| Course | PSY 650 Ethics |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Boundary case analysis |
| Length | About 1,004 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSY 650 Module 6
A Roof for Sessions? Multiple Relationships, Bartering and Boundaries in a Small Town
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PSY 650: Ethics
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
A Roof for Sessions? Multiple Relationships, Bartering and Boundaries in a Small Town
Jim, fifty-one, has seen Hannah at her Montana practice for four months for depression after a back injury ended his work as a roofer. He was recently laid off from a lighter job and lost his insurance. At the end of a session, he said he could not afford to continue but had noticed water stains on the practice's ceiling. He offered to repair the roof, which Hannah's family owns along with the building, in exchange for weekly sessions. Jim, Hannah and the practice are invented for this course. This paper analyzes the offer.
Crossings and Violations
Not every departure from a strictly professional relationship is harmful. A boundary crossing, such as attending a client's graduation at their request, may be harmless or even helpful. A boundary violation harms or exploits the client. The distinction matters because rigid avoidance of all crossings can make clinicians cold and, in small communities, impossible to practice, while careless crossings can slide into violations. The question is not whether a relationship overlaps, but whether it risks harm.
What the Code Says
Under the APA Ethics Code, a multiple relationship exists when a psychologist who serves someone professionally also holds a second role with that person or with someone close to them (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). It does not forbid all such relationships. It prohibits those that could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity, competence or effectiveness, or that risk exploitation or harm to the person. The code also addresses bartering specifically: psychologists may barter only if the arrangement is not clinically contraindicated and is not exploitative. Jim's offer would create both a multiple relationship, client and contractor, and a barter.
Disagreement Among Practitioners
Pope et al. (1987) found that psychologists disagreed considerably about whether many boundary-related behaviors were ethical, including accepting services or goods in place of fees. Some saw such arrangements as reasonable in some circumstances; others saw them as clearly unethical. The disagreement shows that codes leave room for judgment and that a structured process helps.
A Risk-Management Decision Process
Younggren and Gottlieb (2004) proposed questions to ask before entering a multiple relationship. Is the additional relationship necessary, or can it be avoided? Is there potential for it to harm the client? If harm is unlikely, would it benefit the client? Is there a risk that it could disrupt the therapeutic relationship? Can the clinician evaluate the matter objectively? They also emphasized consulting colleagues and documenting the reasoning.
Applied to Jim's offer, the answers were sobering. The relationship was not necessary: other ways of making treatment affordable existed. Its potential for harm was real. If Jim's back injury flared during the work, Hannah would be responsible for a client injured on her property. If the work was poor or delayed, Hannah would face the choice between raising it with a client in therapy and accepting substandard work. If she was pleased, Jim might feel his value to her lay in his labor. Valuing hours of roofing against sessions would itself be awkward. The benefit to Jim, a sense of contributing rather than receiving charity, was real but could be met in other ways. The risk of disrupting therapy was significant, since much of Jim's depression concerned the loss of his physical work, a sensitive theme that the arrangement would touch directly. And Hannah could not be fully objective: she owned the building and needed the roof fixed.
Options
| Option | Meets Jim's need for continued care | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Accept the barter | Yes | High: injury, disputes over quality, loss of objectivity, clinical complications |
| End treatment | No | High: abandons a depressed client |
| Reduced fee under the practice's sliding scale | Yes | Low; the practice already offers it |
| Referral to a community clinic with free services | Yes, with a change of counselor | Low, but disrupts an established relationship |
The Decision
Hannah declined the barter and offered Jim a reduced fee under the practice's sliding scale, which his current income qualified for. She explained her reasons honestly and warmly: that she appreciated the offer and his skill, that mixing their work together could complicate their sessions and put his back at risk, and that she wanted to keep their time focused on him. She also acknowledged that the offer reflected something important, his wish to be useful, and suggested they explore that in their sessions. Jim was disappointed briefly but accepted the reduced fee. Hannah consulted a colleague before the conversation and documented the offer, the consultation, her reasoning and the outcome.
How the Arrangement Could Have Gone Wrong
Picture the barter actually taking place. Jim would spend several days on the roof of a building Hannah owns, during weeks when he is also confiding in her about his depression and his injured back. If he slipped, Hannah would face questions about liability on her property. If he finished the work well, sessions might drift toward gratitude and away from his grief over his lost trade. If he finished it badly, Hannah would have to choose between paying someone else to redo it and keeping quiet. None of these outcomes is unusual, which is why Younggren and Gottlieb urge clinicians to think through how a second relationship could fail before agreeing to it.
Small-Town Practice
In a town of eight thousand, Hannah will meet clients at the grocery store, at school events and on the soccer sidelines. Some overlapping contact cannot be avoided, and treating every encounter as a violation would make practice impossible. Jim's offer was different because it was avoidable, involved a financial exchange and touched the clinical work directly.
