Abstract

This study explored psychologists' perceptions of confidentiality violations. One hundred ninety-five psychologists answered questionnaires about a vignette regarding a male therapist accused of violating the confidentiality of a female client. The vignette varied on the following variables: Confidential information was conveyed to either an insurance company or another client, the therapist's account of the violation included either an excuse or a justification, and scapegoating was included or not included in the account. The insurance condition and excuse condition produced more lenient judgments of the violation. However, excuses elicited more negative judgments of the therapist. Scapegoating generally elicited more negative judgments. Differences in the recipient of confidential information and the accounts given for violations have an impact on psychologists' perceptions of confidentiality violations.