BUSINESS MANAGEMENT GREAT WORK, ON TIME, NO PLAGARISM, A+ WORK

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 53(5), 2016 C© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pits DOI: 10.1002/pits.21920

CONFRONTING THE UBIQUITY OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA: ETHICAL AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL

PRACTICE

JOSEPH A. DEMERS AND AMANDA L. SULLIVAN

University of Minnesota

Most U.S. children and adults use computers and the Internet on a daily basis. The pervasiveness of electronic communication in a variety of contexts, including home and school, raises ethical and legal concerns for school psychologists and those in related fields of practice, because of the risks to privacy and confidentiality, boundaries, competence, and students’ well-being. We detail the legal and ethical dilemmas school psychologists may face in electronic data storage and transmission, use of social networking, and efforts to address cyber bullying. We review relevant legal and ethical guidelines and provide recommendations for training and practice. C© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Electronic communication technologies, such as e-mail and social networking, are common- place in most peoples’ daily lives. Indeed, they are standard features at home and in most workplaces, including schools. New technologies, such as smart phones, are quickly developed and integrated into personal and professional contexts. Many people regard these tools as invaluable, but these tech- nologies have limitations and risks, particularly where privacy, security, and professional boundaries are concerned. The use of electronic communication and social media in psychologists’ professional activities and by students in school requires consideration of ethical and legal implications of per- sonal and professional use. Although professional guidelines do not explicitly address use of these technologies, practice must be in accord with general ethical and legal parameters for responsible conduct. In this article, we review the status of electronic communication, social networking, and cyber bullying in professional practice and education; summarize related ethical standards and law; and provide recommendations for ethically and legally sound technology use by school psycholo- gists. In reviewing not just ethical standards, but recommended practices, relevant statues, and case law, this article extends recent publications on these topics, which have focused more on ethical standards in specific contexts (e.g., Pham, 2014).

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL MEDIA USE IN THE UNITED STATES

Today, the Internet is accessible to nearly every household in the United States (U.S. Department of Commerce [USDOC], 2013). Based on 2011 data, more than three quarters of the nation’s households have at least one computer, and nearly 72% have Internet access. Smartphones are commonplace, accounting for more than a quarter of the devices used to access the Internet (Census Bureau, 2012). Demographic differences in Internet usage exist, although less pronounced than in the past, with Asian (82.7%) and White (76.2%) households reporting more access than Hispanic (58.3%) or Black (59.2%) households. Children are the fastest growing group of mobile technology users, whereas households with residents older than 55 years of age are the least likely to use the Internet (Shuler, 2009).

Given the pervasiveness of Internet access, electronic communication is also commonplace. Approximately 70% of all Americans report using e-mail, an increase of 50% in just 10 years (Purcell, 2011). Of Americans older than 25 years of age, 72% use the Internet every day, and 77%

Correspondence to: Joseph Demers, University of Minnesota, Department of Educational Psychology, 250 Education Science Bldg. 56 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0364. E-mail: [email protected]

517

518 Demers and Sullivan

rely on it for personal communication (USDOC, 2013). Worldwide, more than 144 billion e-mails are exchanged daily, with more than 60% occurring in professional context (Radicati Group, 2012). Two thirds of people use at least one form social media, and use is common among individuals younger than 30 years of age (Dugan & Brenner, 2013). Facebook, the most commonly used social media site, boasted 1.39 billion users worldwide in 2014, more than 19% of the human population (Dugan & Brenner, 2013).Taken together, these estimates of access underscore the pervasiveness of electronic communication.

ELECTRONIC VULNERABILITIES

Recognizing the growing role of technology media in the lives of students and teachers, the authors of the National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP’s) Blueprint III identified technological applications as a foundational competency of school psychology, emphasizing that technological competence intersects with all domains of practice (Ysseldyke et al., 2006). It is unlikely, however, that the authors anticipated the rapid pace of technological advancement and the unintended uses and consequences of these technologies. Although professional ethical codes apply to electronic communication, these codes are necessarily broad, and clinicians may find it challenging to distill implications for specific technology uses. Although some recent publications have anticipated some ethical dilemmas related to specific forms of electronic communication (e.g., Pfohl & Jarmuz-Smith, 2014; Pham, 2014), these authors did not address relevant case law that might help inform personal practices and organizational policies.

Although technology can provide numerous advantages in the workplace, it also introduces several challenges, including increased vulnerability of private information. Given both the preva- lence of online communication and the rate at which it develops, those unprepared for navigating myriad ethical and security concerns may inadvertently place themselves and their clients at risk. Unauthorized electronic access of personal data, e-mail accounts, and financial and health data from large corporate and government databases occurs frequently (Berkes, 2012; Serwer, 2012). Profes- sionals, including educators and other school-based practitioners, may face serious consequences for the inappropriate use of electronic media or misappropriation of their data. Reports of profes- sionals terminated over personal information discovered on the Internet, often inadvertently, are increasingly common (e.g., Stelter, 2011). Recent case law indicates that the courts will not wait for professional organizations to establish guidelines (Fulmer, 2010), leaving individual practitioners subject to disciplinary and even legal action related to their online activity. In the following sections, we describe the ethical and legal challenges related to electronic data, social media, and students’ inappropriate online behavior. Table 1 provides relevant ethical principles from the ethics codes of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010) and the NASP (2010).

DATA TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE

A key advantage to the widespread adoption of computers in the workplace is the ease with which information can be stored and retrieved. Documents that would have previously filled entire offices are now easily retained on small, easily portable computers, hard drives, and flash drives, as well as the cloud. The digital format of documents also allows them to be sent via Internet connections in a matter of seconds, greatly reducing reliance on postal mail and fax transmission. Whereas practitioners may have a clear understanding of steps for securing information stored in paper files, electronic storage and transmission present unique vulnerabilities. Hackers capitalize on the naiveté of others, and although psychoeducational consultants and school psychologists may not become technological experts, the threat hackers pose requires clinicians to develop a basic understanding of digital security.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Electronic Communication and Practice 519

Table 1 Ethical Standards and Guidelines Pertinent to Dilemmas Arising with Electronic Communications

Domain Standard/Guidelinea Potential Dilemmas

Respect for rights and dignity

School psychologists engage in professional practices that demonstrate respect for all persons and preserve the dignity and autonomy of those with whom they work.

