| Course | PS 130 Career Paths in Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Ethics and professional conduct paper |
| Length | About 1,090 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 130 Unit 7
A Twenty-Five-Dollar Gift Card and a Photo on a Coworker's Feed: Two Situations Worked Through the Numbered Standards of the RBT Ethics Code (2.0)
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 130: Career Paths in Psychology
Instructor Name
September 23, 2026
A Twenty-Five-Dollar Gift Card and a Photo on a Coworker's Feed: Two Situations Worked Through the Numbered Standards of the RBT Ethics Code (2.0)
Which Code Governs the Role
The role followed in this course, the Registered Behavior Technician, is governed by the RBT Ethics Code (2.0), issued by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB). The code took effect on January 1, 2022, and the version consulted here carries an August 2024 update (Behavior Analyst Certification Board [BACB], 2021). It applies to technicians in all of their work across settings, including homes, clinics and the community. It is not the only rule a technician answers to. The code itself directs technicians to follow applicable laws and the requirements of employers and other bodies, and it says that technicians should also be familiar with the code that governs their supervisors, the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts. A technician working in a clinic therefore answers to the technician code, to the employer's policies and to the law, and works under a supervisor who answers to a separate code. That supervisor's own certification is set out in the board's handbook for behavior analysts (BACB, 2026), and the technician's credential requires regular supervision of the technician's own sessions (BACB, 2025), which is the channel through which most of the questions below are meant to be raised.
How the Code Is Built
The code begins with four core principles that it shares with the code for behavior analysts: technicians benefit others; treat others with compassion, dignity and respect; behave with integrity; and ensure their own competence (BACB, 2021). These principles are the foundation, but they are not the standards a complaint is decided on. The enforceable standards are numbered and grouped into three sections: general responsibilities, responsibilities in providing services, and responsibilities to the BACB and the supervisor. A common mistake is to cite a principle, such as benefiting others, as though it settled a case. The analysis below cites numbered standards.
Situation 1: The Gift Card and the Birthday Party
A technician has worked with a five-year-old in the family's home three afternoons a week for eight months. In December the child's mother hands the technician a card containing a $25 gift card to a coffee shop and invites her to the child's birthday party in January, saying the child talks about her constantly.
The gift
Standard 1.11 addresses this directly. It states that technicians do not give gifts to or accept gifts from clients, stakeholders or supervisors with a monetary value of more than $10, though an occasional small gift of gratitude that brings no financial benefit is acceptable, and that technicians follow an employer's stricter policy where one exists (BACB, 2021). A $25 gift card exceeds the limit. The technician should decline it, warmly and with an explanation, and if the employer prohibits all gifts, even a small one would be declined.
The party
Attending the party is not a gift question but a relationship question. Standard 1.10 says technicians avoid multiple relationships with clients, meaning a mixing of roles, such as professional and friend, that may produce conflicts of interest and risk of harm to the client, and that if one develops, the technician informs the supervisor, works to resolve it and documents those actions (BACB, 2021). Attending a family celebration as a guest begins to make the technician a family friend, which could complicate her role, for example if she later needs to report concerns or end services.
What the technician does
She declines the gift card and the invitation, explains that the rules of her role do not allow either, thanks the mother sincerely, tells her supervisor the same day and writes a short note of what happened, as 1.10 requires when a multiple relationship may be developing. The provisions agree here, and the action is clear.
Situation 2: The Question From a Caregiver and the Photo
A technician running sessions in a clinic is approached by a grandmother who brings the child twice a week. The grandmother says she dislikes one part of the child's plan, a procedure for ignoring whining, and asks the technician to skip it on her days. The same week, the technician sees on social media that a coworker has posted a photo from the clinic's holiday party in which a client's face is visible.
The caregiver's request
Two standards apply. Standard 2.02 says technicians follow the direction of their supervisors and accurately implement services, and standard 2.06 says technicians direct any questions or concerns that they or others, including caregivers, have about services to their supervisor (BACB, 2021). The technician cannot agree to skip part of the plan, and she should not argue the plan's merits herself. She tells the grandmother that she will pass the concern to the supervisor, who can explain the procedure or consider changing it, and she does so.
The photo
Standard 2.09 states that technicians do not share identifying information about clients, including photos, on social media or websites, and standard 2.08 requires protecting clients' confidentiality and privacy (BACB, 2021). These standards bind the coworker if the coworker is a technician; the question for this technician is what to do about someone else's conduct. The code's introduction answers that: technicians first bring a suspected violation to their supervisor, document what they did, and report to the BACB if the matter is not resolved with the supervisor's support (BACB, 2021). She tells her supervisor, notes the date and what she saw, and does not comment publicly on the post.
Where Provisions Could Pull Apart
In these situations the provisions point the same way, but they can pull apart. If the grandmother's concern were not a preference but a report that the procedure seemed to distress the child in a way that suggested harm, standard 2.07 would also apply. It requires technicians to take necessary actions to protect clients when they become aware of a risk of harm, to report to the supervisor and document, and in some instances to contact relevant authorities (BACB, 2021). Following the supervisor's direction under 2.02 would then be subordinate to protecting the client. The code's introduction says that when interpreting the code, technicians prioritize the law and the client's interest, which is how such a conflict is resolved.
