.28% of learners improved their grammar.

The last question discusses the effect of social networking sites on students' studies. The results specified that social networking sites have seriously affected students' studies at a ratio of 24.09%, whereas 31.93% of the participants believe that social networking sites have slightly affected their performance and their language achievement.

On the other hand, 18.07% of the learners agreed that social networking sites have no impact on their studies. Moreover, 14.46% of them believed that such sites are seriously helping, while only 11.45% of the total number of students admitted that social networking sites can slightly help them on their studies. The extent to which social networking sites are affecting the learners' studies is presented in Figure 11 above.

5. Discussion and conclusion

The present work attempts to investigate the most important impacts of using social media for learning English language during the Covid-19 Pandemic. The challenges of the digital world are omnipresent, and different options have to be considered so that educators are able to use them to assist the learners.

Social media is no exception, as it can provide many opportunities in the foreign language learning process. The technological revolution today, like never before, can be obviously reflected in the L2 learners' wide experience, the independence in exploring digital resources and documents that represent powerful support in enhancing oral, written, listening and reading competence. In this sense, L2 learners do no longer depend directly and entirely on the teacher to improve their skills but on other resources such as Internet and technology ( Al Jahromi, 2020 ; Pikhart and Botezat, 2021 ; Slim and Hafedh, 2019 ; Thurairaj et al. , 2015 ).

In other words, social media along with social networking sites have become part of the learners' as well as educators' daily routines, in terms of communication, language experience, practice and exercise, news feed and knowledge sharing. The digital world has seemingly become their way of life inside and outside class settings and that is the reason behind examining their impact on L2 learners.

With the help of social media platforms, L2 learners can learn, read, write, advertise or communicate in a more efficient way. The main questions addressed referred to the impact of social media on learning English language during the Covid-19 pandemic and usage and the degree of facilitation and assistance of foreign language learning by social media, and the findings revealed that students were very positive and felt motivated by social media.

L2 learners do not have to rely on classes or handbooks to get their daily amount of knowledge. It can all be achieved from the social networking sites as indicated in question 2. At least, the learners can use three different types of social media platforms and formats to reach their educational goals and in some cases four types. The learners can follow or get information about their studeis from any part of the world. For instance, Twitter allows a user to get information which is more interactive in nature with the help of embed photo and video. Smartphones are an example of a handheld device through which learners can communicate and exchange information by using any social media platform which is allowed.

The world is getting closer every day and everyone, including L2 learners, needs to be connected. It is moving strongly and more towards “social media”. The information comes to users rather than users have to make effort to get the information. In terms of personal relationships too, social networking is connecting people. Social networking can also be very crucial in educational help. Education support groups can be created from which learners can get information as indicated in question 3 where 60.84% of L2 learners indicated that they use social media platforms for studying and for educational purposes while the rest of them use them for other purposes including chatting with friends, making friends, playing games and for other different purposes.

The kind of interaction a user wants from these social networks depends on the type of information the user is interested in. With reference to question 4, using different platforms depends on users' purposes, for the participants in the study aiming at enhancing proficiency in English language, WhatsApp can be used for chatting or sending many kinds of text-information, assignments or even creating groups for different courses. Facebook was not appealing due to its informal style, while the participants aiming at improving communicating skills found it useful for social and L2 identity construction. Google + can be used for academic purposes, it can greatly enhance the way people learn. Twitter and Instagram have also become popular and integral part of everyday communication. Other platforms such as YouTube, learners can watch videos to understand a topic better or look at photos which might help them to visualize a concept, after all, “a picture speaks a thousand words”. Brick (2011) reported it as the main positive aspect of using social networking sites, adding to it the real-time feedback. The immediate response and real-time conversation are also achieved through live sessions on Instagram or Facebook dedicated pages for L2 learners, such as the Instagram stories that offer quizzes focusing on idioms, phrasal verbs or other lexical related items or lives where learners are invited to write down words that they would like to learn the pronunciation.

The fact that technology including social media and the different networking sites should be part of the educational process is not questionable anymore, the way it finds its scope within it and how and to which extent should educators, as well as learners, use it, had better be delivered by a multidisciplinary methodological framework. Among the numerous potential advantages to using social media, L2 learners have perceived that it can be used as a good communication and educational tool (See Question 5 and 6). The opportunities provided by this medium are immense and many L2 learners are making use of this medium to better their practices. Social networks, unlike the common media, do not have a pattern as to how much information has to be conveyed and where to draw the line. Therefore, learners can obtain much information and better performance. Similar findings were found by Sitthirak (2012) , who acknowledged the attitudinal impact of social media on language from an educational perspective. Similarly, Mutum and Wang (2010) and Blattner and Fiori (2011) have declared that social media provides a smoother, more direct communication tool.

In other words, by maximizing the benefits of social networks, whether it be their role in delivering educational outcomes, or facilitating supportive relationships, identity formation, or a sense of belonging and resiliency, the direct contacts that occur in discussion groups, exercises, conversations, videos and other widgets on linguistic social networks cover various language registers. With the expanding demand of various social media platforms, the growing numbers of users in different parts of the world, it is fair to assume that it impacts second language acquisition, at least by the permanent flow of visuals and text that we access on a daily basis. In the broad context of globalization, all visuals improve not only linguistic skills, but they also build an international culture ( Pikhart and Botezat, 2021 ).

The current Covid-19 pandemic has posed some challenges, and like any emergency event, it has some inherent risks. Through increased social media literacy as an educational tool– ensuring all students can utilize these media to develop the skills and to critically understand, analyze and create content – these challenges can be overcome and risks mitigated in a way that ensures the many benefits for both learners and educators. The findings shown in questions 7 and 8 corresponded with the aforementioned ones related to L2 learners' views on the particular effects of social media on the enhancement of these language learning skills. Results have asserted that approximately 69.28% of the frequent users of social media platforms for learning purposes have rated them as excellent and good mediums to enhance language skills, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. This is in line with Li (2017) study. Li argued that students' comfort with online class design, structure, level of interaction between students and faculty, the quality and amount of class content and overall experience with online class delivery impact the overall learning experience and determine the ultimate success or failure of online mode of education. Haque and Al-Salem (2019) have also found that social media is a good platform for students as it provides opportunities for learners to study foreign languages.

The intensity of using English-language social media content is positively and significantly related to students' perceptions of their ability to speak English including reading, writing, listening and speaking aspects. Hence, social media is needed to be learning media for learning English language as a Foreign Language ( Anwas et al. , 2020 ). Online socialization according to Slim and Hafedh (2019) seems to have positively affected the production of an acknowledged linguistic repertoire independent of age or gender.

With reference to the last question, results show positive perceptions of the respondents of the effects of using social media on their L2 writing (see Figure 11 ). In addition to improved English language learning, these effects included enhanced writing style, quality and quantity. Al Jahromi (2019) and Li (2017) have similarly found that online interactions on social media networks and online facets significantly develop L2 learners' writing accuracy and complexity. These findings could also be related in this regard to the influence of the projection of authorial and social presence and identity practices facilitated on social media due to the increased linguistic input and output on these platforms in comparison to the less-advantageous classroom settings ( Chen, 2013 ).

