Dr. Daniela Yeung, a health psychologist, has been conducting a federally funded ethnographic study of couples in which the male partner has been imprisoned for intimate partner violence. Over the course of a year, she has had eight individual monthly interviews with 25 couples while one partner was in jail and following the partner's release on probation. Aiden is a 35-year-old male parolee convicted of seriously injuring Maya, his wife. The interviews with both Maya and Aiden have covered a range of personal topics including Aiden's problem drinking, which is marked by blackouts and threatening phone calls made to his wife when he becomes drunk, usually in the evening. Based on the interviews, to her knowledge, Aiden has never followed through on these threats. Dr. Yeung has the impression she has established relationships of trust with both Aiden and Maya. One evening Dr. Yeung checks her answering machine and finds a message from Aiden. His words are slurred and angry: "Now that you know the truth about what I am, you know that there is nothing you can do to help the evil inside me. The bottle is my savior, and I will end this with them tonight." She calls both Aiden's and Maya's cell phone numbers, but no one answers. Dr. Yeung has Aiden's address, and after 2 hours, she is considering whether or not to contact emergency services to suggest that law enforcement officers go to Aiden's home or to Maya's home.

Does this situation meet the standards set by the Tarasoff decision's "duty to protect" statute? How might whether or not Dr. Yeung's state includes researchers under such a statute influence Dr. Yeung's ethical decision making? How might the fact that Dr. Yeung is a research psychologist without training or licensure in clinical practice influence the ethical decision?