What the Paper Does Not Do
It does not interpret employer policies or state law, which a technician must also follow and which vary. And it uses composite situations; anything that actually happened at a workplace belongs in a conversation with a supervisor, not in a class paper.
References
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2021). RBT ethics code (2.0). https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/RBT-Ethics-Code-240830-a.pdf
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2025). Guidance for meeting RBT requirements during the 2026 transition. https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/RBT-2026-Requirements_250723-a.pdf
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2026). Board Certified Behavior Analyst handbook. https://bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/BCBAHandbook_251223-a.pdf
The Herzing PS 130 Unit 7 instructions
The seventh PS 130 unit asks students to identify the ethics code governing their target role and apply it. Expect to name the issuing body and the edition in force, briefly explain how the code is structured, especially the difference between general principles and enforceable standards, then work two or three concrete situations through the specific provisions that apply, citing them by number. Where provisions pull in different directions, explain how the code resolves the tension. If your role is not licensed, the governing code may come from a credentialing body or employer. Short quotations are acceptable with page numbers, but paraphrase usually reads better. Workplace incidents should be replaced with composites.
How the PS 130 Unit 7 example is put together
The sample opens by naming the code, the board, the effective date and the update, and explains that technicians also answer to law, employers and a supervisor bound by another code. A short section separates the four principles from the numbered standards. The first situation, a gift card and an invitation, is worked through the gift and multiple-relationship standards under run-in headings, ending in a concrete action. The second, a caregiver's request and a social media photo, uses the standards on supervision, questions, confidentiality and social media, plus the code's reporting path. A closing section shows how the harm standard would take priority if the facts changed.
Where the points sit in the PS 130 Unit 7 rubric
Herzing's rubric for the ethics and professional conduct paper usually awards points for identifying the governing code correctly, explaining its structure, applying specific numbered provisions to concrete situations, resolving conflicts between provisions and professional writing. Identification earns credit when the issuing body and edition are named. Structure scores when principles are kept separate from enforceable standards. Application is typically the most heavily weighted criterion, rewarding situations described concretely and worked through provisions by number. Conflict resolution earns points when the writer explains the code's own priority rule. Writing is judged partly on avoiding long quotation. Situations described with enough detail to show which standard applies tend to score best.
Common PS 130 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Ethics papers lose points when they summarize the whole code instead of applying parts of it. Another frequent mistake is citing a general principle, such as benefiting others, as if it decided a case. Students often describe situations vaguely, so no provision clearly applies. Some quote long passages instead of explaining them. Others cite the wrong code, for example a psychologists' code for a role governed by a different body. Writing up a real workplace incident can expose colleagues and clients. If you are unsure which code governs your role, our writers can help you identify it and work your situations through it. Ignoring the reporting path the code sets out, such as raising a concern with a supervisor first, is another gap.
Get a PS 130 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Drop the Unit 7 instructions into a message with your PS 130 rubric and the role or code your section works from. The custom example identifies the governing document, separates principles from standards, and works each situation to a position with numbered provisions cited. First sample at no cost, ready in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 130 papers and psychology samples
- PS 130 Unit 1: Field overview discussion
- PS 130 Unit 2: Role research paper
- PS 130 Unit 3: Credential and licensure analysis
- PS 130 Unit 4: Employment outlook paper
- PS 130 Unit 5: Informational interview write-up
- PS 130 Unit 6: Graduate program comparison
- PS 130 Unit 8: Career development plan
- PS 303 Unit 7: Research ethics analysis
- PS 323 Unit 7: Intersectionality analysis
- PS 350 Unit 7: Problem solving and decision paper
- PS 101 Unit 7: Psychological disorder overview
PS 130 Unit 7 questions, answered
Which code applies if my role is not licensed?
Many unlicensed positions still sit under a professional association's code, an employer's conduct policy, or both, and some sit under rules attached to a funding source. Say in the paper which document you are working from and why it governs the role, since an analysis built on a code that does not reach the position is analyzing an obligation nobody has.
Can I quote the code directly?
Sparingly, and with a citation. A short quoted phrase anchoring your reading of a standard is normal practice, while pages of reproduced text replace the analysis the criterion is measuring. Paraphrase the provision, cite it by number, and quote only the words your argument actually turns on. Your instructions may set a limit, so check before you draft.
Can I write up something that happened at my workplace?
Build a composite instead. A real incident written down carries colleagues, clients and an employer who never agreed to appear, and conduct matters are often confidential by policy or by law. A situation assembled from ordinary patterns tests the same provisions, and saying in the paper that it is constructed protects everyone without weakening the analysis at all.
Where can I find a free PS 130 Unit 7 sample paper?
Free to read in full, the PS 130 Unit 7 ethics and professional conduct paper comes with two situations worked through numbered standards and margin notes. For your role's code, send the instructions and a matching paper is written for you at no cost, often within 48 hours.
Which code applies in PS 130 Unit 7 if my role is not licensed?
The code of the body that grants its credential, plus employer policy and law. The sample uses the certification board's technician code because the technician role is credentialed rather than licensed by the state.