Psychologists may review personal information available online about clients, without client consent.

Using e-mail to communicate about cases may expose client information to third parties.

Boundaries of competence

School psychologists provide services only within the boundaries of their competence, based on training and professional experience and pursue ongoing training to maintain competence.

Psychologists may use technologies without adequate knowledge of risks posed to clients.

School psychologists rarely receive training in investigating and intervening in online misconduct, but may be involved in addressing student online misconduct.

Using e-mail and other forms of electronic communication rather than in-person conversations may limit the quality of care provided in consultation.

Multiple relationships School psychologists avoid multiple relationships and personal interests that compromise professional effectiveness.

Personal information on psychologists available online may breach the limits of the professional relationship.

Informed consent School psychologists obtain and document informed consent and work to ensure that parties giving consent are fully informed of potential risks, including risks to confidentiality.

Clients may not have provided consent for the electronic transmission of information.

Maintaining confidentiality

School psychologists respect the rights of persons to self-determine disclosures of personal information and take reasonable precautions to protect personal information obtained or stored through any medium.

E-mails containing client data may be read by unintended recipients.

Minimizing intrusions of privacy

School psychologists work to minimize intrusions on privacy by not retaining information that is not required for services.

E-mail records may be requested through administrative or legal procedures, exposing client data without the client’s consent.

Confidential records School psychologists safeguard privacy and maintain confidentiality in storing, transferring, and disposing of records.

Electronic files may be accessed by individuals without legitimate interest in a client, particularly when computers are connected to the Internet.

Files sent via e-mail may be easily intercepted by parties without a legitimate interest in the client.

Accepting responsibility for actions

School psychologists are aware of their professional responsibilities and monitor the effectiveness of their services.

Psychologists may use technology in practice without understanding how their actions may place clients and client data at risk.

Respect for the law School psychologists are aware of the legal requirements of their work and respect the civil and legal rights of clients.

School psychologists intervening in students’ online or electronic misconduct may be asked to collect information in a manner that violates students’ legal rights to privacy.

Where applicable, psychologists must be aware of the legal guidelines for storing and transmitting client data set forth in HIPAA.

aAPA (2010); NASP (2010). Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

520 Demers and Sullivan

The APA ethics code (2010) explicitly extends to electronic communication, although no spe- cific recommendations are offered. Broadly speaking, relevant ethical obligations include avoiding harm to clients; protecting clients’ privacy and confidentiality; securely maintaining, disseminating, and disposing of confidential records; maintaining the dignity of clients; and ensuring only the appropriate release of client data (APA, 2010). The NASP (2010) code references electronic data just once, but NASP provided recommendations for the safe use of computers separately (Harvey & Carlson, 2003; see also Pfohl & Jarmuz-Smith, 2014). These recommendations may not be specific enough, however, given more recent technological advances, for the individual practitioner who seeks to modify computer hardware and day-to-day practices to protect client information from malicious intent or illegitimate interest. Nonetheless, the onus is on the practitioner to manage his or her data securely in any professional context.

Communication

The exchange of information over e-mail leaves a permanent record that can be accessed at any time and may be intercepted by others (DeCoster, O’Mally, & Iselin, 2011). This susceptibility includes instances when psychologists transmit client data to outside agencies for billing purposes (Harvey & Carlson, 2003), e-mail student information to colleagues and parents, and save information in the cloud. Although the transmission of these data may facilitate service provision, it opens confidential client data to potential dissemination beyond those with a legitimate interest in the data. DeCoster et al. (2011) recommend using encryption software to encrypt sensitive e-mails to prevent their contents from being intercepted. In addition to malicious hacking, a message may also be inadvertently sent to the wrong address, exposing its contents to a third party, necessitating diligence in all activities.

Electronic communication may play an increasing role in psychological consultation and basic day-to-day communications, especially given constraints on staff time. The exchange of client information via e-mail inadvertently replaces what would otherwise have likely been a private in- person communication. Some individuals may question whether responding to e-mail messages in the midst of completing other computer-based tasks provides the same quality of service as a one-on-one meeting dedicated to the purpose of developing or evaluating an intervention. When electronic communication reduces the quality of service provided, the diminished quality of care is an ethical misstep on the part of the psychologist (Harvey & Carlson, 2003). Consequently, school psychologists may ask themselves: Do I need to conduct this exchange through e-mail? How would I conduct this exchange if e-mail did not exist? If it seems that using electronic communication would limit the quality of a consultation, a face-to-face conversation is warranted.

Psychologists may also seek consultation from professional networks via listservs or other digital means (e.g., professional blogs or social networking sites). When seeking consultation from unfamiliar colleagues (e.g., the general membership of a listserv or readership of a professional blog), the individual should be clear about the necessary expertise of the consultant sought and take care to fully conceal the identity of the client. Kolmes (2012) suggested specifying the clinician characteristics and expertise needed rather than the client’s characteristics, particularly those related to sociodemographic characteristics or location (e.g., stating the need for a consultant with expertise in treating generalized anxiety in elementary-age children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds as opposed to expertise in treating a 9-year old Vietnamese boy with generalized anxiety). Whether communicating with colleagues, consultees, or clients, psychologists should be mindful to protect clients’ confidentiality and to discuss clients respectfully. Such concerns are especially salient, given research demonstrating that people seem to have fewer inhibitions when communicating digitally than in person (Law, Shapka, Domene, & Gagné, 2012).

