| Course | EDP 820 Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Doctoral ethical judgment paper |
| Length | About 1,067 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 820 Module 2
How a Report Became Misleading Without Anyone Lying: Ethical Fading in a Clinic
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 820: Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
How a Report Became Misleading Without Anyone Lying: Ethical Fading in a Clinic
Ruth, the director of a composite university training clinic in Columbus, received a call from the foundation that funds the clinic's free services. A program officer had noticed that the clinic's annual report claimed seventy-two percent of clients improved, much higher than similar clinics. Ruth looked into it. The figure counted only clients who completed treatment; those who dropped out, many of whom had not improved, were excluded. No one had lied. The data analyst had followed a suggestion from a faculty member who said dropouts "didn't really receive the intervention," and the draft had been approved under deadline. Ruth, the analyst and the foundation exist only in this example. This paper examines how the report became misleading.
Person and Situation
Treviño (1986) built a model in which the person and the situation act together to produce ethical or unethical choices. When people recognize an ethical dilemma, their cognitive moral development, the stage of reasoning they use about right and wrong, shapes their judgment. But personal qualities, such as the strength to act on one's convictions and the belief that one controls outcomes, and features of the setting, including the immediate job context, organizational culture, reward systems, obedience to authority and the characteristics of the work, moderate whether judgment becomes action. Ethical behavior is the product of person and situation together. In the clinic, the analyst and approvers were not people of poor moral reasoning; the situation, a funder deadline, a desire to show success and a faculty member's authoritative suggestion, shaped what they did.
Ethical Fading
Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004) argued that much wrongdoing happens because people stop seeing the moral side of what they are deciding. Self-deception plays a central role. Euphemisms describe decisions in neutral terms; gradual steps make each choice seem a small extension of the last; perceptual distortions and a constrained self-image let people see themselves as ethical while acting otherwise. In the clinic, excluding dropouts was described as a technical choice about "completers," not as a decision that would inflate results. Each step, choosing the measure, accepting the faculty member's reasoning and approving the draft, felt like a reasonable technical judgment.
Intuition First
Haidt (2001) proposed the social intuitionist model of moral judgment. In his account, people usually sense that something is right or wrong in an instant, and only afterward assemble arguments that support the verdict they already reached. Reasoning can change intuitions, especially through discussion with others, but more often serves as a lawyer for the intuition than as a judge. In the clinic, the team's intuition that their program worked, which may well have been true, made a favorable analysis feel right, and reasons for it came easily.
| Process | How it appeared | Safeguard |
|---|---|---|
| Situational pressure (Treviño, 1986) | Funder deadline; desire to show success | Reports reviewed by someone without a stake in the result |
| Authority (Treviño, 1986) | Faculty member's suggestion followed without question | Norm that any staff member can question analysis choices |
| Euphemism (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004) | "Completers" framing hid exclusion | Name what an analysis includes and excludes in plain words |
| Gradual steps (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004) | Each choice small and technical | Analysis plan fixed before data are examined |
| Intuition-led reasoning (Haidt, 2001) | Belief the program works shaped the analysis | Report both completer and all-client results |
The Correction
Ruth informed the program officer of the problem, sent a corrected report showing improvement among all clients who began treatment, alongside the completer figure, and explained the difference. The corrected figure was lower but still respectable. The foundation thanked her for the correction and continued its support.
Safeguards
The clinic adopted safeguards drawn from the research. Analysis plans for reports are now written before data are examined, removing the gradual steps through which choices drift. Reports state in plain language who is included and excluded, countering euphemism. A faculty member uninvolved in the clinic reviews reports before submission. And Ruth told staff explicitly that questioning an analysis choice, even one suggested by a senior faculty member, is welcomed.
Responsibility Without Scapegoating
Explaining the report's development through situational pressure and self-deception does not mean no one was responsible. Ruth approved the report, and as director she was accountable for it. But the research suggests that blaming the analyst would miss the point. The analyst was a junior staff member following a senior faculty member's suggestion under deadline, exactly the conditions Treviño (1986) identified as moderating ethical action. A response focused on her would leave the conditions unchanged. Ruth took responsibility publicly, in a staff meeting, and framed the safeguards as changes to how the clinic works rather than as discipline.
Checking That Safeguards Are Used
Safeguards fail when they become formalities. Ruth will review each report's prespecified analysis plan against the final report, and the outside reviewer will be asked to confirm that both completer and all-client results appear. Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004) argued that ethical fading thrives on routine; periodic checks keep the ethical stakes of routine choices visible.
Why Confident Teams Need Outside Review
Haidt (2001) argued that reasoning is most likely to change moral judgment when people discuss their views with others who do not share their intuitions. The clinic's team shared a strong belief that its program worked, so internal review was likely to confirm the favorable analysis rather than test it. An outside reviewer, without that belief, is better placed to ask whether the analysis serves the funder's question or the clinic's hopes. The same logic applies beyond reports: any decision in which the decision makers have a stake in the outcome benefits from review by someone who does not.
