By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
Even in private groups, sharing client details carries significant confidentiality risks. The BACB Ethics Code requires that client information be protected regardless of the communication medium. Private groups may have hundreds or thousands of members, content can be screenshot and shared outside the group, and the combination of details — even without names — may be sufficient to identify a client. The best practice is to disguise identifying details, share the minimum information needed for the consultation question, and consider whether the question can be posed hypothetically. If the clinical question genuinely requires specific case details, a one-on-one consultation with a trusted colleague — conducted through a secure communication channel — is more appropriate than a group post. The convenience of posting in a group does not outweigh the confidentiality obligations owed to clients.
A professional disagreement exists when two practitioners hold different but defensible positions on a clinical question. Reasonable behavior analysts can disagree about the relative merits of different assessment tools, the best approach to teaching a particular skill, or the interpretation of a research finding. These disagreements are a normal and healthy part of professional discourse. An ethics violation exists when a practitioner's conduct clearly contravenes a specific provision of the BACB Ethics Code — for example, practicing outside their competence, failing to protect client confidentiality, or misrepresenting their credentials. The key question is whether the conduct in question violates a specific, identifiable ethical standard or whether it simply represents a clinical position you disagree with. When uncertain, err on the side of treating the situation as a disagreement and engaging in respectful dialogue rather than making accusations.
The BACB Ethics Code prescribes a graduated response to potential ethical violations. The first step is to carefully evaluate whether the content represents a genuine ethics concern or a professional disagreement. If it appears to be a genuine concern, attempt informal resolution first — typically through a private message to the individual expressing your concern respectfully and specifically. If informal resolution fails or the violation is serious enough to warrant immediate action, consider filing a formal complaint through the BACB's established process. Public confrontation in the forum is rarely the appropriate first response. Public accusations can escalate quickly, involve observers who lack full context, and may cause reputational harm that is disproportionate to the concern. The formal complaint process exists precisely to provide a structured, fair evaluation of ethical concerns.
Recommending products or curricula based on your genuine clinical experience is generally acceptable, provided you disclose any financial relationships with the products you recommend. The BACB Ethics Code requires that recommendations be based on evidence and clinical judgment rather than financial incentives. If you have a financial interest in a product — you sell it, receive referral fees, or work for the company that produces it — this must be disclosed in your recommendation. Even without financial conflicts, recommendations should be framed appropriately. Stating that a product worked well in your specific clinical context is more appropriate and more honest than making broad claims about its effectiveness. Other practitioners may have different client populations, different implementation contexts, and different results.
Online community norms and the BACB Ethics Code are complementary but distinct. Community norms — such as group rules about respectful discourse, requirements for evidence when making clinical claims, and guidelines about what can be shared — create an additional layer of behavioral expectations on top of the Ethics Code. However, community norms do not supersede the Ethics Code, and compliance with community norms does not guarantee ethical compliance. Conversely, the Ethics Code establishes the floor for professional conduct, and community norms may establish higher standards. For example, a community might require that all clinical recommendations include citations to relevant research, which goes beyond the Ethics Code's general requirement for evidence-based practice. Practitioners should be familiar with both the Ethics Code requirements and the specific norms of the communities they participate in.
Yes. Online posts are written records of professional conduct that can be submitted as evidence in a BACB ethics complaint. Posts that violate confidentiality, contain unprofessional language, make unsupported clinical claims, or attack other professionals' reputations can all form the basis of or contribute to an ethics complaint. The informal feel of social media does not create a legal or ethical safe harbor. This reality should inform your online conduct. Before posting, consider whether you would be comfortable with the post being reviewed by the BACB, a client's family, or a legal authority. If the answer is no, revise or reconsider the post.
Disagreements about evidence should be handled by focusing on the evidence itself rather than the people holding different positions. Effective evidence-based discourse includes citing specific research rather than making general claims, acknowledging the limitations of available evidence, distinguishing clearly between what the evidence supports and what is your clinical opinion, and maintaining a respectful tone even when you believe the other party is wrong. Avoid personalizing the disagreement. Statements like 'anyone who uses that approach does not understand ABA' are unproductive and may violate professional conduct standards. Instead, focus on what the research shows, where the evidence is strong, where it is limited, and what questions remain unanswered. This approach models the kind of scientific discourse the field values.
The BACB Ethics Code's confidentiality protections apply regardless of whether a group is labeled as private. Private online groups offer the illusion of confidentiality, but in practice they provide very limited protection. Group membership can change, content can be screenshot and shared, platform policies may allow access to content in ways members do not anticipate, and groups with hundreds or thousands of members are not meaningfully private. Practitioners should treat private online groups as semi-public venues and manage confidentiality accordingly. This means never sharing information that could identify a client, regardless of the group's privacy settings. If you need to discuss a case with details that could be identifying, use a secure, one-on-one communication channel with a specific colleague who has a legitimate professional reason to know the information.
No, passive participation in online communities is not an ethical issue. Practitioners are under no obligation to contribute to online discussions, and many professionals derive significant benefit from reading others' perspectives without posting themselves. However, lurking does raise an ethical consideration when you observe content that clearly violates the Ethics Code — such as posts that reveal confidential client information or make dangerously inaccurate clinical claims. In those cases, the Ethics Code's provisions about addressing potential violations apply regardless of whether you typically participate actively in the community. The decision about how actively to participate should be based on your professional judgment about whether your contribution adds value, not on social pressure to participate.
A positive professional reputation in online communities is built the same way it is built in any professional context: through consistent demonstration of competence, integrity, and respectful engagement. Specifically, this means sharing evidence-based perspectives with appropriate citations, acknowledging the limits of your knowledge, responding to disagreement with substance rather than personal attacks, maintaining strict confidentiality standards, disclosing conflicts of interest, and modeling the professional conduct you want to see from others. Avoid the temptation to build reputation through controversy, definitiveness beyond what the evidence supports, or alignment with popular positions. The most respected voices in online professional communities are typically those who demonstrate nuance, intellectual honesty, and genuine helpfulness rather than those who are the most vocal or the most certain.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Do Better Collective – Community Expectations and Ethical Guidelines — Do Better Collective · 2 BACB Ethics CEUs · $
Take This Course →2 BACB Ethics CEUs · $ · Do Better Collective
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.