In addition, L2 learners who acknowledged the positive impact of social media on their English learning reported that their L2 Reading skills are also enhanced. This is due to the improvement of the L2 learners' vocabulary as well as listening skills. This is similar to the findings obtained by Mutum and Wang (2010) , Thurairaj et al. (2015) and Slim and Hafedh (2019) . However, online communication of students raises another important issue discussed by the great majority of authors, that of the nonacademic purposes of social media usage of students. Given that the majority of the students were using written-based social media networks such as WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram, speaking, grammar and pronunciation skills were perceived as the least enhanced. However, Al Jahrami (2019) has claimed that language accuracy is concerned, extensive reading and writing online can enhance L2 learners' grammatical competence (see also Attila, 2017 ; Mills, 2011 ; Stevenson and Liu, 2010 ).

In sum, the research study investigated the impact of social media platforms on learning English language during the Covid-19 pandemic from undergraduate Saudi users' perspectives. The aforementioned findings suggest that Saudi L2 learners find social media platforms effective in enhancing their L2 proficiency, with particular reference to how positively they influence L2 writing, vocabulary learning and communication skills. They also reported that they use various social media platforms including WhatsApp, Facebook, Google+, Twitter, etc., and that they find social media as both educational and communicative tools. Based on these findings, it is safe to conclude that social media can be appreciably helpful in enhancing English language learning.

6. Research implications and recommendations

The findings of the study can serve as fundamental indicators to implement prompt pedagogical reformations, for which a number of pedagogical implications can be proposed. Social media can be implemented to make teaching more student-centered through the facilitation of interactive collaboration and exchange of information, resulting in an enhancement of syntactic and lexical complexity.

L2 teachers in particular need to use social media to aid their teaching strategies and amplify their material with interactive and innovative activities on social media such as online debates and group discussions. Another equally important pedagogical implication is to design and provide professional development and training sessions, workshops, seminars to both students and educators on the ultimate utilization of social media as instructional technologies in the context of English language teaching and learning.

Social media networks can be employed in this regard to provide authentic extensive reading tasks that can facilitate intentional and incidental vocabulary learning and writing complexity. Furthermore, awareness campaigns can be conducted by e-learning educationists to recognize the benefits of online learning and teaching and validate the acceptability of social media learning, mobile learning and mixed teaching via learning management systems.

For implementing the positive findings of different studies and for educational technology to be used effectively, educators must be ready for a paradigm shift: from traditional education to pedagogy enhanced by the new technology. Further research is needed into the current realism and prospects of the utilization of digital media in connection with the wellbeing of the learners, increased levels of depression and anxiety, and some other negative psychological, social and economic aspects of the use of social media. This paper is the starting point and should be an impetus for further research into the topic of utilization of social media, especially during and after the COVID-19 era.

To offer online learning, English language undergraduate students require assistance. The following model is recommended as a guideline for all educators offering online learning. The proposed model is demonstrated in Figure 12 .

Participants distribution

The effect of social media platforms on learning English

The use of social media

Motives for using social media platforms

Frequently used social media platforms

Use of social media platforms as a communication tool

Using social media platforms as an educational tool

The rate of social media use on learning English language during the COVID-19 pandemic

Time spent on social media platforms

Language skills improved via social media use

Social networking sites effects on students' studies

Procedure to improve online English language learning process

Akinwamide , T.K. ( 2012 ), “ The influence of process approach on English as second language students' performances in essay writing ”, ELT , Vol.  5 No.  3 , pp.  16 - 29 , doi: 10.5539/elt.v5n3p16 .

Akram , M.S. and Albalawi , W. ( 2016 ), “ Youths' social media adoption: theoretical model and empirical evidence ”, International Journal of Business and Management , Vol.  11 No.  2 , pp.  22 - 30 .

Al Jahrami , D. ( 2019 ), “ The impact of online discussions on the accuracy of the written output of Bahraini L2 university students ”, in Hidri , S. (Ed.), English Language Teaching Research in the Middle East and North Africa , Palgrave Macmillan , Cham , pp.  637 - 666 .

Al Jahromi , D. ( 2020 ), “ A quantitative study of the perceived impact of social media networks on Bahraini users' English language learning ”, Teaching English with Technology , Vol.  20 No.  4 , pp.  23 - 40 .

Alghamdi , A.A. ( 2021 ), “ Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the social and educational aspects of Saudi university students' lives ”, PLoS One , Vol.  16 No.  4 , doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250026 .

Amin , B. , Rafiq , R. and Mehmood , N. ( 2020 ), “ The impact of social media in English language learning ”, Journal of Critical Reviews , Vol. 7 No. 10 , pp. 3126 - 3135 , doi: 10.31838/jcr.07.10.507 .

Anwas , E. , Sugiarti , Y. , Permatasari , A. , Warsihna , J. , Anas , Z. , Alhapip , L. , Siswanto , H. and Rivalina , R. ( 2020 ), “ Social media usage for enhancing English language skill ”, International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies , Vol.  7 No.  14 , pp.  41 - 56 .

Artyushina , G. and Sheypak , O.A. ( 2018 ), “ Mobile phones help develop listening skills ”, Informatics , Vol.  5 , p. 32 .

Attila , B. ( 2017 ), “ The effects of social media on the language: do social networks have damaging or constructing effects on language? ”, available at: http://midra.unimiskolc.hu/document/26612/22012.pdf .

Ayers , J. ( 2020 ), “ Competence literate but context lacking? Investigating the potential of study abroad programs to promote sustainability competence acquisition in students ”, Sustainability , Vol.  12 , p. 5389 .

Baldwin , T. ( 2012 ), “ Social media: friend or foe of natural language processing? ”, Paper presented in the 26th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation , pp.  58 - 59 , available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/Y12-1005.pdf ( accessed 29 June 2019 ).

Bhatti , A. , Bano , T. and Rehman , S.-U. ( 2019 ), “ Social media and consumer satisfaction effect on consumer purchase intention with the moderating role of trust ”, International Journal of Business Management , Vol.  4 No.  2 , pp.  131 - 141 .

Blattner , G. and Fiori , M. ( 2011 ), “ Virtual social network communities: an investigation of language learners' development of sociopragmatic awareness and multiliteracy skills ”, CALICO Journal , Vol.  29 No.  1 , pp.  24 - 43 .

Brick , B. ( 2011 ), “ Social networking sites and language learning ”, International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE) , Vol.  2 No.  3 , pp.  18 - 31 .

Chen , H.-I. ( 2013 ), “ Identity practices of multilingual writers in social networking spaces ”, Language Learning and Technology , Vol.  17 No.  2 , pp.  143 - 170 .

Chomsky , N. ( 2014 ), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax , The MIT Press , Cambridge, Massachusetts .

Coons , S. ( 2012 ), “ Communication through social media: its potential and pitfalls ”, Research Practitioner , Vol.  13 No.  2 , pp.  44 - 45 .

Haque , S. and Al-Salem , N. ( 2019 ), “ Social media in EFL context: attitudes of Saudi learners ”, Journal of Language Teaching and Research , Vol.  5 No.  10 , pp.  1029 - 1040 .

Li , V. ( 2017 ), “ Social media in English language teaching and learning ”, International Journal of Learning and Teaching , Vol.  3 No.  2 , pp.  148 - 153 .