The Funder's Perspective
The funder's response, thanks rather than penalty, also reinforced the right lesson. Organizations that punish corrections teach staff to hide problems.
A Lesson for Training
The case became a teaching example in the doctoral program's ethics seminar, with names removed. Students traced each step of the report's development and identified where a different choice was possible, practicing the recognition that Treviño (1986) placed at the start of ethical decision making.
Conclusion
Treviño's model shows how situations shape ethical action, Tenbrunsel and Messick explain how ethical aspects fade through self-deception and Haidt shows that confident moral intuitions guide reasoning. For the clinic, the misleading report came from ordinary processes, and safeguards that work before anyone feels tempted are the most reliable response.
References
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading: The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53
Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4306235
What the EDP 820 Module 2 instructions ask for
Module 2 of EDP 820 typically asks for a paper on ethical judgment and decision making. Use the Module 2 instructions in your Aspen course; the clinic is a composite. Explain models of how ethical decisions are made, including individual and situational influences. Explain why people sometimes act unethically without intending to. Apply the models to a case. Propose safeguards grounded in the research. Use APA 7, and avoid explaining failures only by bad character when the research shows that situations and self-deception play large roles. Distinguish what caused the problem from who is to blame, since the research suggests that situations and processes often matter more than individuals' intentions.
Inside the EDP 820 Module 2 example
Ruth, the composite clinic director, discovers that a report to a funder counted only clients who finished treatment when calculating improvement. Treviño's model links ethical decisions to individual cognitive moral development and to situational moderators such as reward systems and obedience to authority. Tenbrunsel and Messick describe how euphemism, gradual steps and self-deception let ethical aspects fade. Haidt argues that moral judgment begins with intuition and that reasoning often serves to justify it. A five-row table pairs processes with safeguards, and the clinic corrects the report and adopts an analysis plan fixed before data are seen. Sections address responsibility, the analyst's position and how the clinic will check that its safeguards are used.
Reading the EDP 820 Module 2 grading rubric
A strong ethical judgment paper explains how good people make poor choices and designs safeguards from the research. This example traces the report's development through small decisions, each defensible on its own, and shows how situational pressure and ethical fading worked together. Haidt's model explains why the team felt confident in its choices. Safeguards address each process: prespecified analysis, outside review and explicit naming of ethical stakes. The correction to the funder is presented as part of the ethical response. It also separates responsibility from blame, recognizing the analyst's limited power to question a senior faculty member, and checks whether the safeguards are actually used. The paper shows that the correction itself is an ethical act, not just damage control.
EDP 820 Module 2 help from the desk
Ethical judgment papers often blame individuals' character. Explain situational influences and self-deception with evidence. Trace how a poor outcome developed through small steps. Design safeguards that work even when people are confident they are right, such as decisions made before data are seen and outside review. Include correction of the harm, not only prevention. Separate explaining a failure from excusing it; people remain responsible even when situations push them. Consider the position of junior staff, who may lack power to object. Check that safeguards are used, not only adopted. Treat correcting a harm as part of the ethical response. Name who will check each safeguard and when.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 820 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 820 Module 1: Ethical Principles and Professional Standards
- EDP 820 Module 3: Ethics in Leadership
- EDP 820 Module 4: Organizational Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 5: The History of Research Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 6: Institutional Review and Informed Consent
- EDP 820 Module 7: Protecting Research Participants
- EDP 820 Module 8: An Ethics Plan for a Research Study
- EDO 818 Module 8: Cultural Intelligence and a Leadership Plan
- EDO 816 Module 5: Anticipating Change and Scenario Planning
- EDO 820 Module 6: Ethics in Public, Private and Nonprofit Governance
- EDP 810 Module 8: Leading Change Across the Frames
EDP 820 Module 2 questions, answered
What does EDP 820 Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 820 covers ethical judgment and decision making in this module, so a paper explaining how ethical decisions go wrong and proposing safeguards is typical. Check your Module 2 prompt.
What is ethical fading?
Tenbrunsel and Messick's name for self-deception that strips a choice of its moral coloring, so people do wrong without registering that they faced a moral choice.
What influences ethical decisions in organizations?
Treviño's model links them to individuals' moral development and to situational factors such as rewards, authority, organizational culture and job context.
Where can I find a free EDP 820 Module 2 sample paper?
The complete paper appears here: models of ethical decision making, ethical fading and intuition, applied to a misleading report, with a table of safeguards.
Is moral judgment based on reasoning?
Haidt's social intuitionist model holds that moral judgments usually arise from quick intuitions, with reasoning typically constructed afterward to justify them.