Take home assignment 2

Name: Yijie He
Student Number: s2476487
1.1 knowledge
1.2 information regarding behavior, outcomes
1.3 process model

1.4
I would advise Leiden municipality to integrate all relevant information about
free of natural gas into an official booklet. And then the municipality can send the
booklets to different house owners, and also post its e-version on its official website.
From the case study, we learned that there was lots of incorrect information and some
of the information was difficultly accessible. And these are the main causes for not so
many house owners to free their natural gas. Thereby, I recommend the municipality
provides information as regards free of natural gas. As the information now can be
easily accessed and also being totally correct. There could be a estimated increase in
house owners to free their natural gas.

2.1
Government could talk about the issue of less exercise in newspaper or TV
program. The news could state that there is a large decline in exercise all over
Netherlands. And government can also ask some statistician or psychologists to
discuss the issue. The framing approach highlights the problem of insufficient
exercise, which could influence citizens to engage in exercise. However, a key
problem here is the framing ability of the government largely depends on whether it’s
credible and trustworthy. In the corona related situation, the national credibility of
Netherlands has been challenged for many times. Framing approach could be rather
ineffective in current situation.

2.2
Government could post or advertise some information about the importance to
exercise under the corona situation. They could use researches explain to general
public that exercising under a lock-down situation is especially important and
necessary. The strong message could shift the belief in citizen, inform them the
importance to exercise. This persuasive approach could be pretty effective. As there
could be no competition for ideas in this situation, and no challenge to the message
itself.

2.3
Government could build an online exercising forum for general public to
participate in. In the forum, government could fund for some exercise activities. And
citizens discuss with others who have similar hobbies in exercising. In this sense,
norm of regular exercise could be created. If the norm of regular exercises being
created, then the policy could be very effective, as the policy take advantages from
public shared expectations, this expectation could be beneficial to the whole society.
However, problems exist as government has low control over certain consequences,
and also if government doesn’t spend enough time and money into the project, it
would also be less effective.

3.1
Principle: beneficence and nonmaleficence. Not participate. Psychologists are
supposed to seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact
professionally and other affected persons. In this case study, we are supposed to
develop strategies to increase the number of vaccinated health care and frontline
workers. Although taking vaccination could make the society better, we trade the
benefits of the whole society at the cost of these people’s unwillingness. I consider
psychologists need to take others’ willingness into account, we must not harm others
or oblige others do something that against their thought.
3.2
Principle: Justice. Not participate. Psychologists are supposed to fairness and
justice entitle all persons to access to and benefit from the contributions of
psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being
conducted by psychologists. However, in this project, the targeting is unfair and
injustice. The research is intended to focus on the Black and Hispanic population. If
we consider the vaccination is beneficial, then we should not only focus on the Black
and Hispanic. If we consider the vaccination is harmful, then we shouldn’t influence
the population to take vaccination.

3.3
Principle: Respect. Not Participate. Psychologists should respect the dignity and
worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-
determination. In this case, the black and Hispanic population has very negative idea
on vaccination, and they refuse taking it. We should respect others’ self-determination,
we cannot decide for others what are good for them.

3.4
In general, I wouldn’t participate in the research, as the research breaks out the
ethical principles in APA guideline. Although it intended to bring benefits to the
whole society, it overlooked the interest of minority. It go against the willingness of
these population.

4
Article 16 & Article 24
When psychologists giving official reports about one specific person, she must
act accordance with professional standards in practicing her profession. However, in
the case study, the psychologist hasn’t made any formal therapist session. Therefore,
the report she gave has no any professional background supports. As the psychologists
uses the template of her company and title as a psychologist, this could be very
inappropriate. Secondly, psychologists must exercise restraint when making
professional statement about person. They should be aware of their responsibility to
prevent harm. In the case study, the psychologist’s professional statement about A
severely influenced the interest of A, and also brought great harm to A. In the case,
the statement could be the cause of the divorce. As the psychologist wasn’t
considering her responsibility in preventing harm others, she did not act in accordance
with the Professional Code.