Question 1) Discussion of the recognition and resolution surrounding personal biases.
As a behaviour analyst, one is expected to avoid personal biases when dealing with individual clients, as this may have notable impacts on the ability towards making a professional judgment. Rogerson, Gottlieb, Handelsman, Knapp, & Younggren (2011) indicate that personal and situational features of a dilemma often have a serious implication on its resolution, as it exposes the possibility of conflicts of interests and self-serving biases. From this perspective, it is clear that indeed behaviour analysts are likely to encounter severe challenges in dealing with personal preferences as part of their responsibilities to analyze human behaviour from an impartial point of view. The recognition of personal biases would only be achieved if the behaviour analyst involved understanding that their personal biases are likely to affect the outcomes of the results gathered. In other words, this means that the inclusion of personal preferences creates a high possibility of gathering inaccurate results.
In a bid to resolving issues touching on personal biases, behaviour analysts are expected to rely on the existing code of ethics that define their capacity to provide their service. The system of ethics for behaviour analysts indicates that they must always rely on "professionally derived knowledge based on science and behaviour analysis” (BAC BOARD, 2014). Basically, the specific code seeks to ensure that behaviour analysts avoid any form of personal biases while engaging in the overall process of behavioural analysis. The code reflects on a valid point to aid in the resolution of personal biases, which is to ensure that the analysts rely on data that can be supported professionally. That means that behaviour analysts will seek to ensure that they avoid any actions that can be termed as being unprofessional, leading to distortion of the results.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Question 2) Discussion of the steps you would take to ensure that there is no bias in your treatment (Heuristics).
During treatment (Heuristics), it is essential to take several key steps that would help ensure that no bias may result in the distortion of the outcomes. The first key step taken is to determine the consistency of the information gathered as part of the analysis. Conceptual consistency is a key element of consideration for behaviour analysts, as it helps in ensuring that the results they gather can be supported with behaviour-analytic principles (Bailey & Burch, 2016). It is from this perspective that a behaviour analyst would always be expected to use the principles based on the data gathered. The principles will help guide the expected results that would be reflective of the intended objectives as part of the treatment.
The second step to be taken is to avoid any form of conflict of interest, as this may have a negative outcome of the treatment process. From the code of ethics, behaviour analysts should not, in any way, accept or give gifts to their clients, as this would be constituted as multiple relationships to justify the existence of a conflict of interest (BAC BOARD, 2014). By avoiding conflict of interests, the possible outcome is that the treatment approaches taken would be most appropriate while considering the accuracy of the results. Additionally, this would also aid in ensuring that I, as the behaviour analyst, remain impartial regardless of the relationship that I may have developed with the client. From a professional point of view, avoiding conflict of interests serves as a critical outcome that seeks to improve on a behaviour analyst professional conduct; thus, allowing for best possible results.
References
BAC BOARD. (2014). Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts. Retrieved from https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/BACB-Compliance-Code-english_190318.pdf
Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2006). Ethics for behaviour analysts: A practical guide to the Behavior Analyst Certification Board guidelines for responsible conduct . Routledge.
Rogerson, M. D., Gottlieb, M. C., Handelsman, M. M., Knapp, S., & Younggren, J. (2011). Nonrational processes in ethical decision making. American Psychologist , 66 (7), 614.
