Ethical Controversies in Behaviorism

6/8/26, 2:02 PM

Page 1 of 2about:srcdoc

Ethical Controversies in Behaviorism - Rubric Total 240 points

Criterion 1. 1: Unsatisfactory

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3. 3: Satisfactory 4. 4: Good 5. 5: Excellent

Ethical Analysis and

Critique

Research-Based Discussion

of Specific Historical

Instances Where

Behaviorist Techniques

Were Applied With the Aim

of Behavior Change but

Raised Ethical Debates

0 points

A research-based

discussion of specific

historical instances where

behaviorist techniques

were applied with the aim

of behavior change but

raised ethical debates is

either missing or not

evident to the reader.

35.04 points

A discussion of specific

historical instances where

behaviorist techniques

were applied with the aim

of behavior change but

raised ethical debates is

present, but inaccurate or

illogical. No research

support is offered.

39.36 points

A research-based

discussion of specific

historical instances where

behaviorist techniques

were applied with the aim

of behavior change but

raised ethical debates is

presented, but cursory.

Research support is limited

and from dated resources.

43.68 points

A research-based

discussion of specific

historical instances where

behaviorist techniques

were applied with the aim

of behavior change but

raised ethical debates is

present and thorough.

Research support is

limited, but from current

resources.

48 points

A research-based

discussion of specific

historical instances where

behaviorist techniques

were applied with the aim

of behavior change but

raised ethical debates is

thoroughly presented with

rich detail. Research

support is thorough and

from current resources.

Contemporary Relevance

Research-Supported

Statement Connecting the

Historical Examples to

Contemporary

Psychological Practices and

Ongoing Ethical Debates

0 points

A research-supported

statement connecting the

historical examples to

contemporary

psychological practices and

ongoing ethical debates is

not presented.

43.8 points

A statement connecting the

historical examples to

contemporary

psychological practices and

ongoing ethical debates is

presented, but inaccurate

or illogical. No research

support is offered.

49.2 points

A research-supported

statement connecting the

historical examples to

contemporary

psychological practices and

ongoing ethical debates is

presented, but is cursory.

Research support is limited

and from dated resources.

54.6 points

A research-supported

statement connecting the

historical examples to

contemporary

psychological practices and

ongoing ethical debates is

presented and thorough.

Research support is

limited, but from current

resources.

60 points

A research-supported

statement connecting the

historical examples to

contemporary

psychological practices and

ongoing ethical debates is

thoroughly presented with

rich detail. Research

support is thorough and

from current resources.

Reflection

Reflection on how Studying

Behaviorism's Ethical

Controversies Influences

Your Own Ethical

Considerations as a

Psychological Practitioner

and Researcher

0 points

A reflection on how

studying behaviorism's

ethical controversies

influences your own ethical

considerations as a

psychological practitioner

and researcher is not

presented.

43.8 points

A reflection on how

studying behaviorism's

ethical controversies

influences your own ethical

considerations as a

psychological practitioner

and researcher is

presented, but illogical and

disorganized. There is no

evidence of introspection.

49.2 points

A reflection on how

studying behaviorism's

ethical controversies

influences your own ethical

considerations as a

psychological practitioner

and researcher is

presented, but displays

little depth of thought or

evidence of introspection.

54.6 points

A reflection on how

studying behaviorism's

ethical controversies

influences your own ethical

considerations as a

psychological practitioner

and researcher is

presented and displays

reasonable evidence of

introspection.

60 points

A reflection on how

studying behaviorism's

ethical controversies

influences your own ethical

considerations as a

psychological practitioner

and researcher is

thoroughly presented and

displays significant

evidence of introspection.

Synthesis and Argument 0 points

No synthesis of source

information is evident.

Statement of purpose is

not followed to a justifiable

conclusion. The conclusion

does not support the claim

made. Argument is

incoherent and uses non-

credible sources.

17.52 points

Synthesis of source

information is attempted,

but is not successful.

Sufficient justification of

claims is lacking. Argument

lacks consistent unity.

There are obvious flaws in

the logic. Some sources

have questionable

credibility.

19.68 points

Synthesis of source

information is present, but

pedantic. Argument is

orderly, but may have a

few inconsistencies. The

argument presents

minimal justification of

claims. Argument logically,

but not thoroughly,

supports the purpose.

Sources used are credible.

Introduction and

conclusion bracket the

thesis.

21.84 points

Synthesis of source

information is present and

meaningful. Argument

shows logical progressions.

Techniques of

argumentation are evident.

There is a smooth

progression of claims from

introduction to conclusion.

Most sources are

authoritative.

24 points

Synthesis of source

information is present and

scholarly. Argument is

clear and convincing,

presenting a persuasive

claim in a distinctive and

compelling manner. All

sources are authoritative.

Thesis Development and

Purpose

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible

overall purpose or

organizing claim.

17.52 points

Thesis and/or main claim

are insufficiently developed

and/or vague; purpose is

not clear.

19.68 points

Thesis and/or main claim

are apparent and

appropriate to purpose.

21.84 points

Thesis and/or main claim

are clear and forecast the

development of the paper.

They are descriptive and

reflective of the arguments

and appropriate to the

24 points

Thesis and/or main claim

are clear and

comprehensive; the

essence of the paper is

contained within the thesis.

6/8/26, 2:02 PM

Page 2 of 2about:srcdoc

purpose.

Mechanics of Writing 0 points

Mechanical errors are

pervasive enough that they

impede communication of

meaning. Inappropriate

word choice and/or

sentence construction are

used.

8.76 points

Frequent and repetitive

mechanical errors distract

the reader. Inconsistencies

in language choice

(register), sentence

structure, and/or word

choice are present.

9.84 points

Some mechanical errors or

typos are present, but are

not overly distracting to

the reader. Correct

sentence structure and

audience-appropriate

language are used.

10.92 points

Prose is largely free of

mechanical errors,

although a few may be

present. A variety of

sentence structures and

effective figures of speech

are used.

12 points

Writer is clearly in

command of standard,

written, academic English.

APA Format 0 points

Required format is rarely

followed correctly. No

reference page is included.

No in-text citations are

used.

8.76 points

Required format elements

are missing or incorrect. A

lack of control with

formatting is apparent.

Reference page is present.

However, in-text citations

are inconsistently used.

9.84 points

Required format is

generally correct. However,

errors are present (e.g.

font, cover page, margins,

and in-text citations).

Reference page is included

and lists sources used in

the paper. Sources are

appropriately documented

though some errors are

present.

10.92 points

Required format is used,

but minor errors are

present (e.g. headings and

direct quotes). Reference

page is present and

includes all cited sources.

Documentation is

appropriate and citation

style is usually correct.

12 points

The document is correctly

formatted. In-text citations

and a reference page are

complete and correct. The

documentation of cited

sources is free of error.

© 2026. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.