PS311 Unit 3 Ethical Decision Model Analysis Example

Reviewed by Romilly Dunmore, MEd Ethical Practice in a Diverse World Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

A client aiming to cut back on drinking rather than quit, paired with a case manager trainee whose father's alcoholism left her convinced only abstinence works, is worked through Kocet and Herlihy's values-based conflict model in this PS311 Unit 3 analysis. Ethical bracketing names the trainee's belief as personal, harm reduction research and program policy show the conflict is not professional, the codes discourage values-based referral, and Cottone's social constructivism adds consultation. The decision keeps the client, adds weekly supervision and training, and writes a moderation plan with abstinence as her option. Purdue Global PS 311, Ethical Practice in a Diverse World, assigns this analysis in the BS in Psychology course.

CoursePS311 Ethical Practice in a Diverse World
UnitUnit 3
Paper typeEthical decision-making model analysis
LengthAbout 540 words, 4 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Psychology
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PS311 Unit 3

1

A Harm Reduction Client and a Trainee's Abstinence Beliefs: A PS311 Unit 3 Ethical Decision-Making Model Analysis

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS311: Ethical Practice in a Diverse World

Unit 3 Ethical Decision-Making Model Analysis

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The client, the trainee and the program are composite; the models and sources cited are real.

What this part is doingNaming the model, the conflict and the decision in the lead shows the analysis reaches an outcome through a defined process.
2

The Case

Ms. A., 33, a restaurant manager, enters the program after a drunk-driving arrest. She wants to reduce her drinking to two drinks on no more than three days a week, not quit. The program supports harm reduction goals when a client chooses them and they are clinically appropriate. Elena, the case manager trainee assigned to her, grew up with an alcoholic father and believes that anyone with a drinking problem must stop completely. She asks her supervisor whether Ms. A. could be reassigned.

Why a Model

Ethical decisions made quickly tend to follow the decision maker's feelings. A model slows the process, separates the facts from reactions and creates a record of reasoning. Kocet and Herlihy (2014) developed a model for conflicts between a counselor's personal values and a client's goals, which fits this case better than a general model, because the conflict sits in Elena's values, not in the client's behavior. Cottone (2001) adds a reminder that ethical decisions are made in relationship, through consultation and negotiation, rather than by an individual reasoning alone.

Working Through the Model

Step one is ethical bracketing: setting aside personal values to work within the client's goals. Elena names her belief and its source, her father's drinking, and recognizes that it is personal, not professional, knowledge.

Step two is examining the conflict. The question is whether the conflict comes from Elena's values or from a genuine professional concern. Harm reduction approaches have research support for some people who drink heavily and do not seek abstinence (Marlatt & Witkiewitz, 2010), and the program endorses them, so the conflict is personal.

The question was not whether Elena could change her beliefs, but whether she could work within Ms. A.'s goals without imposing them.

Step three is consulting. Elena meets with her supervisor and reviews the relevant codes, which discourage referring clients solely because of a counselor's personal values.

Step four is considering options: reassignment, continuing with supervision or continuing without support. Reassignment based on values alone would send Ms. A. the message that her goal is unacceptable and would set a pattern Elena could not sustain across a career.

Step five is choosing and evaluating. Elena continues with Ms. A., with weekly supervision focused on this case.

What this part is doingShowing why reassignment was rejected demonstrates that the model tests the most tempting option.
3

Competence

The model also asks whether the counselor is competent to help. Elena has little training in harm reduction. Her supervisor arranges for her to complete a training module and to review her sessions, so the decision to continue does not outrun her skills.

The Decision and Documentation

Elena will support Ms. A.'s goal with a written plan that sets drinking limits, a way to track them and a review date, and will document the values conflict, the consultation and the plan in her supervision notes. If Ms. A. cannot keep to her limits, the plan includes discussing abstinence as an option she can choose, not a requirement imposed.

What this part is doingBuilding the possibility of abstinence into the plan as the client's choice keeps the decision consistent with the model.
4

References

Cottone, R. R. (2001). A social constructivism model of ethical decision making in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(1), 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01941.x

Kocet, M. M., & Herlihy, B. J. (2014). Addressing value-based conflicts within the counseling relationship: A decision-making model. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(2), 180-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00146.x

Marlatt, G. A., & Witkiewitz, K. (2010). Update on harm-reduction policy and intervention research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 591-606. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131438

Reading the PS 311 Unit 3 instructions

In Unit 3 of PS311, the analysis commonly asks you to work through a case with a published ethical decision-making model. Choose a model that fits the type of problem, and explain why it fits better than a general alternative. Work through each step explicitly, using the details of your case at every step instead of summarizing the model. Include consultation and a review of relevant codes. Consider several options, including the most tempting one, and explain why each is chosen or rejected. Address the professional's competence, not only the ethics of the choice. End with a decision, a plan and documentation. Cite the model's original source and any codes or research used, and keep the reasoning visible enough that another professional could follow it.

Inside the PS311 Unit 3 example

The analysis opens with Ms. A.'s moderation goal, the program's harm reduction policy and the trainee's request for reassignment. A section explains why Kocet and Herlihy's model fits a values conflict and adds Cottone's emphasis on consultation. The steps follow: bracketing the belief and its source, testing whether the conflict is personal using Marlatt and Witkiewitz, consulting and reviewing the codes, weighing reassignment and continuing with supervision, under a highlighted line about working within the client's goals. A competence section adds training and session review. The decision describes a written plan with limits, tracking, a review date and abstinence available as her choice. Each step is labeled, so a supervisor could see exactly where the reasoning turned.

Where the points sit in the PS311 Unit 3 rubric

In this unit the grade follows the model: each step visible, each tied to Ms. A.'s facts, ending in a decision another clinician could defend. Instructors look for a model suited to the problem, each step tied to specific facts and consultation included. Examining the most tempting option and explaining why it was rejected shows rigor. Attention to competence, not only ethics, demonstrates professional judgment. A concrete plan with documentation completes the decision. The model's original source and relevant codes should be cited accurately. Strong papers keep the client's goals at the center, rather than turning the analysis into the counselor's personal story, while still naming the counselor's values honestly.

PS311 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points

The most frequent weakness names a model and then reaches a decision without visibly using its steps. Another is choosing a general model for a values conflict, which misses the distinction between personal and professional concerns. Students often accept reassignment without examining whether it is justified. Competence is rarely addressed. Decisions tend to stop at an intention, such as respecting the client, without a plan. Before submitting, label each step of your model as you apply it, write one paragraph on the option you rejected and why, add a sentence on whether the professional has the skills needed and end with a plan that could be put in a record.

Get a PS311 Unit 3 example written to your instructions

Send the case and the model and the instructions with the rubric. A custom analysis applies the model step by step and reaches a decision. The first is free, back within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

Request this unit free All PS311 units Finished samples

More PS311 papers and BS in Psychology samples

PS311 Unit 3 questions, answered

Which models are used?

Often a stepwise model, a social constructivism model or a values-based conflict model.

Why use a model?

It slows the decision, brings in consultation and creates a record of reasoning.

Must every step be included?

Usually, briefly, so the reader sees how the decision was reached.

Where can I find a free PS311 Unit 3 sample paper?

This page carries the complete PS311 Unit 3 analysis applying a values-based conflict model to a composite trainee and a client seeking moderation.

Why was reassignment rejected in the PS311 Unit 3 sample?

The conflict came from the trainee's personal values, and codes discourage referring clients solely because of a counselor's values.