DECISION MAKING PROJECT
O v e r v i e w
In this course, you will complete a project on ethical decision making. The result will be in the form of a
presentation. This project is due in Module 8, so that students can share their presentation in the last class.
Rosenberg and Schwartz spearheaded the movement to a decision-making process that the 2022 Ethical
Code for Behavior Analysts adopted. As you move through the course, be thinking about how the topics
and codes may present a “gray” area to decipher when discerning between what is ethically right and
what is ethically wrong.
For this project, you will either:
• Report a real-life ethical dilemma you or a colle ague have experienced
• Create an original ethical dilemma
Use the Rosenberg and Schwartz article and address Steps 1 – 3 (see Figure 1). You will present this
process via a PPT presentation (or similar software, such as Keynote) in class. Those unable to present in
live class will be required to use the record function on PPT (or other desktop recording software) and
share with your instructor at least 24 hours before the Module 9 virtual class.
Dire c t ions:
Be sure to be familiar with the decision-making process. Although this assignment is presented at this time,
it is best to continue to draft ideas and scenarios until you are exposed to most of the content. Once you
feel prepared, write a clear and well-defined scenario. From there, you will follow the decision-making
process and create a PPT presentation with at least the following slides (you may add slides, if needed):
1. Title Slide
● Should include your name and general title of the discussion (e.g., Decision
Making Guide to conflicts of interest)
2. Scenario Slide
● While PPT slides should not typically contain excess verbiage, it will be necessary to paste
your entire scenario onto this slide. The scenario should present an obvious ethical
dilemma with specific contextual information, such as important characteristics of the
individual, setting, relevant relationships between individuals, etc. that will allow
adequate examination of the scenario.
DECISION MAKING PROJECT
● Example (used throughout the instructions):
● Parents ask their ABA provider, Arya, to coach their 6-year-old with down
syndrome to learn how to swim. The BCBA is a certified swimming instructor on
the weekends and has experience training individuals with varying intellectual
abilities. The family lives in Hawaii (mom is a professional surfer and the father
works for the local aquarium) and is concerned for their child’s lack of water
safety skills and a lack of providers in this context. The beach, animals, and
spending time with family are all highly preferred for the learner. Should Arya
enter the dual relationship?
3. Step 1: Why does this trigger your ethical radar?
● Be sure to follow the prompts in step 1, identifying the dilemma, the possible
guiding BACB code, and any personal values or biases you bring to the scenario.
● It is fine to use more than one slide, if necessary.
● Example:
● Despite being one of the most qualified swim instructors for this population,
the swim coach would be entering a dual relationship with the family (BACB
Code 1.11)
● Arya’s behavior analytic training and background has instilled adherence
to the Code and the BA verbal community has cautioned against multiple
relationships with the rationale that it could impair objectivity and blur
lines.
● Arya also wants to advance values, ethics, and principles of the
profession.
4. Step 2: Brainstorm Solutions
● Derive at least (2) different conclusions, one based solely on the code and
another based on the context of the situation
● Example:
● BACB Code 1.11
“. . . behavior analysts avoid entering into or creating
multiple relationships”
”“. . . seek to resolve the multiple relationship”
DECISION MAKING PROJECT
● Other solution
Honor the request under specific conditions designed for the protection of the
learner, the BCBA, and the profession (i.e., clear delineation and definition of
both roles, transparent and well-documented billing procedures).
Can still adhere to code 1.11 “behavior analysts develop appropriate safeguards
to identify and avoid conflicts of interest in compliance with the Code and
develop a plan to eventually resolve the multiple relationship. Behavior analysts
document all actions taken in this circumstance and the eventual outcomes. ”
5. Step 3: Evaluate the Solutions
● Compare and contrast your two solutions and highlight at least 3 – 5 pros and cons for
each solution. Consider any relevant variables listed in Figure 1, such as safety, dignity,
outcomes, relationships, culture, etc.
● Example:
● Dual relationship is avoided.
● Relationship with the parents may be harmed
● Missed opportunity to disseminate and expand profession’s reach
● Child still without skills to swim
● Dual relationship is entered
● Risk of impaired objectivity
● Role confusion
● Unethical billing possibilities
● Socially valid
● Opportunities for intersection of interventions addressing safety,
independence, and communication
6. Conclusion
● Select the outcome you chose, highlighting the key elements for your decision.
Presentation Requirements
Whether the presentation is recorded or live, it is expected that the presenter will speak clearly, so
that all words are audible. It is also expected that the presenter will be prepared and articulate the
information on the slides in a smooth and controlled manner (i.e., deliver pertinent information
without long pauses or repetition of filler words).
DECISION MAKING PROJECT
Criteria 20 Points 10 Points 0 Points Presentation Speaker was audible
and articulate.
Speaker was either
audible or
articulate, but not both.
Speaker was neither
audible or articulate.
If assignment was not
submitted in time for
live lecture, students
will receive a “0” in
this area.
Title Slide The section was
present and the
author included a
relevant title and
their name.
The section was
present, but the
author omitted
either the title or
name.
The section was not
present or the author
omitted all aspects of
the section.
Scenario Slide The scenario was well
defined, including all
contextual variables required.
The scenario was
defined, but some
contextual
variables were missing.
The scenario was not
well defined, missing
contextual variables
required to evaluate the situation.
Step 1 Slide The slide presented a
one-sentence
explanation of the
dilemma, identified
the relevant BACB
code, and conveyed
personal values or
biases related to the scenario.
The slide was present
but the author only
addressed 2/3
required elements.
The slide was either
not present or only
addressed 1/3
required elements.
Step 2 Slide The slide was present
and identified a BACB
Code related solution
and an alternative
solution.
The slide was
present, but was
missing 1/2 required
elements.
The slide was either not
present or did not
address any required
elements.
Step 3 Slide The slide was present
and listed at least 3 – 5
pros or cons to each solution.
The slide was
present, but only
listed 2 pros or cons
on one of the solutions.
The slide was either not
present or did not
provide pros or cons to
each solution.