Li , M. and Croucher , S. ( 2020 ), “ Effects of social media use on cultural adaptation ”, in Rings , G. and Rasinger , S. (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics) , Cambridge University Press , Cambridge , pp.  504 - 520 . doi: 10.1017/9781108555067.037 .

Lin , C.-H. , Warschauer , M. and Blake , R. ( 2016 ), “ Language learning through social networks: perceptions and reality ”, Language Learning and Technology , Vol.  20 No.  1 , pp.  124 - 147 .

Mason , R. and Rennie , F. ( 2008 ), E-Learning and Social Networking Handbook: Resources for Higher Education , Routledge , Abingdon, Oxon .

Mills , N.A. ( 2011 ), “ Situated learning through social networking communities: the development of joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and a shared repertoire ”, CALICO Journal , Vol.  28 No.  2 , pp.  345 - 368 .

Mutum , D. and Wang , Q. ( 2010 ), “ Consumer generated advertising in blogs ”, in Burns , N.M. , Daugherty , T. and Eastin , M.S. (Eds), Handbook of Research on Digital Media and Advertising: User Generated Content Consumption 1 , IGI Global , Hershey, Pennsylvania , pp.  248 - 261 .

Pikhart , M. and Botezat , O. ( 2021 ), “ The impact of the use of social media on second language acquisition ”, Procedia Computer Science , Vol.  192 , pp.  1621 - 1628 .

Rieger , D. and Christoph , K. ( 2018 ), “ The daily dose of digital inspiration: a multi-method exploration of meaningful communication in social media ”, New Media and Society , Vol.  21 No.  1 , pp.  97 - 118 .

Roelofse , L. ( 2013 ), Investigating the Impact of Facebook-Speak on the Written Academic Work of Learners in a Western Cape High School , Department of General Linguistics, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Stellenbosch University , available at: http://scholar.sun.ac.za ( accessed 10 May 2018 ).

Sitthirak , C. ( 2012 ), “ Social media for language teaching and learning ”, Thammasat Journal , Vol.  31 , pp.  1 - 25 .

Slim , H. and Hafedh , M. ( 2019 ), “ Social media impact on language learning for specific purposes: a study in English for business administration ”, Teaching English with Technology , Vol.  19 No.  1 , pp.  56 - 71 .

Statista ( 2020 ), “ Social media: statistics and facts ”, available at: https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks ( accessed 29 June 2019 ).

Stevenson , M.P. and Liu , M. ( 2010 ), “ Learning a language with Web 2.0: exploring the use of social networking features of foreign language learning websites ”, CALICO Journal , Vol.  27 No.  2 , pp.  233 - 259 .

Tariq , W. , Mehboob , M. , Khan , M.A. and Ullah , F. ( 2012 ), “ The impact of social media and social networks on education and students of Pakistan ”, International Journal of Computer Science Issues , Vol.  9 No.  4 , pp.  407 - 411 .

Thurairaj , S. , Hoon , E.P. , Roy , S.S. and Fong , P.K. ( 2015 ), “ Reflections of students' language usage in social networking sites: making or marring academic English ”, The Electronic Journal of E-Learning , Vol.  13 No.  4 , pp.  302 - 316 .

Wamba , S.F. and Carter , L. ( 2016 ), “ Social media tools adoption and use by SMES: an empirical study ”, Social Media and Networking: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications , pp. 791 - 806 .

Yurdagül , C. and Öz , S. ( 2018 ), “ Attitude towards mobile learning in English language education ”, Education Sciences , Vol.  8 , p. 142 .

Further reading

Bhatti , A. ( 2018 ), “ Sales promotion and price discount effect on consumer purchase intention with the moderating role of social media in Pakistan ”, International Journal of Business Management , Vol. 3 No. 4 .

Habermas , J. ( 1979 ), “ What is universal pragmatics? ”, in McCarthy , T. (Ed.), Communication and the Evolution of Society , Beacon , Boston, Massachusetts , Vol.  2 No.  5 , pp.  1 - 68 .

Corresponding author

About the author.

Dr. Muneera Muftah is an Associate Professor in the Department of English at the Faculty of Arts, Thamar University, Yemen. She is currently working in the Department of English Language at the College of Languages and Translation, Najran University, KSA. She earned PhD in English Language Studies from Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia. She teaches courses in linguistics, applied linguistics and translation. Her main research interests are in the areas of translation, syntactic and morphological mental representation and development, and vocabulary development in SLA, generative syntax and morphology, discourse studies and second language assessment.

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

Effective date June 1, 2003 with amendments effective June 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017. Copyright © 2017 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

The American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code) consists of an Introduction, a Preamble , five General Principles  (A-E) and specific Ethical Standards . The Introduction discusses the intent, organization, procedural considerations, and scope of application of the Ethics Code. The Preamble and General Principles are aspirational goals to guide psychologists toward the highest ideals of psychology. Although the Preamble and General Principles are not themselves enforceable rules, they should be considered by psychologists in arriving at an ethical course of action. The Ethical Standards set forth enforceable rules for conduct as psychologists. Most of the Ethical Standards are written broadly, in order to apply to psychologists in varied roles, although the application of an Ethical Standard may vary depending on the context. The Ethical Standards are not exhaustive. The fact that a given conduct is not specifically addressed by an Ethical Standard does not mean that it is necessarily either ethical or unethical.

This Ethics Code applies only to psychologists' activities that are part of their scientific, educational, or professional roles as psychologists. Areas covered include but are not limited to the clinical, counseling, and school practice of psychology; research; teaching; supervision of trainees; public service; policy development; social intervention; development of assessment instruments; conducting assessments; educational counseling; organizational consulting; forensic activities; program design and evaluation; and administration. This Ethics Code applies to these activities across a variety of contexts, such as in person, postal, telephone, Internet, and other electronic transmissions. These activities shall be distinguished from the purely private conduct of psychologists, which is not within the purview of the Ethics Code.

Membership in the APA commits members and student affiliates to comply with the standards of the APA Ethics Code and to the rules and procedures used to enforce them. Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an Ethical Standard is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.

The procedures for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints of unethical conduct are described in the current Rules and Procedures of the APA Ethics Committee . APA may impose sanctions on its members for violations of the standards of the Ethics Code, including termination of APA membership, and may notify other bodies and individuals of its actions. Actions that violate the standards of the Ethics Code may also lead to the imposition of sanctions on psychologists or students whether or not they are APA members by bodies other than APA, including state psychological associations, other professional groups, psychology boards, other state or federal agencies, and payors for health services. In addition, APA may take action against a member after his or her conviction of a felony, expulsion or suspension from an affiliated state psychological association, or suspension or loss of licensure. When the sanction to be imposed by APA is less than expulsion, the 2001 Rules and Procedures do not guarantee an opportunity for an in-person hearing, but generally provide that complaints will be resolved only on the basis of a submitted record.

The Ethics Code is intended to provide guidance for psychologists and standards of professional conduct that can be applied by the APA and by other bodies that choose to adopt them. The Ethics Code is not intended to be a basis of civil liability. Whether a psychologist has violated the Ethics Code standards does not by itself determine whether the psychologist is legally liable in a court action, whether a contract is enforceable, or whether other legal consequences occur.

