Emerging issues: AI, social media and public statements

Transcript

RyanMonday morning at a small group practice. Their new marketing consultant has a slide deck and four big ideas.

SoheeIdea one: ask current therapy clients to write testimonials for the website. Idea two: send someone to a hospital emergency waiting room to chat with people and hand out cards. Idea three: a weekly call-in radio segment. Idea four: an artificial intelligence, or AI, chatbot that supports clients between sessions.

RyanSome of that is fine, some of it isn't, and one of it is a genuinely new question. Welcome to EPPP Prep, the podcast. I'm Ryan.

SoheeAnd I'm Sohee. Today it's emerging issues: how a Code written before many of these tools existed still guides you, and how the exam tests it.

RyanA bit of perspective first. APA published its first code of ethics for psychologists in 1953, and it has been revised many times since. The version in force today was adopted in 2002 and amended in 2010 and 2016.

SoheeSo codes evolve. But they can't name every new technology the moment it appears, and the Code says so itself.

RyanIts Introduction says 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.

SoheeThat's a key exam idea. If no standard names something new, does anything go? Wrong. Is it forbidden, then? Also wrong. You reason from the standards that do apply.

RyanAnd there's a standard written for exactly this. Standard 2.01, part e. In emerging areas where generally recognized standards for preparatory training don't yet exist, psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients, students, supervisees, research participants and others from harm.

SoheeNevertheless. That's the word to remember. No official training path yet? You still owe reasonable steps toward competence and protection.

RyanOkay, back to the consultant's deck. Idea one, testimonials.

SoheeStandard 5.05. Psychologists do not solicit testimonials from current therapy clients, or from other people who, because of their particular circumstances, are vulnerable to undue influence.

RyanAnd think about why. A current client depends on the therapist. Being asked for praise by your own therapist is hard to refuse. That pressure is the undue influence the standard guards against.

SoheeIdea two, the emergency waiting room. Standard 5.06. Psychologists don't engage, directly or through agents, in uninvited in-person solicitation of business from actual or potential therapy clients, or from others vulnerable to undue influence.

RyanDirectly or through agents. So sending the consultant to do the approaching doesn't get the practice off the hook.

SoheeBut 5.06 has two exceptions the exam loves. It doesn't preclude appropriate collateral contacts meant to benefit an already engaged therapy client. And it doesn't preclude providing disaster or community outreach services.

RyanPause and think. After a flood, a psychologist volunteers at a shelter and approaches survivors to offer support. Is that forbidden in-person solicitation?

SoheeNo. Providing disaster or community outreach services is expressly not precluded. Compare that with approaching strangers in an emergency room to solicit business, which is exactly what the standard prohibits.

RyanAnd while we're on the consultant: Standard 5.02. Psychologists who engage others to create or place public statements that promote their practice retain professional responsibility for those statements.

SoheePlus two details. Don't compensate employees of the press, radio, television or other media in return for publicity in a news item. And a paid advertisement must be identified, or clearly recognizable, as one.

RyanNow the bigger frame, Standard 5.01. Public statements is a broad category: paid or unpaid advertising, brochures, directory listings, résumés, comments for use in media such as print or electronic transmission, statements in legal proceedings, lectures, and published materials.

SoheeAnd psychologists don't knowingly make public statements that are false, deceptive or fraudulent. That includes statements about their training, credentials, services, fees, and the scientific basis or degree of success of their services.

RyanSo the brochure, the directory listing, the comments written for electronic media. They're all public statements, and they all have to be accurate.

SoheeIdea three, the radio segment. That's Standard 5.04, media presentations. It covers public advice or comment via print, Internet, or other electronic transmission.

RyanThree precautions. Statements are based on professional knowledge, training or experience, in line with appropriate psychological literature and practice. They're otherwise consistent with the Ethics Code. And they don't indicate that a professional relationship has been established with the recipient.

SoheePause and think, number two. A caller describes her panic attacks on air and asks, will you be my therapist? What's the risk?

