Psychology Guidelines Under Review by APA

Alright, let’s try to get past the surface-level interpretation here for a moment—what’s really going on with the APA’s current review of its guidelines? Because, look, on the surface it’s about “updating standards,” right? Making sure the field keeps pace with tech, ethics, social issues. But, what are the underlying assumptions here? And what do they mean for the bigger picture? It’s always worth asking.

The Significance of the Current Revisions

The APA, as the main authority in U.S. psychology, is in the middle of some pretty significant revisions—most notably, the ethics code, which, by the way, they’ve just opened to public comment until March 19, 2025. That’s not insignificant, folks. That’s an open door for influence, for shaping what the profession will look like tomorrow. And I tell ya, the timing is interesting—these revisions are happening as the field deals with some major shifts, like integrating AI into therapy, telepsychology expanding, and a much-needed focus on mental health disparities.

But here’s the thing—these updates aren’t happening in a vacuum. They’re driven by what? The need to keep the field “relevant,” to respond to societal pressures, and—let’s be honest—probably some behind-the-scenes lobbying, too. The APA’s standards for accreditation were last revised in 2021, and now, they’re reviewing those again. Why? Because the landscape is changing fast, and the risk is—if they don’t update—practitioners might be left behind, or worse, the standards could be manipulated to fit certain agendas.

BTW! If you like my content, here you can see an article I wrote that might interest you: Quirks Are Your Superpowers

Methodology and Underlying Motivations

Now, here’s what really gets to the heart of it—when you dig into the methodology behind these updates, it’s often a mixed bag. They talk about “integrating AI,” but what does that mean in practice? Are they setting strict guidelines, or is it a vague nod to innovation? Because, as a psychologist with an academic background, I know the devil is in the details. The guidelines for telepsychology, for example, are developed with good intentions but—are they sufficiently rigorous? Or are they just enough to placate regulators and keep insurance companies happy?

What’s truly concerning—when you look at the bigger picture—is that a lot of these revisions seem reactive, not proactive. They’re tweaking the rules in response to what’s happening now, but are they really anticipating the future? Or just patching up the existing framework? For instance, the emphasis on addressing mental health disparities and promoting inclusion—great goals, sure. But how are they actually translating that into concrete standards? Because, from my research, the most effective change always comes when you embed it into the core—into the methodology, into training protocols—not just surface-level statements.

Transparency and Potential Risks

Let me put it this way—if you really start digging into the public comments, the technical reports, the footnotes—they reveal a lot. Sometimes you find that the “new standards” are just reworded versions of old ones, with a sprinkle of new language to tick boxes. That’s the real risk—that these reviews become window dressing, a way to preserve the status quo while giving the appearance of progress.

And don’t forget—these guidelines aren’t just bureaucratic exercises; they shape how practitioners behave, how they make decisions, how they interpret what’s ethical. So, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the integrity of how these standards are written and applied. Because if the standards are vague, if they’re easy to bend, then what’s the real impact? That’s where the potential for misuse or misinterpretation—and even manipulation—comes in.

What they share from our blog:

Quirks Are Your Superpowers

Psychology Currents and Branches - Schools of thought

People tend to focus on the headline, the “new guidelines,” but if you dig into the underlying documents, the real story is often hidden in the fine print. That’s where the assumptions reveal themselves—what’s being prioritized, what’s being left out, what’s being downplayed. And frankly, that’s what we need to watch for: how these revisions align or conflict with the broader challenges the field faces.

Final Thoughts

So, yeah—this review process is critical, but it’s also a mirror. It reflects what’s really happening behind the scenes. The question is—are they really reforming, or just reshaping the narrative? Because in the end, it’s about the integrity of the data, the methodology, and the intent behind the updates. And I tell ya, that’s what makes all the difference in how psychology will evolve in the coming years.

Jump into the comments, share your thoughts—what do you think is really going on with these guidelines? Are they genuinely moving forward, or just keeping the wheels turning? Because, trust me, the story is always in the details.

Sara Morgan

Dr. Sara Morgan takes a close, critical look at recent developments in psychology and mental health, using her background as a psychologist. She used to work in academia, and now she digs into official data, calling out inconsistencies, missing info, and flawed methods—especially when they seem designed to prop up the mainstream psychological narrative. She is noted for her facility with words and her ability to “translate” complex psychological concepts and data into ideas we can all understand. It is common to see her pull evidence to systematically dismantle weak arguments and expose the reality behind the misconceptions.