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Electronic Communication and Practice 521

Practitioners must remember that electronic communication is not private, particularly when it occurs through employer-provided e-mail addresses or servers (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 2012). Constitutionally, employees have no expectation of privacy in electronic communications using employer-provided e-mail accounts, computers, or mobile devises (City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010)). In addition, electronic communications may be accessed in employment disputes or student-related issues (e.g., allegations of procedural violations). E-mail is protected from unlawful searches (United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010); Perry, 2011), but is generally discoverable, or subject to disclosure during legal proceedings, reinforcing school psychologists’ responsibility to preserve client confidentiality in the event of legal proceedings in which such records are requested (Jacob, Decker, & Hartshorne, 2010). Furthermore, as public employees of state agencies, public school staff members’ e-mails may be susceptible to public search, as evidenced by recent large-scale public disclosures of politicians’ e-mails (e.g., Warren, 2011). If e-mails contain client data, this data would again be subject to review by parties without a legitimate interest in clients.

As such, psychologists should keep in mind that any e-mail they send may potentially be part of their employment record or a student’s public record and temper the nature and content of these communications accordingly. Practitioners can omit clients’ identifying information (e.g., identification numbers, names, family information, demographic characteristics) from messages to reduce the chances the student could be recognized if messages are intercepted or retrieved in unintended ways.

Just as electronic communication facilitates collaboration with professional colleagues, it also allows for more interactions with clients. Although the extension of services to the client is generally a laudable goal, it is important for psychologists to be aware of the subtext of such availability, depending on the needs of the client. It is important for practitioners to avoid uses of electronic communication that increase a client’s dependency (Harvey & Carlson, 2003). Psychologists should be vigilant against inclinations toward unprofessional communication in digital contexts and should consider developing policies for electronic communication with clients (Barnett, 2008). When practitioners opt to use e-mail, text messages, or video chat to communicate with clients, the psychologist should describe the general circumstances under which such communication should occur, both from the client and from the psychologist, and circumstances under which digital content provided by the client will be viewed outside of scheduled sessions. Practitioners should strive for transparency in the description of acceptable and expected behaviors for both parties, as well as the accompanying rationale. These topics should be discussed at the outset of the professional relationship and revisited as necessary (Devereaux & Gottlieb, 2012).

Data Storage and Security

When using electronic communication, psychologists are responsible for ensuring the security of any data transmitted or stored. Unfortunately, although most school psychologists use e-mail to communicate with colleagues, clients, and consultants, few report knowledge of guidelines for use of this technology or use of precautions to protect client data (Florell, 2011). Further, the diversity of hardware and software available means that individual psychologists use a variety of system configurations, each with potentially unique vulnerabilities. One nearly universal vulnerability, however, is connection to the Internet. Any computer connected to the Internet poses a continuous security risk for client data (Harvey & Carlson, 2003; Nicholson, 2011).

Both NASP (2010) and APA (2010) state that psychologists are responsible for knowing the limits to data security associated with electronic storage of records and the use of electronic communication. APA’s (2007) record-keeping guidelines provide some guidance on how to meet

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

522 Demers and Sullivan

these responsibilities, including securing hardware, creating password-protected files and folders, limiting the use of networked computers, and preventing others’ unnecessary access to hardware. In addition, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) mandates specific requirements for the storage and transmission of protected health information, including information routinely contained in psychological case files. These rules include recommendations for determining the susceptibility of one’s data to intrusion or interception. Failure to comply with HIPAA security rules may leave one open to civil suits, fines, and even imprisonment (American Psychological Association, 2005). Although school psychologists are generally not able to prevent cyber attacks or nefarious interception of electronic transmissions, they can be proactive to ensure that any damage caused by such a theft will be minimal by using recommended practices, such as those listed in Table 2. Although no measure is foolproof, implementing these strategies can greatly reduce the likelihood that client information may be accessed improperly or lost.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Two thirds of Internet users use social networking, and among adults younger than 50 years of age, the rate is approximately 80% (Duggan & Brenner, 2013). Although some authors recommend that school psychologists avoid social media entirely (Pfohl & Jarmuz-Smith, 2014), responsible usage is likely a more palatable option for most professionals. This widespread use of social media means that issues of appropriate activity permeate professional contexts, because both practitioners and their clients are likely users. Through various social media platforms, a plethora of personal information is disseminated in the form of text, photos, and video. Although users can apply privacy settings, any electronic data stored on the web may potentially be accessible to others. Consequently, matters of inadvertent self-disclosure, unintended use of personal information, and managing professional and personal relationships are of particular salience for school psychologists. These issues should be addressed in both training and practice, because surveys indicate that the majority of psychology trainees and psychologists working with children and adolescents have social media accounts (Lehavot, Barnett, & Powers, 2010; Taylor, McMinn, Bufford, & Chang, 2010; Tunick et al., 2011). Here, we refer to the personal use of social media, although some of these same considerations may apply to professional uses of social media for marketing and dissemination.

Self-Disclosure

The proliferation of social media sites means that individuals’ personal information is often readily accessible online to the moderately savvy consumer. As the preceding sections should have established, information stored electronically is rarely, if ever, as secure as users may think. Any information posted on the web, even when privacy measures are taken, may inadvertently enter the public domain and be accessed in unintended ways (e.g., shared or reposted on public or unsecured pages or sites). This means colleagues, employers, and clients can—with relative ease— access information about a clinician intentionally or inadvertently. Publicly available information in particular may be readily available to Internet users doing web searches by a practitioners’ name. A recent survey of therapy clients indicated that 70% found personal information about their psychologist online (Kolmes & Taub, 2011). This finding suggests that school psychologists can also expect their clients to seek personal information about them online, with results of such searches constituting disclosure of the psychologist’s personal information. Such inadvertent disclosures to clients should be avoided, because self-disclosures should be thoughtful and deliberate to facilitate service provision.

Although researchers have not yet examined the social media habits of school psychologists specifically, recent research indicates that in other segments of the helping professions, providers are

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Electronic Communication and Practice 523

Table 2 Recommended Practices for Different Uses of Technology

Area of Use Recommended Practice

General practice Work with colleagues to establish workplace policies regarding file protection, client information in e-mail, and professional presence in social media.