The modifiers used in some of the standards of this Ethics Code (e.g., reasonably, appropriate, potentially) are included in the standards when they would (1) allow professional judgment on the part of psychologists, (2) eliminate injustice or inequality that would occur without the modifier, (3) ensure applicability across the broad range of activities conducted by psychologists, or (4) guard against a set of rigid rules that might be quickly outdated. As used in this Ethics Code, the term reasonable means the prevailing professional judgment of psychologists engaged in similar activities in similar circumstances, given the knowledge the psychologist had or should have had at the time.

In the process of making decisions regarding their professional behavior, psychologists must consider this Ethics Code in addition to applicable laws and psychology board regulations. In applying the Ethics Code to their professional work, psychologists may consider other materials and guidelines that have been adopted or endorsed by scientific and professional psychological organizations and the dictates of their own conscience, as well as consult with others within the field. If this Ethics Code establishes a higher standard of conduct than is required by law, psychologists must meet the higher ethical standard. If psychologists' ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make known their commitment to this Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner in keeping with basic principles of human rights.

Psychologists are committed to increasing scientific and professional knowledge of behavior and people's understanding of themselves and others and to the use of such knowledge to improve the condition of individuals, organizations, and society. Psychologists respect and protect civil and human rights and the central importance of freedom of inquiry and expression in research, teaching, and publication. They strive to help the public in developing informed judgments and choices concerning human behavior. In doing so, they perform many roles, such as researcher, educator, diagnostician, therapist, supervisor, consultant, administrator, social interventionist, and expert witness. This Ethics Code provides a common set of principles and standards upon which psychologists build their professional and scientific work.

This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline.

The development of a dynamic set of ethical standards for psychologists' work-related conduct requires a personal commitment and lifelong effort to act ethically; to encourage ethical behavior by students, supervisees, employees, and colleagues; and to consult with others concerning ethical problems.

This section consists of General Principles. General Principles, as opposed to Ethical Standards, are aspirational in nature. Their intent is to guide and inspire psychologists toward the very highest ethical ideals of the profession. General Principles, in contrast to Ethical Standards, do not represent obligations and should not form the basis for imposing sanctions. Relying upon General Principles for either of these reasons distorts both their meaning and purpose.

Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. In their professional actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons, and the welfare of animal subjects of research. When conflicts occur among psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm. Because psychologists' scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence. Psychologists strive to be aware of the possible effect of their own physical and mental health on their ability to help those with whom they work.

Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work. Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior, and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm. Psychologists consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and institutions to the extent needed to serve the best interests of those with whom they work. They are concerned about the ethical compliance of their colleagues' scientific and professional conduct. Psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage.

Principle C: Integrity Psychologists seek to promote accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the science, teaching, and practice of psychology. In these activities psychologists do not steal, cheat or engage in fraud, subterfuge, or intentional misrepresentation of fact. Psychologists strive to keep their promises and to avoid unwise or unclear commitments. In situations in which deception may be ethically justifiable to maximize benefits and minimize harm, psychologists have a serious obligation to consider the need for, the possible consequences of, and their responsibility to correct any resulting mistrust or other harmful effects that arise from the use of such techniques.

Principle D: Justice Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons to access to and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being conducted by psychologists. Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precautions to ensure that their potential biases, the boundaries of their competence, and the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices.

Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices.

1.01 Misuse of Psychologists' Work If psychologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation of their work, they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation.

1.02 Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands   If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved. (See also Standards 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority , and 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands .)

1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations , or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities. This standard does not apply when an intervention would violate confidentiality rights or when psychologists have been retained to review the work of another psychologist whose professional conduct is in question. (See also Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority .)

1.06 Cooperating with Ethics Committees Psychologists cooperate in ethics investigations, proceedings, and resulting requirements of the APA or any affiliated state psychological association to which they belong. In doing so, they address any confidentiality issues. Failure to cooperate is itself an ethics violation. However, making a request for deferment of adjudication of an ethics complaint pending the outcome of litigation does not alone constitute noncooperation.

1.07 Improper Complaints Psychologists do not file or encourage the filing of ethics complaints that are made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.

1.08 Unfair Discrimination Against Complainants and Respondents Psychologists do not deny persons employment, advancement, admissions to academic or other programs, tenure, or promotion, based solely upon their having made or their being the subject of an ethics complaint. This does not preclude taking action based upon the outcome of such proceedings or considering other appropriate information.

2.01 Boundaries of Competence (a) Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience.

(b) Where scientific or professional knowledge in the discipline of psychology establishes that an understanding of factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status is essential for effective implementation of their services or research, psychologists have or obtain the training, experience, consultation, or supervision necessary to ensure the competence of their services, or they make appropriate referrals, except as provided in Standard 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies .

(c) Psychologists planning to provide services, teach, or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques, or technologies new to them undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation, or study.

(d) When psychologists are asked to provide services to individuals for whom appropriate mental health services are not available and for which psychologists have not obtained the competence necessary, psychologists with closely related prior training or experience may provide such services in order to ensure that services are not denied if they make a reasonable effort to obtain the competence required by using relevant research, training, consultation, or study.

(e) In those emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for preparatory training do not yet exist, psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others from harm.

(f) When assuming forensic roles, psychologists are or become reasonably familiar with the judicial or administrative rules governing their roles.

2.02 Providing Services in Emergencies In emergencies, when psychologists provide services to individuals for whom other mental health services are not available and for which psychologists have not obtained the necessary training, psychologists may provide such services in order to ensure that services are not denied. The services are discontinued as soon as the emergency has ended or appropriate services are available.

2.03 Maintaining Competence Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence.

2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments Psychologists' work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline. (See also Standards 2.01e, Boundaries of Competence , and 10.01b, Informed Consent to Therapy .)

2.05 Delegation of Work to Others Psychologists who delegate work to employees, supervisees, or research or teaching assistants or who use the services of others, such as interpreters, take reasonable steps to (1) avoid delegating such work to persons who have a multiple relationship with those being served that would likely lead to exploitation or loss of objectivity; (2) authorize only those responsibilities that such persons can be expected to perform competently on the basis of their education, training, or experience, either independently or with the level of supervision being provided; and (3) see that such persons perform these services competently. (See also Standards 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies ; 3.05, Multiple Relationships ; 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality ; 9.01, Bases for Assessments ; 9.02, Use of Assessments ; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments ; and 9.07, Assessment by Unqualified Persons .)

2.06 Personal Problems and Conflicts (a) Psychologists refrain from initiating an activity when they know or should know that there is a substantial likelihood that their personal problems will prevent them from performing their work-related activities in a competent manner.

(b) When psychologists become aware of personal problems that may interfere with their performing work-related duties adequately, they take appropriate measures, such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance, and determine whether they should limit, suspend, or terminate their work-related duties. (See also Standard 10.10, Terminating Therapy .)

3.01 Unfair Discrimination In their work-related activities, psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law.

3.02 Sexual Harassment Psychologists do not engage in sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is sexual solicitation, physical advances, or verbal or nonverbal conduct that is sexual in nature, that occurs in connection with the psychologist's activities or roles as a psychologist, and that either (1) is unwelcome, is offensive, or creates a hostile workplace or educational environment, and the psychologist knows or is told this or (2) is sufficiently severe or intense to be abusive to a reasonable person in the context. Sexual harassment can consist of a single intense or severe act or of multiple persistent or pervasive acts. (See also Standard 1.08, Unfair Discrimination Against Complainants and Respondents .)

