issa

sportspsysex.pdf

Sex and Sport: Attractions and Boundary Crossings Between Sport Psychology Consultants and Their Client-Athletes

Troy A. Moles, Trent A. Petrie, and C. Edward Watkins Jr. University of North Texas

Sexual attractions as well as sexual and nonsexual boundary crossings (SBCs & NSBCs, respectively) have been examined within counseling and clinical psychology (Pope, 1988), though little research has addressed these issues within sport psychology. Thus, we examined the incidence of sexual attraction and the SBCs and NSBCs of male (n � 170) and female (n � 105) sport psychology consultants (SPCs) with their client-athletes. The SPCs had earned their degrees in exercise or sport science (n � 201) or psychology (n � 65); 9 did not provide their degree area. Of the 112 SPCs who reported being sexually attracted to least 1 of their client-athletes, 13.6% SPCs crossed sexual boundaries, primarily by discussing sexual matters unrelated to their work; no SPC reported kissing, dating, or having sexual intercourse with a client-athlete. Regarding actual boundary crossings, the SPCs attended client-athletes’ sporting events (89.4%), initiated nonsexual touching (58.1%), attended social gatherings (43.5%), traveled with client- athletes (34.9%), and remained at parties with client-athletes (31.9%). There was no gender (male vs. female) by degree area (psychology vs. exercise or sport science) differences in frequency of these behaviors. SPCs trained in psychology viewed the following behaviors as more professionally acceptable than did those trained in exercise or sport science: (a) travel with client, (b) disclose personal stressors, (c) become social friends, (d) exchange a gift, (e) send holiday greeting card, (f) client is employed where SPC works, (g) client stay at SPC’s house, and (h) form a business relationship with client.

Keywords: boundary crossings, ethics, sexual attraction, sexual boundary violations, sport psychology

Clinical psychologists provide individual and group therapy to athletes (Petrie & Diehl, 1995), generally within traditional office settings. Psychologists who work with athletes and coaches within their sport environments, however, often engage in behaviors that

cross typical mental health boundaries (Haberl & Peterson, 2006). Such boundaries are intended to define the roles of the participants in the counseling relationship and to protect the welfare of the client (Speight, 2012). These psychologists may travel with teams, eat meals with athletes (their clients), attend practices and competitions, and even share rooms with coaches. In reality, sport psychology practice may be more similar to rural, mili- tary, or industrial/organizational applications than it is to a traditional counseling/clinical service delivery model (e.g., Moore, 2003). As Haberl and Peterson noted, to develop trust- ing and credible relationships, sport psychologists must meet athletes where they practice their craft . . . and such interactions may be considered appropriate because of the culture of sport and the context of the sport environment. Unfortunately, there exists minimal empirical research regarding such interactions within sport psychology, so little is known about the frequency of these behaviors and whether or not sport psychologists view them as professional. Further, sexual attractions, which Haberl and Peterson noted were particularly salient in sport consulting, have been understudied as well, so the extent to which sport psychologists are aware of, manage, and act on their attractions is minimally understood. Thus, the purpose of this study was to (a) determine the frequency of contextually relevant behaviors and whether sport psychology consultants’ (SPCs) perceived these behaviors as professional, and (b) examine the extent to which SPCs were aware of their sexual attractions and whether they engaged in any sexual behaviors with their client-athletes.

The term ‘boundary violations,’ whether sexual or nonsexual (Hines, Ader, Chang, & Rundell, 1998) is reserved for behaviors harmful or exploitive to clients (Gutheil & Gabbard, 1998), per-

This article was published Online First November 2, 2015. TROY A. MOLES received his MS in counseling psychology from

Chatham University. He is currently a psychology doctoral intern at the University of Missouri, Columbia and counseling psychology doctoral candidate at the University of North Texas. His areas of professional interest include effects of feedback, achievement goal orientation, implicit theory, and perceived motivational climate on human performance and motivation, mindsets, performance enhancement, resilience, grit, athletic identity, and professional issues in sport psychology.

TRENT A. PETRIE received his PhD in counseling psychology from The Ohio State University in 1991. Currently, he is a professor in the Depart- ment of Psychology and Director of the Center for Sport Psychology and Performance Excellence at the University of North Texas. His research interests include eating disorders and body image among athletes, profes- sional issues in sport psychology, psychological predictors of and reactions to athletic injury, and achievement motivation, grit, and self-compassion.

C. EDWARD WATKINS JR., is professor of psychology, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas. His primary professional interests focus on psychotherapy supervision and psychoanalytic theory, practice, and research. He is editor of the Handbook of Psychotherapy Supervision and co-editor of the Wiley International Handbook of Clinical Supervision. He is a Fellow of Divisions 29 (Psychotherapy) and 17 (Counseling Psychology) of the American Psychological Association.

CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Trent A. Petrie, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000052

ceived by them as harmful, or considered unethical (Barnett, Lazarus, Vasquez, Moorehead-Slaughter, & Johnson, 2007). Cer- tain behaviors, such as having sexual intercourse with a client, are unethical and represent a violation of the boundaries within the psychotherapy relationship that are established to protect the cli- ent. These sexual boundary violations, which can include kissing, sexual touching, dating, and sexual intercourse, have ranged from 4% to 6.5% in national samples of licensed psychologists (Lamb & Catanzaro, 1998; Lamb et al., 1994; Rodolfa et al., 1994); 2% of professional psychologists reported having engaged in a sexual relationship with a client before or after psychotherapy had con- cluded (Lamb, Catanzaro, & Moorman, 2003). Male (9.4%), more so than female (2.5%), psychologists have admitted to sexual boundary violations (Housman & Stake, 1999; Lamb et al., 2003; Pope, 1988; Pope, Keith-Spiegel, & Tabachnick, 2006; Rodolfa et al., 1994; Thoreson, Shaughnessy, Heppner, & Cook, 1993). There is agreement among psychologists that such violations may cause harm to clients, including loss of trust, feelings of emptiness and confusion, and increased suicidal risk (Pope, 1988).