Data storage Keep in mind that records of e-mails, online posts, photos, and texts messages last much longer than their intended use.a

Create encrypted and password-protected drives and folders to store client documents.b

Use available word processor options to create password-protected files.b

Use a detachable hard drive for professional purposes. Secure the drive in a locked cabinet when not in use. Avoid using small storage devices, such as flash drives, that can be easily misplaced.b

Use find-and-replace functions in word-processing software to insert pseudonyms for clients when saving copies of reports.c

Keep in mind that any device connected to the Internet is susceptible to access by unidentified parties.c

Keep in mind that any information transmitted over the Internet is susceptible to access by unidentified parties.d

Keep in mind that clients may not have consented to the electronic transmission of personal information.e

E-mail Consider whether brief, in-person conversation would be more appropriate than brief e-mail exchanges.e

Avoid using client names in e-mails. Establish a policy to exclude client data from e-mails. Make a statement of this policy a part

of your e-mail signature. Use e-mail encryption programs for sensitive messages.f

Social networking Consider whether the benefits of social network use are worth the risks to your professional life and whether abstention from a social network use may be worthwhile.d

Establish a personal “no-tagging” policy regarding posting photos online and ask friends and acquaintances to respect it.

Conduct regular checks of privacy settings in any social networking site you use.d

Conduct regular Internet searches on your identity to learn what others may see when searching.

Consider using a pseudonym for social network use.a

aBarnett (2008). bAPA (2005). cHarvey and Carlson (2005). dMartin (2010). eHarvey and Carlson (2003). fDeCoster et al. (2011).

frequent users of social media, and many share their personal accounts publically, despite posting content that many consider unprofessional (Tunick, Mednick, & Conroy, 2011). Among psychology trainees, up to 40% use social media without enabling privacy settings to restrict public access, and more than one third post information they would not want clients to see (Lehavot et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2010). Among practicing child and adolescent psychologists, approximately half use social me- dia, but most report using privacy restrictions to prevent unwanted client access (Tunick et al., 2011).

In addition to issues of inadvertent disclosure to clients is the issue of inadvertent disclosure to employers. Employers frequently and increasingly use public social media information to make

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

524 Demers and Sullivan

hiring and termination decisions and monitor workplace web activity (Genova, 2009). Courts have upheld employers’ and training programs’ rights to terminate employees and students over conduct presumed from photos on social networking sites depicting alcohol consumption and comments containing expletives (e.g., Payne v. Barrow Co. Board of Ed., 2009; Snyder v. Millersville University, 2008; Fulmer, 2010). These court decisions indicate that accessible images of individuals’ actions outside of professional contexts can be treated as violations of expectations for professional conduct or training, disruptions of the educational environment, or liabilities to the perceived competence to fulfill job requirements (Fulmer, 2010; Stelter, 2011). In some instances, the courts have affirmed educators’ first amendment rights where online video content was concerned (e.g., Murmer v. Chesterfield, 2008), but this argument has been unsuccessful elsewhere (Fulmer, 2010).

Although court decisions have not involved school psychologists specifically, they have involved teachers, suggesting that school employees should be mindful that they can be held accountable in the workplace for images and text on personal social networking pages. Notably, a brief web search yielded several news stories about school psychologists and school counselors fired for a variety of Internet communications: racist Twitter posts (which promoted a response from NASP, 2012); sexually explicit texting to minors; offensive Facebook comments; and sexually explicit photos. Vulnerability for online activity may also extend to content posted by others about the clinician (APA Office of General Counsel, 2011), underscoring the need for professionals to be mindful of their overall online presence. Indeed, school psychologists should consider their digital presence as a facet of their professional identity and monitor it as such.

In general, this means school psychologists must consider how any information they post online—either personally or professionally—may affect their employment and professional reputa- tion. The rapidly changing nature of interpersonal communication via digital technologies throughout the helping professions has spurred the development of “e-professionalism” to describe appropri- ate digital behavior (Tunick et al., 2011). Before posting any content that may be identifiable and accessible—even inadvertently—to others, psychologists should consider the potential implications of such access by colleagues, clients, or employers. This means being vigilant about personal infor- mation to which others may have access by using stringent privacy settings or avoiding certain types of social media (Lehavot et al., 2010). Using the highest privacy settings can help limit the extent to which information is publicly available or searchable (Tunick et al., 2011).

Professionals should reflect periodically on their social networking activity and online presence to ensure that inappropriate or questionable content does not jeopardize their professional status. This may include occasionally conducting web searches for professional and personal information about themselves and taking actions to correct any inaccurate information, remove inappropriate content where possible, or request the removal of content posted by others. Given conflicting legal decisions, prevention and vigilance seem to be the most effective strategies for ensuring that online activity will not pose professional challenges. Psychologists employed by others should also be well versed in any employer rules for online activity and general professional conduct, so they can take proactive measures to protect themselves from online documentation of activities that could warrant disciplinary action or termination.

Client Privacy and Autonomy

Just as clients can easily obtain personal information about their clinicians, clinicians can obtain information their clients that they would not otherwise provide clinicians directly. Psychologists may face the dilemma of whether or not to search for such information (Kaslow, Patterson, & Gottlieb, 2011). Typing a name into a search engine for a “quick look” at what information might be on the web may seem like a benign behavior, although it may undermine client autonomy because it negates the

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Electronic Communication and Practice 525

client’s right to choose what personal information is disclosed within the professional relationship. Clinicians should never use the Internet to gather information on a client simply to satisfy their curiosity, nor should the Internet be used to verify clients’ disclosures without their expressed permission (Barnett, 2008). Recent surveys indicate, however, that a large share of psychology professionals search for clients’ personal information online. In one study, 98% of psychologist trainees searched online for clients’ personal information, even though most respondents thought such behavior was unacceptable (DiLillo & Gale, 2011). In another study, only 40% of practicing psychologists who searched for client information online asked for client consent, and only 20% informed the client of the activity (Tunick, 2011). Unapproved searches for client information are considered a violation of the basic ethical principles of fidelity, responsibility, and nonmaleficence (Lehavot et al., 2010).