3.03 Other Harassment Psychologists do not knowingly engage in behavior that is harassing or demeaning to persons with whom they interact in their work based on factors such as those persons' age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status.

3.04 Avoiding Harm (a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable. 

(b) Psychologists do not participate in, facilitate, assist, or otherwise engage in torture, defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, or in any other cruel, inhuman, or degrading behavior that violates 3.04(a).

3.05 Multiple Relationships 

(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.

A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.

Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical.

(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal compliance with the Ethics Code.

(c) When psychologists are required by law, institutional policy, or extraordinary circumstances to serve in more than one role in judicial or administrative proceedings, at the outset they clarify role expectations and the extent of confidentiality and thereafter as changes occur. (See also Standards 3.04, Avoiding Harm , and 3.07, Third-Party Requests for Services .)

3.06 Conflict of Interest Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation.

3.07 Third-Party Requests for Services When psychologists agree to provide services to a person or entity at the request of a third party, psychologists attempt to clarify at the outset of the service the nature of the relationship with all individuals or organizations involved. This clarification includes the role of the psychologist (e.g., therapist, consultant, diagnostician, or expert witness), an identification of who is the client, the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained, and the fact that there may be limits to confidentiality. (See also Standards 3.05, Multiple relationships , and 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality.)

3.08 Exploitative Relationships Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have supervisory, evaluative or other authority such as clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, and employees. (See also Standards 3.05, Multiple Relationships ; 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements ; 6.05, Barter with Clients/Patients ; 7.07, Sexual Relationships with Students and Supervisees ; 10.05, Sexual Intimacies with Current Therapy Clients/Patients ; 10.06, Sexual Intimacies with Relatives or Significant Others of Current Therapy Clients/Patients ; 10.07, Therapy with Former Sexual Partners ; and 10.08, Sexual Intimacies with Former Therapy Clients/Patients .)

3.09 Cooperation with Other Professionals When indicated and professionally appropriate, psychologists cooperate with other professionals in order to serve their clients/patients effectively and appropriately. (See also Standard 4.05, Disclosures .)

3.10 Informed Consent (a) When psychologists conduct research or provide assessment, therapy, counseling, or consulting services in person or via electronic transmission or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent is mandated by law or governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code. (See also Standards 8.02, Informed Consent to Research ; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments ; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy .)

(b) For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless (1) provide an appropriate explanation, (2) seek the individual's assent, (3) consider such persons' preferences and best interests, and (4) obtain appropriate permission from a legally authorized person, if such substitute consent is permitted or required by law. When consent by a legally authorized person is not permitted or required by law, psychologists take reasonable steps to protect the individual's rights and welfare.

(c) When psychological services are court ordered or otherwise mandated, psychologists inform the individual of the nature of the anticipated services, including whether the services are court ordered or mandated and any limits of confidentiality, before proceeding.

(d) Psychologists appropriately document written or oral consent, permission, and assent. (See also Standards 8.02, Informed Consent to Research ; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments ; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy .)

3.11 Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations (a) Psychologists delivering services to or through organizations provide information beforehand to clients and when appropriate those directly affected by the services about (1) the nature and objectives of the services, (2) the intended recipients, (3) which of the individuals are clients, (4) the relationship the psychologist will have with each person and the organization, (5) the probable uses of services provided and information obtained, (6) who will have access to the information, and (7) limits of confidentiality. As soon as feasible, they provide information about the results and conclusions of such services to appropriate persons.

(b) If psychologists will be precluded by law or by organizational roles from providing such information to particular individuals or groups, they so inform those individuals or groups at the outset of the service.

3.12 Interruption of Psychological Services Unless otherwise covered by contract, psychologists make reasonable efforts to plan for facilitating services in the event that psychological services are interrupted by factors such as the psychologist's illness, death, unavailability, relocation, or retirement or by the client's/patient's relocation or financial limitations. (See also Standard 6.02c, Maintenance, Dissemination, and Disposal of Confidential Records of Professional and Scientific Work .)

4.01 Maintaining Confidentiality Psychologists have a primary obligation and take reasonable precautions to protect confidential information obtained through or stored in any medium, recognizing that the extent and limits of confidentiality may be regulated by law or established by institutional rules or professional or scientific relationship. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others .)

4.02 Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality (a) Psychologists discuss with persons (including, to the extent feasible, persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent and their legal representatives) and organizations with whom they establish a scientific or professional relationship (1) the relevant limits of confidentiality and (2) the foreseeable uses of the information generated through their psychological activities. (See also Standard 3.10, Informed Consent .)

(b) Unless it is not feasible or is contraindicated, the discussion of confidentiality occurs at the outset of the relationship and thereafter as new circumstances may warrant.

(c) Psychologists who offer services, products, or information via electronic transmission inform clients/patients of the risks to privacy and limits of confidentiality.

4.03 Recording Before recording the voices or images of individuals to whom they provide services, psychologists obtain permission from all such persons or their legal representatives. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research ; 8.05, Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research ; and 8.07, Deception in Research .)

4.04 Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy (a) Psychologists include in written and oral reports and consultations, only information germane to the purpose for which the communication is made.

(b) Psychologists discuss confidential information obtained in their work only for appropriate scientific or professional purposes and only with persons clearly concerned with such matters.

4.05 Disclosures (a) Psychologists may disclose confidential information with the appropriate consent of the organizational client, the individual client/patient, or another legally authorized person on behalf of the client/patient unless prohibited by law.

(b) Psychologists disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual only as mandated by law, or where permitted by law for a valid purpose such as to (1) provide needed professional services; (2) obtain appropriate professional consultations; (3) protect the client/patient, psychologist, or others from harm; or (4) obtain payment for services from a client/patient, in which instance disclosure is limited to the minimum that is necessary to achieve the purpose. (See also Standard 6.04e, Fees and Financial Arrangements .)

4.06 Consultations When consulting with colleagues, (1) psychologists do not disclose confidential information that reasonably could lead to the identification of a client/patient, research participant, or other person or organization with whom they have a confidential relationship unless they have obtained the prior consent of the person or organization or the disclosure cannot be avoided, and (2) they disclose information only to the extent necessary to achieve the purposes of the consultation. (See also Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality .)

4.07 Use of Confidential Information for Didactic or Other Purposes Psychologists do not disclose in their writings, lectures, or other public media, confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their clients/patients, students, research participants, organizational clients, or other recipients of their services that they obtained during the course of their work, unless (1) they take reasonable steps to disguise the person or organization, (2) the person or organization has consented in writing, or (3) there is legal authorization for doing so.

5.01 Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements (a) Public statements include but are not limited to paid or unpaid advertising, product endorsements, grant applications, licensing applications, other credentialing applications, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal resumes or curricula vitae, or comments for use in media such as print or electronic transmission, statements in legal proceedings, lectures and public oral presentations, and published materials. Psychologists do not knowingly make public statements that are false, deceptive, or fraudulent concerning their research, practice, or other work activities or those of persons or organizations with which they are affiliated.