Although conceptualizing, and researching, psychologist behav- iors through the lens of boundary violations (and the harm they could cause) is necessary and informative, this approach also is limiting in that it does not fully acknowledge the realities and challenges of providing competent psychological services within different contexts and cultural milieus and from different theoret- ical perspectives (Moleski & Kiselica, 2005). Thus, over the last two decades, psychologists have argued that not all behaviors that cross traditional therapeutic boundaries are violations nor are harmful to clients. In fact, the term ‘boundary crossing’ is now utilized to designate acceptable, therapeutically appropriate, or clinically relevant behaviors between clinicians and clients (Bar- nett et al., 2007) that may advance the therapeutic relationship in a constructive way (Gutheil & Gabbard, 1998) or enhance the therapeutic alliance (Zur, 2004). For example, Speight (2012) has argued that decisions about whether to engage in certain behaviors must be viewed within the context of the client’s cultural frame- work and such crossings, if that is what they are determined to be, may be necessary and beneficial actions to take to intervene competently. Thus, psychologists should think through the appro- priateness of their behaviors using a cultural contextual lens (Bar- nett et al., 2007; Hines et al., 1998; Speight, 2012), particularly when working within rural (Bradley, Werth, & Hastings, 2012), military (Hines et al., 1998; Johnson, Ralph, & Johnson, 2005), racial/ethnic (Speight, 2012), and/or sport environments.

Although boundary crossings, as well as sexual attractions, have been identified within sport psychology consulting (Andersen, 2005; Haberl & Peterson, 2006; Moore, 2003), such feelings and behaviors have been examined only minimally among SPCs (e.g., Petitpas, Brewer, Rivera, & Van Raalte, 1994). Further, even though the Association for Applied Sport Psychology’s (AASP, n.d.) ethics code explicitly forbids sexual relationships between SPCs and their clients, there are limited data concerning the extent to which SPCs engage in such behaviors (Stevens & Andersen, 2007). For example, in their study of general ethical beliefs and behaviors, Petitpas et al. (1994) found that 53.3% of AASP mem- bers reported having been sexually attracted to at least one client- athlete in the past. Further, approximately 4% of sport psycholo- gists (Petrie & Buntrock, 1995), 1.8% of AASP members (Petitpas et al., 1994), and 1.3% of AASP Certified Sport Consultants

(Etzel, Watson, & Zizzi, 2004) have admitted to becoming sexu- ally involved with a former client after the conclusion of the professional relationship. These sexual attractions and relation- ships have occurred more often for male than female SPCs (Etzel et al., 2004).

Sport psychology consulting is very different from traditional psychotherapy practice. In sport, and with athletes and coaches, consultations often take place on the practice field, at the perfor- mance venue, in a locker room, in the coach’s office, on a team’s bus or plane, and/or in a hotel lobby, to name just a few (Haberl & Peterson, 2006). Given the fact that many sport psychology con- sultations, by their very nature, represent boundary crossings, it would be useful to determine how frequently SPCs engage in these behaviors and whether or not they perceive such behaviors as being professional and helpful to the consulting relationship and in the best interest of the client-athlete. An initial examination of this question suggests that male SPCs view certain boundary crossings, such as socializing with client-athletes, having a client-athlete stay at their house during a consultation, and providing consultation via the Internet, as more ethical than do female SPCs (Etzel et al., 2004). However, no other empirical data exist that address these questions.

Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine (a) the preva- lence of SPCs’ sexual attraction to their client-athletes, (b) the extent to which SPCs engaged in a series of sexual behaviors with their client-athletes, (c) the extent to which SPCs engaged in a series of behaviors that have been labeled as “nonsexual boundary crossings” (Lamb & Catanzaro, 1998) as well as SPCs’ beliefs about the professionalism of such behaviors, (d) the emotions SPCs experienced in relation to their sexual attractions to their client-athletes (and how they felt when client-athletes were at- tracted to them), and (e) SPCs’ willingness to seek supervision to manage their feelings of sexual attraction toward client-athletes. Because of previous gender differences in rates of sexual attraction and boundary violations reported among licensed psychologists (e.g., Housman & Stake, 1999; Lamb et al., 2003) and because SPCs exercise/sport science (ESS) and psychology (Psych) pro- grams likely have received different training, we examined the extent to which male and female SPCs from these two degree areas may have differed on those variables.

Method

Participants

Although 365 who identified as professional members of either AASP or the APA Division 47 (Exercise and Sport Psychology) initially participated, only 275 had worked with an athlete or sport team as an applied consultant and thus completed the questions that were included in this study: men � 170 (61.8%), women � 105 (38.2%). Mean age was 47.48 years (SD � 12.57); 260 (94.5%) had earned a doctorate (PhD, EdD, PsyD, or MD) and 12 (4.4%) a master’s degree (MA/MS). They had earned their degrees in exercise or sport science (n � 201) or psychology (n � 65); 9 did not provide their degree area.

Instruments

Survey of applied sport psychologists. The Survey of Ap- plied Sport Psychologists (SASP) was developed for this study,

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

94 MOLES, PETRIE, AND WATKINS

though was based on previous research in this area (e.g., Lamb et al., 2003; Petrie & Buntrock, 1995). Because sport psychology as a field is diverse in terms of the training and educational back- ground of its practitioners, we used the general term “Sport Psy- chology Consultant (SPC)” to refer to the participants, both in the survey and this article. We surveyed members from two major sport psychology organizations within the U.S., AASP and APA Division 47, to obtain a large sample of applied sport psychology professionals (i.e., SPCs).

Background information. Participants provided their gender, age, highest degree earned, and area of study. They indicated (yes or no) whether they had received training regarding ethical issues related to sexual attraction with clients either during their graduate work or after they had completed their highest degree (e.g., through a continuing education workshop).