Searching on clients is also problematic because professionals’ responsibility to act on any information gained through unapproved channels is unclear (Tunick et al., 2011), although the practitioner may find it difficult to ignore such information. This challenge may be especially prominent when the information obtained affects case conceptualization, treatment planning, or bias toward the client; contradicts information provided by the client; or suggests imminent danger to the self or others. If the psychologist chooses to use the information, it should be discussed with the client, but such use could be perceived as a breach of trust. A wiser course of action would be to avoid seeking client information online, unless it is at the client’s request. Further, the legal implications are unclear for the professional’s responsibility to act on information pertinent to ensuring the safety of the client or others when the information is obtained surreptitiously. For instance, should a practitioner discover information online (e.g., a Facebook post) that suggests a client’s potential to harm himself or others, the psychologist’s responsibility is vague, because the information was not obtained within the professional relationship, yet ethically, the psychologist would be compelled to act, given the responsibility to protect students from foreseeable harm.

Psychologists may also receive invitations from clients to view their social networking pages (Martin, 2010). The appropriateness of such activity depends on both the provider and clients’ reasons for doing so. There may be instances in which clients choose to share their web activity with a psychologist, because they feel it is relevant to the services provided. In these instances, the reasons for such disclosures should be discussed, and where clinically indicated, may be an appropriate therapeutic activity. The particular ways in which such information will be accessed and used should be agreed on beforehand, so that the client’s autonomy and privacy are maintained. It may be particularly helpful to view clients’ social media in their presence to facilitate rapport and alliance building.

Multiple Relationships

Because social media is increasingly used by a large segment of the population, school psy- chologists will likely encounter requests from colleagues, school staff, clients, and clients’ families to join their social networks, especially as it becomes commonplace for people to amass hundreds or thousands of online “friends” regardless of the degree of familiarity and intimacy in real life. A recent survey of child and adolescent psychologists indicated that more than one quarter of clinicians had received such requests from clients (Tunick et al., 2011). In this study, most clinicians declined these invitations, but a small percentage felt these virtual friendships were acceptable, suggesting that social networking can make the distinctions between one’s personal and professional roles more difficult. Some people may think nothing of inviting the school psychologist into their networks, but because of the abundance of personal information shared via social media—from brief Twitter messages, to updates on one’s mood, to photo albums, to in-depth blog posts—this can lead to

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

526 Demers and Sullivan

boundary violations, compromised professional effectiveness, or problematic multiple relationships for the psychologist, particularly when working with clients who have poor boundaries (Tunick et al., 2011).

Although social networking “friendships” are not addressed in ethics codes or professional guidelines, the nature of appropriate professional relationships and inappropriate multiple relation- ships is addressed. The exchange of personal information via social media, whether intentional or not, can affect the nature and direction of professional relationships. Just as it would be unethical to pursue a friendship with a current or potential client, it is inappropriate to pursue casual on- line relationships with these parties. School psychologists and other psychoeducational consultants should be wary of such relationships, because they can inadvertently undermine professionalism and introduce bias into the professional relationship. Before accepting “friends” via various social networking sites, whether personal or professional, psychologists should consider the nature of the relationship, the potential for any problematic dual relationships, and the potential liabilities of the relationship (Barnett, 2008).

Psychologists would be well served to develop policies for social media activity with clients and colleagues; these may be adjunctive to electronic communication policies. Such a policy might describe procedures for receiving and responding to communications via e-mail and text, include a statement that social media invitations from clients are declined, and identify the circumstances under which client web content may be integrated into treatment (e.g., clinical indications, consent procedures, protocol, documentation). Given research findings on the web activities of psychology trainees, it is also important that graduate faculty and fieldwork supervisors discuss appropriate social media behavior with students and supervisees to ensure that ethical behaviors are developed early. Faculty may not have the same experience with social networking websites that their students do. Consequently, it will be increasingly important for training programs to raise awareness of the ethical issues associated with social networking websites and encourage trainees to critically evaluate their online activities.

RESPONDING TO STUDENTS’ INAPPROPRIATE CYBER BEHAVIORS

School psychologists may also need to consider the implications of students’ electronic com- munication for school-based practices. Children and teens are especially likely to use electronic communication: 93% use the Internet, 75% use social media, and 66% use text messaging (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, & Zickhur, 2010). Findings by Madden and colleagues (Madden, Lenhart, Cortesi et al., 2013; Madden, Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013) suggest that teens increasingly share personal information online and use their social media accounts to develop large social networks. Indeed, the typical teen has more than 300 Facebook “friends,” and a third of youth have “friends” they have never met in person. Students’ pervasive online behavior now affects psychologists’ pro- fessional activities, because of the potential effects on individuals’ social–emotional functioning and the broader school environment.

Online Activity Influencing the School Environment

Students are increasingly using electronic means to extend the reach of traditional bullying, including beyond the limits of the school day (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Law et al., 2012; Patchin & Hinduja, 2011; Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2006). Peer-to-peer cyber bullying is of particular concern, because of its increasing prevalence (Ybarra et al., 2006), negative effects on school climate, individuals’ academic performance, and mental health (Tokunaga, 2010), and evidence that its effects may be more severe than face-to-face bullying (APA, 2011). By definition, cyber bullying involves the transmission of negative or mean-spirited content via the Internet or digital

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Electronic Communication and Practice 527

devices (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008) and can reach students anywhere they have Internet or cellphone access, making it especially invasive. Cyber bullying can take many forms (e.g., harassment, threats, gossip, stalking, exclusion, and pranks), be anonymous or known, and be carried out by individuals or groups (Feinberg & Robey, 2008). Youth’s tendency to disclose personal information online may make them more vulnerable to relational aggression via social networking (Hew, 2011).