(b) Psychologists do not make false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements concerning (1) their training, experience, or competence; (2) their academic degrees; (3) their credentials; (4) their institutional or association affiliations; (5) their services; (6) the scientific or clinical basis for, or results or degree of success of, their services; (7) their fees; or (8) their publications or research findings.

(c) Psychologists claim degrees as credentials for their health services only if those degrees (1) were earned from a regionally accredited educational institution or (2) were the basis for psychology licensure by the state in which they practice.

5.02 Statements by Others (a) Psychologists who engage others to create or place public statements that promote their professional practice, products, or activities retain professional responsibility for such statements.

(b) Psychologists do not compensate employees of press, radio, television, or other communication media in return for publicity in a news item. (See also Standard 1.01, Misuse of Psychologists' Work .)

(c) A paid advertisement relating to psychologists' activities must be identified or clearly recognizable as such.

5.03 Descriptions of Workshops and Non-Degree-Granting Educational Programs To the degree to which they exercise control, psychologists responsible for announcements, catalogs, brochures, or advertisements describing workshops, seminars, or other non-degree-granting educational programs ensure that they accurately describe the audience for which the program is intended, the educational objectives, the presenters, and the fees involved.

5.04 Media Presentations When psychologists provide public advice or comment via print, Internet, or other electronic transmission, they take precautions to ensure that statements (1) are based on their professional knowledge, training, or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice; (2) are otherwise consistent with this Ethics Code; and (3) do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established with the recipient. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments .)

5.05 Testimonials Psychologists do not solicit testimonials from current therapy clients/patients or other persons who because of their particular circumstances are vulnerable to undue influence.

5.06 In-Person Solicitation Psychologists do not engage, directly or through agents, in uninvited in-person solicitation of business from actual or potential therapy clients/patients or other persons who because of their particular circumstances are vulnerable to undue influence. However, this prohibition does not preclude (1) attempting to implement appropriate collateral contacts for the purpose of benefiting an already engaged therapy client/patient or (2) providing disaster or community outreach services.

6.01 Documentation of Professional and Scientific Work and Maintenance of Records Psychologists create, and to the extent the records are under their control, maintain, disseminate, store, retain, and dispose of records and data relating to their professional and scientific work in order to (1) facilitate provision of services later by them or by other professionals, (2) allow for replication of research design and analyses, (3) meet institutional requirements, (4) ensure accuracy of billing and payments, and (5) ensure compliance with law. (See also Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality .)

6.02 Maintenance, Dissemination, and Disposal of Confidential Records of Professional and Scientific Work (a) Psychologists maintain confidentiality in creating, storing, accessing, transferring, and disposing of records under their control, whether these are written, automated, or in any other medium. (See also Standards 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality , and 6.01, Documentation of Professional and Scientific Work and Maintenance of Records .)

(b) If confidential information concerning recipients of psychological services is entered into databases or systems of records available to persons whose access has not been consented to by the recipient, psychologists use coding or other techniques to avoid the inclusion of personal identifiers.

(c) Psychologists make plans in advance to facilitate the appropriate transfer and to protect the confidentiality of records and data in the event of psychologists' withdrawal from positions or practice. (See also Standards 3.12, Interruption of Psychological Services , and 10.09, Interruption of Therapy .)

6.03 Withholding Records for Nonpayment Psychologists may not withhold records under their control that are requested and needed for a client's/patient's emergency treatment solely because payment has not been received.

6.04 Fees and Financial Arrangements (a) As early as is feasible in a professional or scientific relationship, psychologists and recipients of psychological services reach an agreement specifying compensation and billing arrangements.

(b) Psychologists' fee practices are consistent with law.

(c) Psychologists do not misrepresent their fees.

(d) If limitations to services can be anticipated because of limitations in financing, this is discussed with the recipient of services as early as is feasible. (See also Standards 10.09, Interruption of Therapy , and 10.10, Terminating Therapy .)

(e) If the recipient of services does not pay for services as agreed, and if psychologists intend to use collection agencies or legal measures to collect the fees, psychologists first inform the person that such measures will be taken and provide that person an opportunity to make prompt payment. (See also Standards 4.05, Disclosures ; 6.03, Withholding Records for Nonpayment ; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy .)

6.05 Barter with Clients/Patients Barter is the acceptance of goods, services, or other nonmonetary remuneration from clients/patients in return for psychological services. Psychologists may barter only if (1) it is not clinically contraindicated, and (2) the resulting arrangement is not exploitative. (See also Standards 3.05, Multiple Relationships , and 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements .)

6.06 Accuracy in Reports to Payors and Funding Sources In their reports to payors for services or sources of research funding, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure the accurate reporting of the nature of the service provided or research conducted, the fees, charges, or payments, and where applicable, the identity of the provider, the findings, and the diagnosis. (See also Standards 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality ; 4.04, Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy ; and 4.05, Disclosures .)

6.07 Referrals and Fees When psychologists pay, receive payment from, or divide fees with another professional, other than in an employer-employee relationship, the payment to each is based on the services provided (clinical, consultative, administrative, or other) and is not based on the referral itself. (See also Standard 3.09, Cooperation with Other Professionals .)

7.01 Design of Education and Training Programs Psychologists responsible for education and training programs take reasonable steps to ensure that the programs are designed to provide the appropriate knowledge and proper experiences, and to meet the requirements for licensure, certification, or other goals for which claims are made by the program. (See also Standard 5.03, Descriptions of Workshops and Non-Degree-Granting Educational Programs .)

7.02 Descriptions of Education and Training Programs Psychologists responsible for education and training programs take reasonable steps to ensure that there is a current and accurate description of the program content (including participation in required course- or program-related counseling, psychotherapy, experiential groups, consulting projects, or community service), training goals and objectives, stipends and benefits, and requirements that must be met for satisfactory completion of the program. This information must be made readily available to all interested parties.

7.03 Accuracy in Teaching (a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that course syllabi are accurate regarding the subject matter to be covered, bases for evaluating progress, and the nature of course experiences. This standard does not preclude an instructor from modifying course content or requirements when the instructor considers it pedagogically necessary or desirable, so long as students are made aware of these modifications in a manner that enables them to fulfill course requirements. (See also Standard 5.01, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements .)

(b) When engaged in teaching or training, psychologists present psychological information accurately. (See also Standard 2.03, Maintaining Competence .)

7.04 Student Disclosure of Personal Information Psychologists do not require students or supervisees to disclose personal information in course- or program-related activities, either orally or in writing, regarding sexual history, history of abuse and neglect, psychological treatment, and relationships with parents, peers, and spouses or significant others except if (1) the program or training facility has clearly identified this requirement in its admissions and program materials or (2) the information is necessary to evaluate or obtain assistance for students whose personal problems could reasonably be judged to be preventing them from performing their training- or professionally related activities in a competent manner or posing a threat to the students or others.

7.05 Mandatory Individual or Group Therapy (a) When individual or group therapy is a program or course requirement, psychologists responsible for that program allow students in undergraduate and graduate programs the option of selecting such therapy from practitioners unaffiliated with the program. (See also Standard 7.02, Descriptions of Education and Training Programs .)

(b) Faculty who are or are likely to be responsible for evaluating students' academic performance do not themselves provide that therapy. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships .)