Sexual attraction—incidence. Participants reported whether they had ever worked with an athlete or sport team, which served as the criterion for determining whether they were an applied SPC. If they answered “no,” they discontinued the survey and did not respond to any of the following sections. If they responded “yes,” they indicated to how many of these client-athletes they had ever felt “sexually attracted” (no specific definition of this term was provided on the survey) using a scale that ranged from zero or none, to one or two, to three to five, to six to 10, to 11 or more. They also indicated the gender of the client-athletes (male, female, or male and female) to whom they were sexually attracted. If participants answered “zero or none,” then they moved on to the Nonsexual Boundary Crossings section and completed the survey from there until the end (skipping the other sections). For SPCs who reported a sexual attraction, in an open-response section they listed the salient qualities and characteristics of these client- athletes that contributed to the attraction and then completed all remaining sections of the survey.

Sexual attraction— behaviors. Participants indicated (yes or no) whether they had engaged in each of the following behaviors with their client-athletes: (a) discussed personal or sexual matters unrelated to their work, (b) caressed or touched in an intimate way, (c) kissed, (d) dated, or (e) engaged in sexual intercourse. For each behavior in which they had engaged, the SPCs reported whether it occurred during or after the termination of the professional sport consulting relationship and explained the factors that influenced their decision to engage in that behavior.

Sexual attraction—feelings. On a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (not at all aware) to 5 (extremely aware), participants indicated how aware they thought the client-athletes were of their sexual attraction. Next, on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), they reported how strongly they felt guilty, anxious, confused, depressed, powerful, and happy as a result of the attraction. Finally, on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (extremely harmful) to 5 (extremely beneficial), they indicated the extent to which they believed their feelings of sexual attraction were harmful or beneficial to their client- athletes.

Sexual attraction—perceptions. Participants indicated how many client-athletes had been sexually attracted to them (None, 1–25%, 26 –50%, 51–75%, or 76 –100%). If they reported any client-athlete sexual attractions, they described how they knew the client-athlete was attracted through an open-response format. Then, on separate 5-point scales that each ranged from 1 (not at

all) to 5 (extremely), they indicated how guilty, anxious, confused, depressed, powerful, and happy they felt when a client-athlete was attracted to them.

Nonsexual boundary crossings. Participants indicated (yes or no) if they had engaged in any of 18 nonsexual behaviors that had been identified as boundary crossings within the psychology literature (see Lamb & Catanzaro, 1998), such as becoming social friends, having a client-athlete stay at their house, disclosing details of a current personal stressor, and attending a client- athlete’s sporting event. On a 5-point scale, SPCs also rated the extent to which they believed each behavior constituted poor (1) or good (5) professional behavior (regardless of whether they had engaged in that behavior themselves).

Supervision— current sexual attraction. Participants re- ported from whom they sought supervision for their feelings of sexual attraction (i.e., colleague, supervisor, administrator, family, friend, or other) and then on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always), they rated how often they sought supervision regarding their attraction. Using an open-response format, partic- ipants described the factors influencing their decision to seek or not seek consultation or supervision and, if they had discussed their sexual attraction with someone, what that experience was like.

Supervision—future sexual attraction. On a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), SPCs indicated how necessary it would be for them to seek consultation or supervision if they became sexually attracted to client-athletes in the future. They also reported from whom they would seek super- vision (i.e., colleague, supervisor, administrator, family, friend, or other).

Procedures

After obtaining IRB approval, we solicited professional mem- bers of the AASP and APA Division 47 via e-mail or regular mail to complete the SASP. We targeted these two organizations be- cause professional members were likely to be engaging in applied sport psychology activities. The SPCs were sent two follow-up reminders to submit their responses, which took five to 15 minutes to complete depending on whether or not they had worked with client-athletes and if they had experienced a sexual attraction. SPCs completed the SASP anonymously and received no compen- sation.

Data Analysis

Given the nature of our survey, certain items were left unan- swered, thus the number of responses associated with each analysis varies. SPSS Version 20.0 was used for all analyses. Frequencies, chi-square analyses, MANAOVAs, and one repeated measures mixed design ANOVA were used to examine the SPCs’ sexual attraction incidence, behaviors, feelings, and perceptions, nonsex- ual boundary violations, and willingness to seek supervision (cur- rent and future) for the entire group as well as by gender (male vs. female) and degree area (ESS and Psych). As relevant, partici- pants’ free-response comments are reported.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

95SPORT PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTANTS’ BOUNDARY CROSSINGS

Results

Ethics Training

The majority of the SPCs reported receiving training regarding ethical issues related to sexual attraction while they were in grad- uate school (n � 213, 78.3%); 45.2% (n � 123) of the sample also received such training after degree completion, such as through a CE workshop. Overall, 38 SPCs (14.0%) had never received ethics training at any point in their career.

Sexual Attraction—Prevalence

Of the 275 SPCs who had worked with an athlete or sport team as an applied sport psychology consultant, 112 (40.7%) reported being sexually attracted to at least one client-athlete; 63 of the 112 (56.3%) were attracted to one or two client-athletes, 32 (28.6%) to three to five client-athletes, 10 (8.9%) to six to 10 client-athletes, and 7 (6.3%) to 11 or more client-athletes (see Table 1).

Among the 112 who were attracted to at least one client athlete, within each degree area (Exercise/Sport Science [ESS] or Psych), there were similar percentages of male and female SPCs (male ESS � 54, 68.4% and male Psych � 18, 64.3%; female ESS � 25, 31.6% and female Psych � 10, 35.7%), �2(1) � .155, p � .693. The male SPCs, regardless of degree area, were significantly more likely to be attracted to female (n � 74, 98.1%) as opposed to male (n � 2, 1.9%) client-athletes, whereas female SPCs were most likely to be attracted to male (n � 31, 86.1%) versus female (n � 5, 13.9%) client-athletes, �2(2) � 88.94, p � .01. Based on the SPCs’ qualitative responses, the salient qualities and characteris- tics they associated with their sexual attractions included the client-athletes having good interpersonal skills, being physically

attractive, being psychologically healthy, wearing tight clothing, and having clear goals for the future.