Policy Response to Cyber Behavior

Because students’ online activity may both directly and indirectly affect the educational en- vironment and individuals’ well-being, school psychologists may be ethically obligated to address these behaviors just as they would face-to-face bullying. Doing so, however, may be more chal- lenging than addressing traditional bullying, because of the difficulty detecting cyber bullying. In an early survey, more than 30% of adolescents reported being cyber bullied while in school, but few students reported discussing these experiences with teachers or other adults (Opinion Research Corporation, 2006). Although most school systems use firewalls to prevent students from accessing social networking sites from school computers (Lemke, Coughlin, Garcia, Reifsneider, & Baas, 2009), they do not prevent students’ use of mobile devices for inappropriate activities during the school day or prevent bullying that continues among students once school ends but still spills over into the school environment.

Prevention and Pertinent Case Law

It is essential that schools take measures to protect students from their peers’ inappropriate cyber behavior. Addressing students’ inappropriate digital behaviors may be another dimension of school psychologists’ responsibility to prevent harm and promote healthy school communities, insofar as those behaviors disrupt the school environment and influence students’ well-being. One potential role for school psychologists is supporting the development of school policy that promotes appropriate behavior and addresses inappropriate actions (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). It is unrealistic and likely ineffective to ban the use of mobile devices or social media (Cramer & Hayes, 2010), but policies for mobile and media etiquette can provide basic parameters for students’ behavior in school and with each other. It is critical that such policies balance the need for a safe, supportive school environment with students’ individual rights to free speech, privacy, and due process.

The process of developing such policies should engage stakeholders from throughout the school community (e.g., administrators, teachers, parents, school board members) and address possession of devices on school grounds, use of specific applications during instructional time, acceptable and unacceptable behavior, due process, documentation procedures (e.g., maintaining printouts or photos of online content), and predetermined consequences for infractions such as parent notification, seizure or search of devices, or disciplinary actions (e.g., detention, suspension, expulsion). For school policy to be legally sound, it should include a clear definition of applicable electronic communications and prohibited behaviors (i.e., “the who, what, and when” according to Goodno, 2011, p. 669) and disciplinary procedures (see Goodno, 2011, for example language), and these should be provided in writing to all students and families (e.g., via annual dissemination of the student code of conduct). In addition to describing inappropriate digital behaviors, school policies should address desired use for instructional purposes (e.g., in class activities, group projects, and homework).

Inappropriate communications directed at peers or staff, or that originate during non-school time, may also warrant practitioners’ concern. Although derisive and derogatory communication against staff has been ruled as beyond the scope of school discipline (e.g., Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 2007; Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, 2001), courts have upheld

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

528 Demers and Sullivan

schools’ right to disciplinary action for hate speech or threatening communications originating out of school time (O.Z. v. Board of Trustees of Long Beach Unified, 2008; J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 2002; Cramer & Hayes, 2010). Other relevant case law has upheld schools’ rights to discipline speech made on campus or during school events that promotes illegal drug use (Morse v. Frederick, 2007), contains a threat, is offensive or vulgar (Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 1986), or uses school resources (Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 1988).

The principle of reasonable foreseeability allows disciplinary actions for hate speech or threats originating off-campus when disruption within the bounds of school can be expected (see Cramer & Hayes, 2010). Administrators’ concern for reasonably foreseeable disruption may apply to e-mails, social networking sites, blogs, instant messages, texts, video, and other electronic media. Given that the majority of students have their own mobile devices, the potential for students to access applicable web content during school time is high. Lower court decisions on the constitutionality of school disciplinary action for off-campus electronic speech are conflicting, and the issue has not yet reached the highest courts (Goodno, 2011). School administrators, then, should seek legal counsel regarding local rulings before constructing school policy on discipline for electronic communications originating off-site. In view of the Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), schools may retain the right to address speech that originates off-campus if such speech is likely to disrupt instruction or impede the rights of others. Cyber bullying policies, then, may state that both on- and off-campus electronic communications are subject to disciplinary procedures.

Because of the inconsistent case law pertaining to students’ electronic communications, Goodno (2011) suggests that schools first determine where the communication originated, and if off-campus, determine whether it is punishable. The 1969 Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), established that schools can address speech that disrupts the classroom or impedes the rights of others. For cases originating via off-campus electronic communication, the Tinker decision may apply if it is reasonable to assume the speech would disrupt the school environment or impinge on others’ rights. Conversely, discipline procedures may be applied to all types of speech originating on campus, regardless of the specific modality of communication (e.g., verbal, hand-written, e-mail, text message, blog, photo, and video).

Thus, policies regarding Internet activities and mobile communications might extend beyond school time to describe acceptable and unacceptable electronic communications between students both during and outside of school time and school events, as well as describe potential illegal communication (e.g., hate speech, other discriminatory communications against protected classes, and threats) consistent with the legal principle of reasonable foreseeability (Cramer & Hayes, 2010). Such policies should be aligned with or integrated into student conduct policies on harassment, discrimination, and bullying to promote the safety and well-being of students in school.

Responding to Cyber Bullying

Case law also establishes the responsibility of school staff to address known or suspected harassment or face liability for “deliberate indifference” to student-on-student harassment that hinders the victim’s educational opportunities (Davis v. Monroe Co. Board of Education, 1999). Disciplinary action is generally warranted for student-to-student communications deemed obscene, threatening, or pertaining to illegal activities, such as drug use or trafficking or—in many states— exchange of sexually explicit images of minors (Cramer & Hayes, 2010).