7.06 Assessing Student and Supervisee Performance (a) In academic and supervisory relationships, psychologists establish a timely and specific process for providing feedback to students and supervisees. Information regarding the process is provided to the student at the beginning of supervision.

(b) Psychologists evaluate students and supervisees on the basis of their actual performance on relevant and established program requirements.

7.07 Sexual Relationships with Students and Supervisees Psychologists do not engage in sexual relationships with students or supervisees who are in their department, agency, or training center or over whom psychologists have or are likely to have evaluative authority. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships .)

8.01 Institutional Approval When institutional approval is required, psychologists provide accurate information about their research proposals and obtain approval prior to conducting the research. They conduct the research in accordance with the approved research protocol.

8.02 Informed Consent to Research (a) When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research ; 8.05, Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research ; and 8.07, Deception in Research .)

(b) Psychologists conducting intervention research involving the use of experimental treatments clarify to participants at the outset of the research (1) the experimental nature of the treatment; (2) the services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate; (3) the means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be made; (4) available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun; and (5) compensation for or monetary costs of participating including, if appropriate, whether reimbursement from the participant or a third-party payor will be sought. (See also Standard 8.02a, Informed Consent to Research .)

8.03 Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research Psychologists obtain informed consent from research participants prior to recording their voices or images for data collection unless (1) the research consists solely of naturalistic observations in public places, and it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or harm, or (2) the research design includes deception, and consent for the use of the recording is obtained during debriefing. (See also Standard 8.07, Deception in Research .)

8.04 Client/Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants (a) When psychologists conduct research with clients/patients, students, or subordinates as participants, psychologists take steps to protect the prospective participants from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation.

(b) When research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra credit, the prospective participant is given the choice of equitable alternative activities.

8.05 Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only (1) where research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm and involves (a) the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability, or reputation, and confidentiality is protected; or (c) the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants' employability, and confidentiality is protected or (2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations.

8.06 Offering Inducements for Research Participation (a) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements for research participation when such inducements are likely to coerce participation.

(b) When offering professional services as an inducement for research participation, psychologists clarify the nature of the services, as well as the risks, obligations, and limitations. (See also Standard 6.05, Barter with Clients/Patients .)

8.07 Deception in Research (a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.

(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.

(c) Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw their data. (See also Standard 8.08, Debriefing .)

8.08 Debriefing (a) Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research, and they take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that participants may have of which the psychologists are aware.

(b) If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information, psychologists take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm.

(c) When psychologists become aware that research procedures have harmed a participant, they take reasonable steps to minimize the harm.

8.09 Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research (a) Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with current federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards.

(b) Psychologists trained in research methods and experienced in the care of laboratory animals supervise all procedures involving animals and are responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration of their comfort, health, and humane treatment.

(c) Psychologists ensure that all individuals under their supervision who are using animals have received instruction in research methods and in the care, maintenance, and handling of the species being used, to the extent appropriate to their role. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others .)

(d) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to minimize the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain of animal subjects.

(e) Psychologists use a procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation only when an alternative procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value.

(f) Psychologists perform surgical procedures under appropriate anesthesia and follow techniques to avoid infection and minimize pain during and after surgery.

(g) When it is appropriate that an animal's life be terminated, psychologists proceed rapidly, with an effort to minimize pain and in accordance with accepted procedures.

8.10 Reporting Research Results (a) Psychologists do not fabricate data. (See also Standard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements .)

(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable steps to correct such errors in a correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate publication means.

8.11 Plagiarism Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally.

8.12 Publication Credit (a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit .)

(b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement.

(c) Except under exceptional circumstances, a student is listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student's doctoral dissertation. Faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as appropriate. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit .)

8.13 Duplicate Publication of Data Psychologists do not publish, as original data, data that have been previously published. This does not preclude republishing data when they are accompanied by proper acknowledgment.

8.14 Sharing Research Data for Verification (a) After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release. This does not preclude psychologists from requiring that such individuals or groups be responsible for costs associated with the provision of such information.

(b) Psychologists who request data from other psychologists to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis may use shared data only for the declared purpose. Requesting psychologists obtain prior written agreement for all other uses of the data.

8.15 Reviewers Psychologists who review material submitted for presentation, publication, grant, or research proposal review respect the confidentiality of and the proprietary rights in such information of those who submitted it.

9.01 Bases for Assessments (a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments .)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c , psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence , and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results .)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations.

9.02 Use of Assessments (a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.

(b) Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested. When such validity or reliability has not been established, psychologists describe the strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation.

(c) Psychologists use assessment methods that are appropriate to an individual's language preference and competence, unless the use of an alternative language is relevant to the assessment issues.

9.03 Informed Consent in Assessments (a) Psychologists obtain informed consent for assessments, evaluations, or diagnostic services, as described in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations; (2) informed consent is implied because testing is conducted as a routine educational, institutional, or organizational activity (e.g., when participants voluntarily agree to assessment when applying for a job); or (3) one purpose of the testing is to evaluate decisional capacity. Informed consent includes an explanation of the nature and purpose of the assessment, fees, involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality and sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions and receive answers.

(b) Psychologists inform persons with questionable capacity to consent or for whom testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations about the nature and purpose of the proposed assessment services, using language that is reasonably understandable to the person being assessed.

(c) Psychologists using the services of an interpreter obtain informed consent from the client/patient to use that interpreter, ensure that confidentiality of test results and test security are maintained, and include in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, discussion of any limitations on the data obtained. (See also Standards 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others ; 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality ; 9.01, Bases for Assessments ; 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results ; and 9.07, Assessment by Unqualified Persons .)

9.04 Release of Test Data (a) The term test data refers to raw and scaled scores, client/patient responses to test questions or stimuli, and psychologists' notes and recordings concerning client/patient statements and behavior during an examination. Those portions of test materials that include client/patient responses are included in the definition of test data . Pursuant to a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data to the client/patient or other persons identified in the release. Psychologists may refrain from releasing test data to protect a client/patient or others from substantial harm or misuse or misrepresentation of the data or the test, recognizing that in many instances release of confidential information under these circumstances is regulated by law. (See also Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security .)

(b) In the absence of a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data only as required by law or court order.

9.05 Test Construction Psychologists who develop tests and other assessment techniques use appropriate psychometric procedures and current scientific or professional knowledge for test design, standardization, validation, reduction or elimination of bias, and recommendations for use.

9.06 Interpreting Assessment Results When interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations, psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences, that might affect psychologists' judgments or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant limitations of their interpretations. (See also Standards 2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence , and 3.01, Unfair Discrimination .)

9.07 Assessment by Unqualified Persons Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when such use is conducted for training purposes with appropriate supervision. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others .)

9.08 Obsolete Tests and Outdated Test Results (a) Psychologists do not base their assessment or intervention decisions or recommendations on data or test results that are outdated for the current purpose.

(b) Psychologists do not base such decisions or recommendations on tests and measures that are obsolete and not useful for the current purpose.

9.09 Test Scoring and Interpretation Services (a) Psychologists who offer assessment or scoring services to other professionals accurately describe the purpose, norms, validity, reliability, and applications of the procedures and any special qualifications applicable to their use.