Sexual Attraction—Behaviors

Of the 112 SPCs who had worked with and experienced a sexual attraction to client-athletes, only 88 reported on whether or not they had engaged in any of the listed sexual behaviors. Of the 88, 12 (13.6%) said they had engaged in one or more of the sexual behaviors. For the 10 SPCs who had discussed personal or sexual matters unrelated to the work they were doing, within each degree area, there were similar percentages of men and women (male ESS � 5, 62.5% and male Psych � 1, 50%; female ESS � 3, 37.5% and female Psych � 1, 50%). For this behavior, five SPCs did so during the professional relationship and five after the relationship ended. Two male participants (one from ESS and one from Psych) acknowledged caressing or intimately touching a client-athlete; one during the professional relationship and one did not respond. None of the 12 reported kissing, dating, or having sexual intercourse with their client-athletes (see Table 1).

Of the 12 SPCs who engaged in one of the listed sexual behaviors, 10 (83.3%) had doctorates and two (16.7%) master’s degrees. Overall, 11 (91.7%) had received ethics training; nine (75%) during graduate school and eight (66.7%) postdegree. Four (33.3%) were attracted to one or two client-athletes, six (50%) to three to five client-athletes, one (8.3%) to six to 10 client-athletes, and one (8.3%) to 11 or more client-athletes.

Sexual Attraction—Feelings

Regarding the extent to which the SPCs felt confused, de- pressed, powerful, guilty, anxious, or happy about their attractions to their client athletes, their emotional experiences were minimal and did not differ significantly based on gender, Wilks’ � � .975, F(6, 95) � .403, p � .876, �p � .025, degree area, Wilks’ � � .915, F(6, 95) � 1.48, p � .194, �p � .085, or their interaction, Wilks’ � � .918, F(6, 95) � 1.41, p � .219, �p � .082 (see Table 2). Across gender and degree area, the SPCs were equally likely to believe that their client-athletes were not aware of the sexual attraction (male ESS - M � 1.36, SD � .60; male Psych - M � 1.39, SD � .78; female ESS - M � 1.10, SD � .54; female Psych - M � 1.40, SD � .70) and viewed their sexual attraction as neither particularly harmful nor beneficial (male ESS - M � 3.02, SD � .52; male Psych - M � 3.11, SD � .47; female ESS - M � 2.95, SD � .74; female Psych - M � 3.10, SD � .32), Wilks’ � � .989, F(2, 94) � .506, p � .605, �p � .011.

Based on their qualitative responses, the SPCs stated that the sexual attraction had changed the way they worked with their client-athletes, such as increasing their interest in helping or spend- ing more time thinking about their work with the client-athlete. Some participants normalized the experience by stating that their attractions were common, whereas others said that such feelings were best handled by discussing them with a supervisor. Still others were dismissive of their sexual attractions, explaining that there was no harm or benefit involved, that their feelings did not affect the client-athlete relationship, and that they never processed or felt the need to process the client-athlete sexual attraction with a colleague or supervisor.

Table 1 Number of Male SPCs and Female SPCs Who Reported Being Sexually Attracted to Client-Athletes and Who Engaged in Different Sexual Behaviors With Their Client-Athletes

Participant All

SPCs Male SPCs

Female SPCs

Participants in the studya 365 224 139 Participants who worked with an athlete or

team as an applied SPC 275 170 105 Participants who were sexually attracted to

All client-athletes 112 76 36 Female client-athletes 77 74 3 Male client-athletes 33 2 31 Male and female client-athletes 1 0 1

Participants who engaged in sexual behaviors with their client athletesb

Discussed sexual/personal mattersc 10 6 4 Caressed or touched intimately 2 2 0 Kissed 0 0 0 Dated 0 0 0 Engaged in sexual intercourse 0 0 0

a Two participants did not provide their gender. b Only 88 SPCs (59 male, 29 female) of the 112 who reported having been sexually attracted to a client-athlete provided responses to each of the sexual behaviors listed in this question. c Matters that were unrelated to the work they were doing with their client-athletes.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

96 MOLES, PETRIE, AND WATKINS

Sexual Attraction—Perceptions

Regarding the extent to which the SPCs felt confused, de- pressed, powerful, guilty, anxious, or happy when the SPCs per- ceived client-athletes to be sexually attracted to them, their emo- tional experiences were minimal and did not differ significantly based on gender, Wilks’ � � .915, F(6, 41) � .635, p � .702, �p � .085, degree area, Wilks’ � � .952, F(6, 41) � .342, p � .911, �p � .048, or their interaction, Wilks’ � � .922, F(6, 41) � .575, p � .748, �p � .078 (see Table 3). Of the 275 SPCs who had worked with a client-athlete, more than half (n � 141, 51.3%) said that no client-athletes were ever attracted to them, whereas 66 (23.9%) and two (0.7%), respectively, indicated that 1% to 25% and 26% to 50% of their client-athletes had been attracted to them; 66 SPCs (24.1%) did not respond to this question. SPCs reported that they knew of the attractions based on the client-athletes engaging in behaviors such as flirting, seeking out more interper- sonal contact, increasing personal disclosures, exchanging gifts, and inviting them to social events.

Nonsexual Boundary Crossings

Prevalence. For the 213 SPCs (out of 275) who responded to this section, the five most common behaviors in which they en- gaged were (a) attending a client-athlete’s sporting event (n � 193, 89.4%), (b) initiating nonsexual touching (n � 125, 58.1%), (c) attending a social gathering with a client-athlete (n � 94, 43.5%), (d) traveling with a client-athlete (n � 75, 34.9%), and (e) remain- ing at a party with a client-athlete (n � 69, 31.9%). Across the 18 listed behaviors, there were no significant differences based on gender and degree area (see Table 4).