When fulfilling these responsibilities, school employees must be mindful of students’ privacy rights. If efforts to address suspected cyber bullying suggest a need to search a student’s personal digital devices, administrators should consult with legal counsel or school law-enforcement so as to prevent any unreasonable search and seizure (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Proper procedures for

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Electronic Communication and Practice 529

potential searches should be included in school policy to ensure that staff, students, and families are aware of the circumstances under which searches may be carried out, the types of evidence sufficient to trigger a search, and the protocol under which they would be conducted, including whether a parent should be present during any search (Patchin & Hinduja, 2011). Protocols should be in place for contacting law enforcement when cyber bullying includes violent threats, stalking, hate speech, or obscene photos (Feinberg & Robey, 2008). Schools should apply the same standards to searching students’ electronic devices or accounts as would be used when searching their material possessions (e.g., a backpack; New Jersey v. TLO, 1985). Thus, there must (a) be reasonable grounds to believe the search will procure evidence of rule or law violation and (b) the search must not be excessively intrusive given the student’s developmental status. Recent lower court decisions regarding schools’ searches of students’ cell phones suggest that school officials must have some indication that the student has violated a specific rule before the search rather than engaging in “fishing expeditions” for evidence of miscellaneous violations (Goodno, 2011, p. 674).

Promoting Healthy School and Family Environments

Best practice would also include providing parent and student education on appropriate elec- tronic communication, legal issues, and school procedures in conjunction with any policy imple- mentation. Teachers and administrators should be prepared to address norms and values pertinent to electronic communication in efforts to foster character development and social skills. For instance, schools might develop lessons to teach appropriate social media activity and prosocial skills in digital contexts (Cramer & Hayes, 2010). As with fostering interpersonal prosocial skills, digital safety should be addressed via explicit instruction, modeling, and practice. Because research sug- gests that cyber bullying often represents reactive aggression to a perceived insult (Law et al., 2012), instruction might address adaptive responses to such interactions. In addition, staff should educate students about privacy concerns, the permanence of electronic communications, and potential legal problems, such as those regarding sexting (for full discussion, see Segool & Crespi, 2011).

Parents and teachers should also be trained in how to recognize cyber bullying and its effects, how to talk to students who may be either bullies or victims, and the supports available within the school (Feinberg & Robey, 2008). Enabling teachers and parents to promote students’ disclosure of cyber bullying is especially important, because few victims report such harassment to adults (Feinberg & Robey, 2008). School psychologists can also assist with the development of appropriate supports for victims and bullies, such as social skills training, counseling, and behavior improvement plans. Because of the emotionally charged nature of cyber bullying, Goodno (2011) recommends that schools identify specific “safe contacts” to whom students can report cyber bullying. Given their training to support students’ mental health, school psychologists are a logical choice for such designations. In addition, in the case of public viral cyber bullying, Goodno (2011) also suggests that schools implement an anonymous reporting provision, because students are often hesitant to report and fear retribution by the bully.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND POTENTIAL RESEARCH

Forms of electronic communication and Internet activity will continue to present ethical dilem- mas to school psychologists. In this article, we drew heavily on research from clinical and counseling psychology in describing the online activities of clinicians, because researchers have not yet exam- ined the practices and personal behaviors of school psychologists. Researchers should explore the nature and hazards of electronic communication in school psychological practice to inform better practice and policy development. In particular, research may address practitioner, trainee, and faculty knowledge and use of various media technologies and the effects on their professional behaviors and

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

530 Demers and Sullivan

relationships. Likewise, researchers should consider ethnical problem solving in dilemmas involving technology and social media. Both areas of research would inform pre- and in-service training of school psychologists by highlighting areas of need.

By being knowledgeable of the technical aspects of electronic communications and by apply- ing ethical problem solving to professional and personal digital behaviors, school psychologists can proactively avoid unethical conduct. This will require ongoing professional learning, reflection, and self-evaluation, and should be an ongoing element of professional conduct, given ubiquitous and dynamic electronic communication. Policy changes can support safe and ethical practices, and in- crease research focus into electronic communication in school psychology. Specifically, professional organizations might convene task forces to provide sound recommendations for use of technology in practice at regular, frequent intervals so that they keep pace with changes in the field. Credentialing organizations could also help ensure ethical practices by requiring training programs to include coursework that addresses competence in computing and electronic communication. In addition, both school systems and training programs should have policies in place articulating appropriate conduct. Simply put, failure to do so ignores the role of technology in practice and places both students and practitioners at risk.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2005). The HIPAA security rule primer. Retrieved from www.apapracticecentral. org/business/hipaa/security-rule.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2007). Record keeping guidelines. American Psychologist, 62, 993–1004. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from

www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx American Psychological Association. (2011, August 6). Dealing with the cyberworld’s dark side. Retrieved from

www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/08/cyberworld.aspx APA Office of General Counsel. (2011). Legal pitfalls for divisions and how to avoid them. Retrieved from

www.apa.org/about/division/officers/dialogue/2011/03/dlc-legal-pitfalls.pdf Barnett, J. E. (2008). Online “sharing” demands caution. The National Psychologist, 17, 10–11. Berkes, H. (2012, April 9). Scope of hackers’ data theft from Utah health records grows: NPR. NPR.org. Retrieved from

www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/09/150306076 Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Census Bureau. (2012). CPS Summary Tables, July 2011. Retrieved from www.ntia.doc.gov/data Cramer, M. & Hayes, G. R. (2010, July-September). Acceptable use of technology in schools: Risk, policies, and promises.

Pervasive Computing. Retrieved from www.computer.org/pervasive Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 (1999). DeCoster, J., O’Mally, J., & Iselin, A.-M. R. (2011). Archiving for psychologists: Suggestions for organizing, documenting,

preserving, and protecting computer files. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 18, 246–265. Devereaux, R. L., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2012). Record keeping in the cloud: Ethical considerations. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 43, 627–632. DiLillo, D., & Gale, E. B. (2011). To Google or not to Google: Graduate students’ use of the Internet to access personal

information about clients. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 5, 160–166. Dugan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users - 2012. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Feinberg, T., & Robey, N. (2008, September). Cyberbullying. Principal Leadership. Retrieved from www.nasponline.org/

resources/principals/Cyberbulling%20NASSP%209-08.pdf Florell, D. (2011). Using advancing technologies in the practice of school psychology. In T. M. Lionetti, E. P. Snyder, & R.

W. Christner (Eds.), A practical guide to building professional competencies in school psychology (pp. 227–244). New York, NY: Springer.