(b) Psychologists select scoring and interpretation services (including automated services) on the basis of evidence of the validity of the program and procedures as well as on other appropriate considerations. (See also Standard 2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence .)

(c) Psychologists retain responsibility for the appropriate application, interpretation, and use of assessment instruments, whether they score and interpret such tests themselves or use automated or other services.

9.10 Explaining Assessment Results Regardless of whether the scoring and interpretation are done by psychologists, by employees or assistants, or by automated or other outside services, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that explanations of results are given to the individual or designated representative unless the nature of the relationship precludes provision of an explanation of results (such as in some organizational consulting, preemployment or security screenings, and forensic evaluations), and this fact has been clearly explained to the person being assessed in advance.

9.11 Maintaining Test Security The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data . Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.

10.01 Informed Consent to Therapy (a) When obtaining informed consent to therapy as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent , psychologists inform clients/patients as early as is feasible in the therapeutic relationship about the nature and anticipated course of therapy, fees, involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality and provide sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions and receive answers. (See also Standards 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality , and 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements .)

(b) When obtaining informed consent for treatment for which generally recognized techniques and procedures have not been established, psychologists inform their clients/patients of the developing nature of the treatment, the potential risks involved, alternative treatments that may be available, and the voluntary nature of their participation. (See also Standards 2.01e, Boundaries of Competence , and 3.10, Informed Consent .)

(c) When the therapist is a trainee and the legal responsibility for the treatment provided resides with the supervisor, the client/patient, as part of the informed consent procedure, is informed that the therapist is in training and is being supervised and is given the name of the supervisor.

10.02 Therapy Involving Couples or Families (a) When psychologists agree to provide services to several persons who have a relationship (such as spouses, significant others, or parents and children), they take reasonable steps to clarify at the outset (1) which of the individuals are clients/patients and (2) the relationship the psychologist will have with each person. This clarification includes the psychologist's role and the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained. (See also Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality .)

(b) If it becomes apparent that psychologists may be called on to perform potentially conflicting roles (such as family therapist and then witness for one party in divorce proceedings), psychologists take reasonable steps to clarify and modify, or withdraw from, roles appropriately. (See also Standard 3.05c, Multiple Relationships .)

10.03 Group Therapy When psychologists provide services to several persons in a group setting, they describe at the outset the roles and responsibilities of all parties and the limits of confidentiality.

10.04 Providing Therapy to Those Served by Others In deciding whether to offer or provide services to those already receiving mental health services elsewhere, psychologists carefully consider the treatment issues and the potential client's/patient's welfare. Psychologists discuss these issues with the client/patient or another legally authorized person on behalf of the client/patient in order to minimize the risk of confusion and conflict, consult with the other service providers when appropriate, and proceed with caution and sensitivity to the therapeutic issues.

10.05 Sexual Intimacies with Current Therapy Clients/Patients Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with current therapy clients/patients.

10.06 Sexual Intimacies with Relatives or Significant Others of Current Therapy Clients/Patients Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with individuals they know to be close relatives, guardians, or significant others of current clients/patients. Psychologists do not terminate therapy to circumvent this standard.

10.07 Therapy with Former Sexual Partners Psychologists do not accept as therapy clients/patients persons with whom they have engaged in sexual intimacies.

10.08 Sexual Intimacies with Former Therapy Clients/Patients (a) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients for at least two years after cessation or termination of therapy.

(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients even after a two-year interval except in the most unusual circumstances. Psychologists who engage in such activity after the two years following cessation or termination of therapy and of having no sexual contact with the former client/patient bear the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation, in light of all relevant factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since therapy terminated; (2) the nature, duration, and intensity of the therapy; (3) the circumstances of termination; (4) the client's/patient's personal history; (5) the client's/patient's current mental status; (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on the client/patient; and (7) any statements or actions made by the therapist during the course of therapy suggesting or inviting the possibility of a posttermination sexual or romantic relationship with the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships .)

10.09 Interruption of Therapy When entering into employment or contractual relationships, psychologists make reasonable efforts to provide for orderly and appropriate resolution of responsibility for client/patient care in the event that the employment or contractual relationship ends, with paramount consideration given to the welfare of the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.12, Interruption of Psychological Services .)

10.10 Terminating Therapy (a) Psychologists terminate therapy when it becomes reasonably clear that the client/patient no longer needs the service, is not likely to benefit, or is being harmed by continued service.

(b) Psychologists may terminate therapy when threatened or otherwise endangered by the client/patient or another person with whom the client/patient has a relationship.

(c) Except where precluded by the actions of clients/patients or third-party payors, prior to termination psychologists provide pretermination counseling and suggest alternative service providers as appropriate.

The American Psychological Association’s  Council of Representatives  adopted this version of the APA Ethics Code during its meeting on Aug. 21, 2002. The Code became effective on June 1, 2003. The Council of Representatives amended this version of the Ethics Code on Feb. 20, 2010, effective June 1, 2010, and on Aug. 3, 2016, effective Jan. 1, 2017.  Inquiries concerning the substance or interpretation of the APA Ethics Code should be addressed to the Director, Office of Ethics, American Psychological Association, 750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. The standards in this Ethics Code will be used to adjudicate complaints brought concerning alleged conduct occurring on or after the effective date. Complaints will be adjudicated on the basis of the version of the Ethics Code that was in effect at the time the conduct occurred.

The APA has previously published its Ethics Code as follows:

American Psychological Association. (1953). Ethical standards of psychologists . Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1959). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist , 14 , 279-282.

American Psychological Association. (1963). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist , 18 , 56-60.

American Psychological Association. (1968). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist , 23 , 357-361.

American Psychological Association. (1977, March). Ethical standards of psychologists. APA Monitor , 22-23.

American Psychological Association. (1979). Ethical standards of psychologists . Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1981). Ethical principles of psychologists. American Psychologist , 36 , 633-638.

American Psychological Association. (1990). Ethical principles of psychologists (Amended June 2, 1989). American Psychologist , 45 , 390-395.

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist , 47 , 1597-1611.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist , 57 , 1060-1073.

American Psychological Association. (2010). 2010 amendments to the 2002 “ Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. ” American Psychologist , 65 , 493.

American Psychological Association. (2016). Revision of ethical standard 3.04 of the “ Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct ” (2002, as amended 2010). American Psychologist , 71 , 900.

Request copies of the APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct from the APA Order Department, 750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242, or phone (202) 336-5510.

2010 Amendments

Introduction and Applicability If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make known their commitment to this Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner . If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing authority in keeping with basic principles of human rights.

1.02 Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict , make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code . If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights .

1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and to the extent feasible, resolve the conflict in a way that permits adherence to the Ethics Code. take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights .

2016 Amendment

3.04 Avoiding Harm (a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable. 

Additional Resources

2018 APA Ethics Committee Rules and Procedures (PDF, 197KB)

Revision of Ethics Code Standard 3.04 (Avoiding Harm) 

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2017) (PDF, 272KB)

2016 APA Ethics Committee Rules and Procedures

Revision of Ethical Standard 3.04 of the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (2002, as Amended 2010) (PDF, 26KB)

2010 Amendments to the 2002 "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" (PDF, 39KB)

Compare the 1992 and 2002 Ethics Codes

Contact APA Ethics Office