Beliefs. The five behaviors rated as being most professional by the 198 SPCs who completed this section were (a) attending a client-athlete’s sporting event (M � 4.62, SD � 0.67), (b) attend- ing a client-athlete’s special event (e.g., wedding; M � 3.53, SD � 1.12), (c) initiating nonsexual touching (e.g., hand on shoulder; M � 3.48, SD � 1.38), (d) traveling with a client-athlete (M � 3.38, SD � 1.28), and (e) attending a small social gathering (e.g., parties, dinner, a bar) with knowledge the client-athlete would be

there (M � 3.30, SD � 1.16). The main effect for gender, Wilks’ � � .905, F(18, 177) � 1.04, p � .421, �p � .095, and the interaction of gender and degree area, Wilks’ � � .906, F(18, 177) � 1.02, p � .435, �p � .094, were not significant. However, there was a main effect for degree area, Wilks’ � � .792, F(18, 177) � 2.58, p � .001, �p � .208. SPCs trained in Psychology viewed the following behaviors as more professionally acceptable than did those trained in ESS: (a) travel with client, (b) disclose personal stressors, (c) become social friends, (d) exchange a gift, (e) send holiday greeting card, (f) client is employed where SPC works, (g) client stay at SPC’s house, and (h) form a business relationship with client. Even though differences existed based on degree area on these items, with the exception of traveling with clients, the Psych SPC mean scores were below 3.5, suggesting that they were, at best, neutral in their perception of each behavior as professional. See Table 5 for the means and standard deviations by degree area for each nonsexual boundary crossing.

Supervision—Current Sexual Attraction

For the SPCs who had reported being sexually attracted and who responded to this question (n � 87), regarding the likelihood of seeking supervision for the attraction, neither the SPCs’ gender, F(1, 83) � .493, p � .485, �p � .006, nor degree area, F(1, 83) � .136, p � .713, �p � .002, had a significant effect. There was, however, a significant gender by degree area interaction, F(1, 83) � 7.57, p � .038, �p � .051, such that male SPCs from ESS (n � 43; M � 2.44, SD � 1.50) were more likely to seek supervision than male SPCs from Psychology (n � 16; M � 1.89, SD � 1.09) and female SPCs from ESS (n � 19; M � 1.53, SD � 0.84); female SPCs from Psychology were not significantly dif- ferent from any other group (n � 9; M � 2.33, SD � 1.41). Of the SPCs who sought supervision or consultation, 38 met with a colleague, 23 with a supervisor, nine with a friend, three with another source, and one with a family member; 14 did not respond.

The SPCs reported seeking supervision or consultation for sev- eral reasons, including (a) noting their own attraction and profes- sional ethical responsibility, (b) thinking it would be helpful to admit their sexual attraction feelings to another person, and (c)

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Feelings Associated With SPCs’ Sexual Attraction to Client-Athletes by Gender and Degree Area

Feeling

Male ESS (n � 52) M (SD)

Male Psych (n � 18) M (SD)

Female ESS (n � 24) M (SD)

Female Psych (n � 10) M (SD)

Guilty 2.02 (1.18) 2.28 (1.13) 1.63 (.97) 2.20 (1.03) Anxious 2.21 (1.13) 2.17 (1.25) 1.58 (.72) 2.80 (.79) Confused 1.56 (.96) 1.44 (.71) 1.33 (.57) 1.90 (1.20) Depressed 1.23 (.61) 1.28 (.58) 1.04 (.20) 1.40 (.84) Powerful 1.58 (.87) 1.61 (.85) 1.46 (.78) 1.64 (.87) Happy 2.44 (.98) 2.61 (.78) 2.29 (.86) 2.80 (.92)

Note. Mean scores range from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Higher scores indicate stronger feelings. Standard deviations are reported paren- thetically. ESS � SPCs who obtained their highest degree in exercise/sport science; Psych � SPCs who obtained their highest degree in psychology. MANOVA for the interaction as well as main effects of gender and degree area were nonsignificant (ps � .19).

Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for SPCs’ Feelings When They Believed Client-Athletes Were Sexually Attracted to Them by Gender and Degree Area

Feeling

Male ESS (n � 27) M (SD)

Male Psych (n � 3) M (SD)

Female ESS (n � 12) M (SD)

Female Psych (n � 8) M (SD)

Guilty 1.81 (1.08) 1.67 (1.16) 1.75 (.87) 1.87 (1.13) Anxious 2.44 (1.12) 2.00 (1.00) 2.58 (1.38) 3.25 (1.39) Confused 1.56 (.64) 1.33 (.58) 1.33 (.49) 1.75 (1.16) Depressed 1.30 (.61) 1.00 (.00) 1.08 (.29) 1.13 (.35) Powerful 2.15 (1.10) 1.67 (.58) 1.83 (.94) 2.38 (1.41) Happy 2.30 (.87) 2.33 (.58) 2.08 (.99) 2.63 (1.19)

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

97SPORT PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTANTS’ BOUNDARY CROSSINGS

trying to manage potentially damaging therapeutic effects. The SPCs reported they chose not to seek supervision because they (a) wanted to avoid the stigma related to sexual attraction, (b) felt embarrassed or were unwilling to discuss their sexual attraction, and (c) believed they could manage their emotions and control their behaviors on their own. SPCs described the supervisions as slightly uncomfortable and embarrassing but also enlightening, helpful, reassuring, easy, supportive, engaging, helpful, therapeu- tic, empowering, and normalizing.

Supervision—Future Sexual Attraction

There were no significant effects related to gender, F(1, 208) � 2.58, p � .110, �p � .012, degree area, F(1, 208) � 1.03, p � .312, �p � .005, nor their interaction, F(1, 208) � .104, p � .748, �p � .000, in terms of the SPCs’ believing it would be necessary to seek supervision if they were to experience a sexual attraction during future work with a client-athlete (overall M � 3.63, SD � 1.41). Further, the SPCs indicated that they would seek supervision with a colleague (n � 139), supervisor (n � 105), friend (n � 35), administrator (n � 12), someone else (i.e., therapist, social worker, or professional officer of a state organization; n � 11), or family member (n � 9).

Discussion

Consistent with data drawn from past samples of SPCs (Etzel et al., 2004; Petitpas et al., 1994), fewer than half (40.6%) of the SPCs, yet more men (67.9%) than women (32.1%), reported having been sexually attracted to one or more of their client- athletes; the percentage of male or female SPCs with Psych and

ESS degrees did not differ significantly. Given the ratio of male to female SPCs who reported being sexually attracted it is not sur- prising that more female (70.5%), than male (29.5%), client- athletes were the objects of the attraction. Client-athletes are likely to be in good physical condition, attractive, and successful, and may have a goal-directed, healthy psychological mindset, all of which may contribute to SPCs feeling sexually attracted to them (Haberl & Peterson, 2006). Thus, it appears that SPCs, like psy- chologists in general, experience feelings of sexual attraction with their clients (Andersen, 2005), which is neither immoral nor un- ethical, but instead a common emotion within the context of the human experience (Pope et al., 2006).