RyanTreating the on-air exchange as if therapy has begun. The psychologist can offer general information grounded in professional knowledge, but shouldn't indicate that a professional relationship now exists with that caller.

SoheeNow social media, which the telepsychology literature takes up. One consolidated model of the guidelines says to consider your own professional and personal social media presence, and to maintain boundaries by not interacting with clients via social media.

RyanIt also says to explain your social media policy at the start of services, such as not adding each other as friends. That matters especially in small or rural areas, where shared community interests can lead sites to suggest you to each other as connections.

SoheeAnd the APA telepsychology guidelines flag related risks, like search engines and social networking sites. Episode fourteen covers the rest of the telepsychology picture.

RyanWhich brings us to idea four. The AI chatbot.

SoheeHere, honesty matters. As one 2025 paper put it, there's no single ethical code for generative AI, though international bodies, governments and technology companies have recently written ethical guidelines. That same paper, using narrative review methods, proposed a preliminary framework for mental health clinicians, combining the ethics codes of counselors, psychologists, physicians and social workers with those AI guidelines.

RyanAnd it's a proposal. The author says plainly that the framework has not been empirically tested and validated in clinical settings. So treat it as a thoughtful map, not a rule.

SoheeIt's organized around five pillars. Autonomy and informed consent. Beneficence and non-malfeasance. Confidentiality and transparency. Justice, fairness and inclusiveness. And fidelity, professional integrity and accountability.

RyanOn consent, it says clinicians must disclose whenever AI is used in treatment, including its capabilities and limitations, and must let the client opt out of AI-assisted treatment, offering a human alternative where feasible.

SoheeOn benefit and harm, AI isn't a substitute for human connection. It's a complementary tool, and the therapeutic relationship stays central.

RyanOn confidentiality, the same standards apply to AI tools: HIPAA, the federal health privacy law, plus state laws, encryption and secure storage. That includes third-party vendors and AI platforms.

SoheeAnd on competence, clinicians should use AI tools only when they have the training and competence to interpret the results responsibly and accurately.

RyanIts pre-use checklist is easy to remember. Consent. Vet the vendors. Data security, including discussing the business associate agreement during consent. Competence. Inclusivity, meaning whether the platform was designed for diverse populations. And transparency.

SoheeNotice how familiar that sounds. Consent, competence in an emerging area, confidentiality, avoiding harm. The framework is built by bringing those established principles to a new tool.

RyanSo how does the exam test emerging issues? Usually it hands you something new and asks which existing obligation applies.

SoheeTrap one: no standard names it, so it's permitted. Wrong. The Standards aren't exhaustive, and conduct isn't automatically ethical just because it isn't listed.

RyanTrap two: it's new, so the psychologist must refuse entirely. That's not what the Code says either. In emerging areas, the psychologist takes reasonable steps to ensure competence and to protect people from harm.

SoheeTrap three: someone else wrote the ad. The psychologist still retains professional responsibility for public statements they engaged others to make.

RyanAnd trap four: any in-person approach is forbidden solicitation. Not disaster or community outreach, and not appropriate collateral contacts that benefit a current client.

SoheeLet's recap. The Code was first published in 1953 and keeps evolving. Its Standards aren't exhaustive, and Standard 2.01e asks for reasonable steps toward competence and protection in emerging areas.

RyanPublic statements include electronic media. No false or deceptive statements. You're responsible for what you hire others to say, and paid ads are identified as ads.

SoheeNo soliciting testimonials from current clients or others vulnerable to undue influence. No uninvited in-person solicitation, except collateral contacts for a current client and disaster or community outreach.

RyanMedia advice rests on professional knowledge and never implies a professional relationship. Social media policies get explained at the outset.

SoheeAnd for AI, one proposed framework says: disclose, allow opting out, protect the data, be competent, check for bias, and stay accountable. It's a proposal, not yet tested.

RyanEmerging issues can feel like a moving target. But today showed you the anchor. The principles hold steady, even when the tools change.

SoheeYou already know more of this than you think. Bring that steadiness with you on exam day. Thanks for listening to EPPP Prep.

Loading the read-along timings…