Conclusion
Not all multiple relationships are unethical, but the APA Ethics Code prohibits those likely to impair objectivity or risk harm and permits bartering only under narrow conditions. Younggren and Gottlieb's questions showed that Jim's offer was unnecessary, risky and likely to complicate treatment, and Pope and colleagues' findings explain why such questions need structured reasoning. A sliding fee met Jim's need without the risks.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
Pope, K. S., Tabachnick, B. G., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1987). Ethics of practice: The beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as therapists. American Psychologist, 42(11), 993-1006. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.11.993
Younggren, J. N., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2004). Managing risk when contemplating multiple relationships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(3), 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.3.255
PSY 650 Module 6 instructions, in plain terms
Multiple relationships and boundaries are the sixth module of PSY 650, and assignments usually ask for a case analysis using a structured decision process. Follow the Module 6 instructions in your Aspen course; the client here is fictional. Distinguish boundary crossings from boundary violations. Identify the code standards that apply, including any on bartering. Work through a named decision process, answering each question for the case. Compare options, including alternatives that meet the client's need without a second relationship. Explain your decision and how you will document it. Give APA 7 references, including the current code. Explain how you would tell the client your decision, since the conversation itself can strengthen or damage the relationship.
How the PSY 650 Module 6 example is put together
Jim, a composite roofer who has lost his job and insurance, offers to repair Hannah's roof in exchange for weekly sessions. The APA Ethics Code's standards on multiple relationships and on bartering set the limits. Younggren and Gottlieb's Professional Psychology article supplies questions about necessity, harm, benefit, objectivity and documentation. Pope, Tabachnick and Keith-Spiegel's survey shows disagreement among practitioners about bartering. A four-row table weighs four options. Hannah declines the barter and offers a reduced fee under the practice's sliding scale, explaining her reasons to Jim and documenting the decision. She also turns his offer into a theme for therapy, his wish to be useful after losing his trade.
Where the marks sit in the PSY 650 Module 6 rubric
Boundary analyses earn credit for applying the code accurately, using a decision process step by step and finding options that meet the client's need without unnecessary risk. This example explains why not every multiple relationship is forbidden and why this one carries particular risks. Younggren and Gottlieb's questions are answered for the case, not just listed. The options table includes a creative alternative, a sliding fee. The decision is explained to the client respectfully. The paper recognizes that small-town practice makes some overlapping relationships unavoidable, while showing why this one could be avoided. The clinical meaning of the offer is noticed, not just its risks, which is the mark of an analysis grounded in the client's treatment.
PSY 650 Module 6 help from the desk
Boundary papers often treat every overlapping relationship as forbidden or every request as acceptable. Distinguish crossings that may help from violations that harm. Apply the code's specific standards. Answer a decision model's questions for the case. Look for alternatives that meet the client's need. Consider how the arrangement could go wrong, for example if the work were poor. Consult and document. Explain your decision to the client in a way that protects the relationship, since a refusal delivered badly can feel like rejection to someone already struggling. Check whether your practice already has a way to meet the need, such as a sliding scale, before treating a request as a dilemma.
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 PSY 650 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PSY 650 Module 1: Philosophical Foundations of Ethics
- PSY 650 Module 2: Ethical Principles in Psychology
- PSY 650 Module 3: Professional Codes of Ethics
- PSY 650 Module 4: Confidentiality and Privacy
- PSY 650 Module 5: Informed Consent and Competence
- PSY 650 Module 7: Research Ethics
- PSY 650 Module 8: Ethical Decision Making in Practice
- PAC 302 Module 6: Selecting and Administering Tests
- PAC 411 Module 6: Human Behavior and the Social Environment
- PAC 410 Module 6: Bereavement, Grief and Loss
- PAC 414 Module 7: Trauma and the Needs of Maltreated Children
PSY 650 Module 6 questions, answered
What does PSY 650 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's PSY 650 covers multiple relationships and boundaries in this module, so a case analysis using a decision process is typical. Check your Module 6 prompt.
Are all multiple relationships unethical?
No. The APA Ethics Code prohibits multiple relationships that could reasonably be expected to impair objectivity or effectiveness or risk exploitation or harm; others are not unethical.
Is bartering with clients allowed?
The APA code permits bartering only if it is not clinically contraindicated and the arrangement is not exploitative; many clinicians avoid bartering for services because of the risks.
Where can I find a free PSY 650 Module 6 sample paper?
The full case analysis is above: boundary crossings and violations, Younggren and Gottlieb's questions applied and a table of options for a bartering offer.
What is the difference between a boundary crossing and a boundary violation?
A crossing steps outside the usual frame without hurting anyone and sometimes helps; a violation steps outside it in a way that harms or takes advantage of the client.