Of the 112 SPCs who reported being sexually attracted, none reported having kissed, dated, or had sexual intercourse with a client-athlete, either during or after the consulting relationship, which is slightly lower than what has been found within samples of AASP members (1.8%; Petitpas et al., 1994) and AASP Certi- fied Sport Consultants (1.3%; Etzel et al., 2004). However, 13.6% of our sample had either discussed sexual matters that were unre- lated to the work they were doing with their client-athletes or had caressed or touched their client-athletes in a sexual way; regardless of degree area, the male and female SPCs did not differ signifi- cantly in the prevalence of these behaviors. Although no SPCs reported engaging in any of the more severe and intrusive sexual behaviors with their clients (e.g., dating, intercourse), it was dis- appointing that (a) more than 14% had never taken an ethics course or workshops, and (b) more than 10% of the SPCs still behaved toward their client-athletes in ways that were inappropriate and damaging to the consulting relationship (Lamb & Catanzaro, 1998; Lamb et al., 1994; Rodolfa et al., 1994). Clearly the need exists for

Table 4 Frequency of SPCs Engaging in Nonsexual Behaviors With Client-Athletes by Gender and Degree Area (N � 213)

Nonsexual boundary crossing Male ESS

(n � 104) % Male Psych (n � 28) %

Female ESS (n � 53) %

Female Psych (n � 28) %

Attend client’s sporting event 88.5 92.9 88.7 92.9 Nonsexual touching 51.0 50.0 67.9 67.9 Attended social gathering 40.4 42.8 49.1 42.8 Traveled with client 28.8 46.4 32.0 50.0 Remained at party with client 27.9 39.3 35.8 28.6 Attend client’s special event 24.0 25.0 32.1 32.1 Disclosed personal stressor 18.3 39.3 20.8 50.0 Became social friends 23.1 32.1 17.0 35.7 Exchanged or received gifts 17.3 32.1 18.9 32.1 Provided services to relative,

friend, or lover of client 18.3 14.3 24.5 21.4 Sent holiday greeting 9.6 21.4 17.0 32.1 Had client employed where work 2.9 21.4 9.4 14.3 Cried in front of client 5.7 10.7 11.3 10.7 Client stayed at house 5.8 10.7 7.5 3.6 Work with client romantically

involved with friend 1.9 3.5 5.7 10.7 Formed business relationship 5.7 3.6 1.9 .0 Lent $50 or less 2.9 3.6 1.9 3.6 Gave theatre, sports, or other

“event” tickets to client .0 7.1 1.9 .0

Note. There were no significant differences among the four groups for each nonsexual boundary crossing behavior based on chi-square analyses. ESS � SPCs whose degrees were from Exercise/Sport Science programs; Psych � SPCs whose degrees were from Psychology programs.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

98 MOLES, PETRIE, AND WATKINS

continued awareness, monitoring, and peer supervision, as well as mandatory ethics training so SPCs can learn to comfortably and effectively manage their sexual attractions and not engage in behaviors that are inappropriate, unethical, and damaging.

Although mental health professionals have experienced negative attitudes or feelings in relation to their sexual attractions (Rodolfa et al., 1994; Wilbers et al., 1992), the SPCs reported low levels of emotional intensity with respect to their attractions regardless of their gender or degree area. The SPCs viewed their sexual attrac- tion as neither harmful nor beneficial and thought that their client- athletes were unaware of their feelings, suggesting a potential naiveté regarding how attuned their client-athletes likely are to SPCs’ attractions and behaviors. For example, some of the SPCs stated that their sexual attractions made them change the way they worked with their client-athletes, such as spending more time thinking about them. Still others were dismissive of their feelings of sexual attraction, failing to take the time to think about and process their emotions either by themselves or with a colleague. If SPCs are changing their behaviors with client-athletes as a result of experiencing sexual attractions or are not attending to the feelings (e.g., not acknowledging them or discussing them in supervision), they may be increasing their risk of engaging in unprofessional and unethical behaviors.

The SPCs acknowledged engaging in far more nonsexual than sexual boundary crossings, which is similar to what has been found in samples of professional psychologists (Lamb & Catanzaro, 1998). The SPCs indicated that traveling, socializing, and attend-

ing their client-athletes’ sporting events were behaviors in which they commonly engaged, and are likely to be considered more acceptable within the sport environment than in traditional psy- chotherapy setting. Further, these specific behaviors generally were viewed as appropriate, helpful, and professional within the sport consulting environment because they allow SPCs to be present at competitions and practices where they can monitor performances and intervene to help improve the athletes’ and team’s functioning. In fact, engaging in such behaviors may be a necessary part of being an effective and competent SPC (Haberl & Peterson, 2006). Some of the behaviors (e.g., lending money, having a client stay at their home, forming a business relationship), though, were viewed as generally inappropriate and unacceptable within a sport consulting relationship. Further, the SPCs trained in psychology viewed some of the behaviors (e.g., traveling with a client, sending a holiday greeting) as more acceptable profession- ally than did the ESS trained SPCs. Thus, there are a set of nonsexual behaviors that SPCs perceive as appropriate, profes- sional, and helpful to client-athletes and engage in them with some regularity. However, a larger, more diverse, set of behaviors are perceived to be unprofessional and it is heartening to note that the majority of SPCs, like psychologists in general (Lamb & Catan- zaro, 1998), are not engaging in them.

In addition to monitoring their own sexual feelings, SPCs also may have to manage their client-athletes’ attractions. Approxi- mately 25% of SPCs who had worked with client-athletes reported that at least one had been sexually attracted to them, which they perceived primarily by their client-athletes’ nonverbal and verbal behaviors (e.g., flirting, asking for more time). Depending on the SPC’s theoretical orientation, there are many ways to manage such attractions, including open discussions with the client-athletes about their feelings (Strean, 1999). Because we did not ask the SPCs about their theoretical approaches or how they had been trained to handle sexual attractions, we do not know specifically what the SPCs did, but hope supervision with colleagues was a resource they used.