Fulmer, E. H. (2010). Privacy expectations and protections for teachers in the Internet age. Duke Law & Technology Review, 2010, 14–19.

Genova, G. L. (2009). No place to play: Current employee privacy rights in social networking sites. Business Communication Quarterly, 72, 97–100.

Goodno, N. (2011). How public schools can constitutionally halt cyberbullying: A model cyberbullying policy that survives First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and due process challenges. Wake Forest Law Review, 46, 641–700.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Electronic Communication and Practice 531

Harvey, V. S., & Carlson, J. F. (2003). Ethical and professional issues with computer-related technology. School Psychology Review, 32, 92–107.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Hew, K. F. (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 662–676. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization.

Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156. Jacob, S., Decker, D. M., & Hartshorne, T. S. (2010). Ethics and law for school psychologists (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 794 A.2d 936 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). Kaslow, F. W., Patterson, T., & Gottlieb, M. (2011). Ethical dilemmas in psychologists accessing Internet data: Is it justified?

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42, 105. Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, 136 F. Supp.2d 466 (W.D. Pa. 2001). Kolmes, K. (2012). Social media in the future of professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,

43, 606–612. Kolmes, K., & Taube, D. O. (2011). Summary of client-therapist encounter son the web: The client experience. Retrieved

from http://drkkolmes.com/research/ Law, D. M., Shapka, J. D., Domene, J. F., & Gagné, M. H. (2012). Are cyberbullies really bullies? An investigation of reactive

and proactive online aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 664–672. Layshock v. Hermitage School District, 496 F. Supp.2d 587 (W.D. Pa. 2007). Lehavot, K., Barnett, J. E., & Powers, D. (2010). Psychotherapy, professional relationships, and ethical considerations in the

Myspace generation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41, 160–166. Lemke, C., Coughlin, E., Garcia, L., Reifsneider, D., & Baas, J. (2009). Leadership for web 2.0 in education: Promise and

reality. Culver City, CA: Metiri Group. Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickhur, K. (2010). Social media & mobile Internet use among teens and adults.

Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gassar, R., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton, M. (2013). Teens, social media, and

privacy. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Washington, DC: Pew

Research Center. Martin, S. (2010). The Internet’s ethical challenges. Monitor on Psychology 41, 32. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007). Murmer v. Chesterfield Cnty. Sch. Bd., WL 2914769 (E.D. Va. 2008). National Association of School Psychologists. (2010). Principles for professional ethics. Retrieved from

www.nasponline.org/standards/2010standards.aspx Nicholson, I. R. (2011). New technology, old issues: Demonstrating the relevance of the Canadian Code of Ethics for

Psychologists to the ever-sharper cutting edge of technology. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 52(3), 215.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2012, May 22). For Immediate Release (Press release). Retrieved from donstovall.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/response_mtraina1.pdf

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Opinion Research Corporation. (2006). Cyber bully teen (Study #715271). Princeton, NJ:Opinion Research Corporation.

Retrieved from www.fightcrime.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/reports/cyberbullyingteen_2.pdf. O.Z. v. Board of Trustees of Long Beach Unified School District, 2008 WL 4396895 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008). Payne v. Barrow County School District, No. 09-3083-X (Barrow Cty. Sup. Ct. Oct. 15, 2009). Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2011). Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives. Florence, KY: Routledge. Perry, C. (2011). US v. Warshak: Will Fourth amendment protection be delivered to your inbox? North Carolina Journal of

Law and Technology, 12, 345–369. Pfohl, W., & Jarmuz-Smith, S. (2014). Best practices in using technology. In P. L. Harrison & A. Thomas, Best practices in

school psychology IV: Foundations, (pp. 475–488). Bethesda, MA: National Association of School Psychologists. Pham, A. V. (2014). Navigating social networking and social media in school psychology: ethical and professional consider-

ations in training programs. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 767–778. Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. (2012). Workplace privacy and employee monitoring. Retrieved from www.privacyrights.

org/fs/fs7-work.htm#4 Purcell, K. (2011). Search and e-mail still top the list of most popular online activities. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.

org/Reports/2011/Search-and-email.aspx Radicati Group. (2012). Email statistics report, 2012–2016. Retrieved from www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/

uploads/2012/04/Email-Statistics-Report-2012-2016-Executive-Summary.pdf

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

532 Demers and Sullivan

Segool, N. K., & Crespi, T. D. (2011). Sexting in the schoolyard. NASP Communiqué, 39(8), 30–31. Serwer, A. (2012). The real reason you should care about the Petraeus affair: Privacy. Mother Jones. Retrieved from

www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/cia-petraeus-fbi-broadwell-emails-privacy Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. Retrieved from

www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/pdf/pockets_of_potential.pdf Snyder v. Millersville University, WL 5093140 (E.D. Pa. 2008). Stelter, B. (2011, November 20). Occupy Wall Street puts the coverage in the spotlight. The New York Times. Retrieved

from www.nytimes.com Taylor, L., McMinn, M. R., Bufford, R. K., & Chang, K. B. T. (2010). Psychologists’ attitudes and ethical concerns regarding

the use of social networking web sites. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 41, 153–159. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Tokunaga, R. S., (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying

victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 277–287. Tunick, R. A., Mednick, L., & Conroy, C. (2011). A snapshot of child psychologists’ social media activity: Professional and

ethical practice implications and recommendations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42, 440–447. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2013, June). Exploring the digital nation: America’s emerging online experience. Retrieved

from www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications Warren, C. (2011). Sarah Palin e-mail archive going online – Here’s how to find it. Mashable. Retrieved from http://mashable.

com/2011/06/10/sarah-palin-email-archive/ Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Examining characteristics and associated distress related

to Internet harassment: findings from the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey. Pediatrics, 118, e1169–e1177. Ysseldyke, J. E., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S., . . . Telzrow, C. (2006). School psychology: A

blueprint for training and practice III. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Psychology in the Schools DOI: 10.1002/pits

Copyright of Psychology in the Schools is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.