Supervision represents the best way to manage feelings of sexual attraction and minimize sexual boundary violations (An- dersen, 2005). As several SPCs noted, seeking supervision to discuss their sexual attractions and accompanying feelings would be a positive, normalizing, and helpful experience. Unfortunately, the SPCs who were sexually attracted to their client-athletes rarely sought supervision, though male SPCs trained in ESS were slightly more likely to do so than male SPCs trained in psychology and female SPCs trained in ESS (all mean ratings, though, were below 2.5 on the one to five point scale). Given this finding, it was interesting that the SPCs, regardless of gender and degree area, thought that supervision generally would be necessary if they were to experience a sexual attraction in the future. This discrepancy between their current and ideal behaviors may be attributable to the stigma and embarrassment they felt in relation to the sexual attraction and their belief that they could manage their sexual feelings and control their behaviors by themselves. Increasing awareness of sexual attraction issues within sport psychology may lead to decreased experiential avoidance of these issues, an in- creased willingness to seek supervision when such feelings arise, and higher quality supervisory experiences when discussing these issues.

Table 5 SPCs Beliefs Regarding the Professionalism of Such Behaviors by Degree Area (N � 198)

Nonsexual boundary crossing

ESS (n � 142)

M (SD)

Psych (n � 56) M (SD) F

Attend client’s sporting event 4.56 (.68) 4.73 (.70) 2.87 Nonsexual touching 3.44 (1.39) 3.43 (1.40) .04 Attended social gathering 3.21 (1.13) 3.36 (1.14) .60 Traveled with client 3.23 (1.28) 3.75 (1.24) 6.35�

Remained at party with client 3.20 (1.26) 3.21 (1.20) .01 Attend client’s special event 3.42 (1.11) 3.71 (1.07) 2.87 Disclosed personal stressor 2.43 (1.45) 2.91 (1.44) 4.55�

Became social friends 2.71 (1.36) 3.23 (1.29) 7.33��

Exchanged or received gifts 2.51 (1.33) 2.98 (1.27) 5.66�

Provided services to relative, friend, or lover of client 2.89 (1.42) 2.95 (1.34) .12

Sent holiday greeting 3.05 (1.21) 3.43 (1.26) 4.38�

Had client employed where work 2.34 (1.32) 2.86 (1.39) 6.49�

Cried in front of client 2.98 (1.20) 2.80 (1.15) 1.00 Client stayed at house 2.08 (1.44) 2.52 (1.38) 4.51�

Work with client romantically involved with friend 2.63 (1.35) 2.79 (1.30) .76

Formed business relationship 2.19 (1.39) 2.64 (1.26) 5.04�

Lent $50 or less 2.02 (1.49) 1.96 (1.39) .01 Gave theatre, sports, or other

“event” tickets to client 2.37 (1.36) 2.64 (1.29) 1.73

Note. ESS � SPCs whose degrees were from Exercise/Sport Science programs; Psych � SPCs whose degrees were from Psychology programs. The professionalism of each boundary crossing behavior was rated on a five point scale that ranged from poor (1) to good (5) professional behavior (regardless of whether they had engaged in that behavior themselves). � p � .05. �� p � .01.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

99SPORT PSYCHOLOGY CONSULTANTS’ BOUNDARY CROSSINGS

This study had several limitations that warrant discussion. First, data were based solely on self-report and thus the prevalence of sexual attraction, sexual behaviors, and nonsexual boundary cross- ings may be underreported. Even though the SPCs were assured of anonymity, the sensitive nature of the questions, coupled with the stigma and embarrassment associated with admitting such feelings and behaviors may have made many SPCs reticent to fully dis- close. Second, the sample represented SPCs who were members of the AASP and APA Division 47 who chose to respond to the survey. SPCs who were engaging in sexual boundary violations may have chosen not to participate, which also may have contrib- uted to the low frequency of reported sexual behaviors. Third, although we did obtain data regarding their degree area (i.e., psychology vs. exercise science), we did not ask about their theoretical orientation in terms of how they worked with their client-athletes. Thus, we were unable to determine how such an orientation might have influenced their consulting behaviors in general and, more specifically, their responses to our survey. Finally, we surveyed only the 18 nonsexual behaviors that had been identified in previous research with professional psycholo- gists (Lamb & Catanzaro, 1998), which may not have represented all of the behaviors in which SPCs engage that cross traditional psychotherapy boundaries but are essential for effective sport psychology practice.

In future studies, researchers may assess broader samples of SPCs (e.g., those practicing in countries other than the United States) and conduct such assessments every decade or so to deter- mine trends in sexual and nonsexual behaviors with client-athletes. Although quantitative, survey-based studies such as ours are in- formative, researchers might interview different subsets of SPCs (e.g., early career, midcareer, and late-career) to determine how their thinking about and engagement in sexual attractions and behaviors may be different based on length of time in the field and the experiences they have accrued. Such qualitative approaches also might allow for more disclosure of the types of attractions and behaviors that occur and, if SPCs are attracted, what psychosocial and environmental factors contribute to the likelihood of their acting (or not acting) on the attraction. Researchers also might consider other nonsexual behaviors that cross traditional psycho- therapy boundaries but may be essential for working effectively within sport environments that were not included in our study. Documenting the types of behaviors that occur, how frequently SPCs engage in each, and the extent to which SPCs view each behavior as professional may inform educational training pro- grams by offering a clear picture of the landscape in which future SPCs may be working and what behaviors may be deemed accept- able and associated with competent practice.

Providing psychological services within a sport environment is akin to working in military and rural communities where psychol- ogists may engage in behaviors that cross traditional psychother- apy boundaries in an effort to meet clients where they are and to intervene in a culturally competent manner (Speight, 2012). In sport, SPCs are likely to travel with teams/athletes, attend practices and competitions, share meals, and nonsexually touch (e.g., hand on shoulder). Although such behaviors are necessary and profes- sional (Moore, 2003), in the sport environment, SPCs also need to be aware that sexual attractions may develop with their client- athletes (Haberl & Peterson, 2006) and that they must be respon- sible and monitor (and manage) their feelings effectively so as not

to engage in sexual behaviors that would be harmful and damag- ing. Supervision, whether formal or within the context of a colle- gial peer network, is an excellent mechanism for discussing thoughts and feelings and deciding on what behaviors to engage in that will protect client-athletes’ welfare and be most helpful to them as they work toward achieving their performance goals.

References

Andersen, M. B. (2005). Touching taboos: Sex and the sport psychologist. In M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Sport psychology in practice (pp. 171–191). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Association of Applied Sport Psychology. (n.d.). Ethics code: AASP eth- ical principles and standards. Retrieved April 17, 2013, from http:// www.appliedsportpsych.org/about/ethics/ethics-code/

Barnett, J. E., Lazarus, A. A., Vasquez, M. J. T., Moorehead-Slaughter, O., & Johnson, W. B. (2007). Boundary issues and multiple relationships: Fantasy and reality. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 401– 410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.4.401

Bradley, J. M., Werth, J. L., Jr., & Hastings, S. L. (2012). Social justice advocacy in rural communities: Practical issues and implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 363–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0011000011415697

Etzel, E. F., Watson, J. C., & Zizzi, S. (2004). A web-based survey of AAASP members’ ethical beliefs and behaviors in the new millennium. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 236 –250. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1080/10413200490485595

Gutheil, T. G., & Gabbard, G. O. (1998). Misuses and misunderstandings of boundary theory in clinical and regulatory settings. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 409 – 414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ajp.155 .3.409

Haberl, P., & Peterson, K. (2006). Olympic-sized ethical dilemmas: Issues and challenges for sport psychology consultants on the road and at the Olympics games. Ethics & Behavior, 16, 25– 40. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1207/s15327019eb1601_4

Hines, A. H., Ader, D. N., Chang, A. S., & Rundell, J. R. (1998). Dual agency, dual relationships, boundary crossings, and associated boundary violations: A survey of military and civilian psychiatrists. Military Medicine, 163, 826 – 833.

Housman, L. M., & Stake, J. E. (1999). The current state of sexual ethics training in clinical psychology: Issues of quantity, quality, and effec- tiveness. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30, 302–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.30.3.302

Johnson, W. B., Ralph, J., & Johnson, S. J. (2005). Managing multiple roles in embedded environments: The case of aircraft carrier psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36, 73– 81. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.1.73

Lamb, D. H., & Catanzaro, S. J. (1998). Sexual and nonsexual boundary violations involving psychologists, clients, supervisees, and students: Implications for professional practice. Professional Psychology: Re- search and Practice, 29, 498 –503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028 .29.5.498

Lamb, D. H., Catanzaro, S. J., & Moorman, A. S. (2003). Psychologists reflect on their sexual relationships with clients, supervisees, and stu- dents: Occurrence, impact, rationales and collegial intervention. Profes- sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 102–107. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.1.102

Lamb, D. H., Woodburn, J. R., Lewis, J. T., Strand, K. K., Buchko, K. J., & Kang, J. R. (1994). Sexual and business relationships between ther- apists and former clients. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 31, 270 –278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0090230

Moleski, S. M., & Kiselica, M. S. (2005). Dual relationships: A continuum ranging from the destructive to the therapeutic. Journal of Counseling &

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

100 MOLES, PETRIE, AND WATKINS

http://www.appliedsportpsych.org/about/ethics/ethics-code/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.4.401

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000011415697

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200490485595

http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ajp.155.3.409

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1601_4

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.30.3.302

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.1.73

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.29.5.498

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.1.102

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0090230

Development, 83, 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005 .tb00574.x

Moore, Z. E. (2003). Ethical dilemmas in sport psychology: Discussion and recommendations for practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 601– 610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.34.6.601

Petitpas, A. J., Brewer, B. W., Rivera, P. M., & Van Raalte, J. L. (1994). Ethical beliefs and behaviors in applied sport psychology: The AAASP ethics survey. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6, 135–151. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413209408406290

Petrie, T. A., & Buntrock, C. (1995, October). Sexual attraction and the profession of sport psychology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Petrie, T. A., & Diehl, N. S. (1995). Sport psychology in the profession of psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 288 – 291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0735-7028.26.3.288

Pope, K. S. (1988). How clients are harmed by sexual contact with mental health professionals: The syndrome and its prevalence. Journal of Coun- seling & Development, 67, 222–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556- 6676.1988.tb02587.x

Pope, K. S., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2006). Sexual attraction to clients: The human therapist and the (sometimes) inhuman training system. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, S, 96 –111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.S.2.96

Rodolfa, E., Hall, T., Holms, V., Davena, A., Komatz, D., Antunez, M., & Hall, A. (1994). The management of sexual feelings in therapy. Profes-

sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 168 –172. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0735-7028.25.2.168

Speight, S. (2012). An exploration of boundaries and solidarity in coun- seling relationships. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 133–157. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000011399783

Stevens, L. M., & Andersen, M. B. (2007). Transference and countertrans- ference in sport psychology service delivery: Part I. A review of erotic attraction. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 253–269. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/10413200701314003

Strean, H. S. (1999). Resolving some therapeutic impasses by disclosing countertransference. Clinical Social Work Journal, 27, 123–140. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022866606074

Thoreson, R. W., Shaughnessy, P., Heppner, P. P., & Cook, S. W. (1993). Sexual contact during and after the professional relationship: Attitudes and practices of male counselors. Journal of Counseling & Develop- ment, 71, 429 – 434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1993 .tb02660.x

Wilbers, D., Veenstra, G., Van de Wiel, H. B., & Weijmar Schultz, W. C. (1992). Sexual contact in the doctor-patient relationship in the Nether- lands. BMJ, 304, 1531–1534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.304.6841 .1531

Zur, O. (2004). To cross or not to cross: Do boundaries in therapy protect or harm? Pychotherapy Bulletin, 39, 27–32.

Received February 16, 2015 Revision received August 25, 2015

Accepted August 30, 2015 �

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e