Context

Over the past 25 years or so, I have had the pleasure of serving as president of various associations, including the Quebec Society for Research in Psychology, the Canadian Psychological Association, and the International Positive Psychology Association. Serving as president can be rewarding, as one gets to propose and institute changes that will bring forward the association’s objectives and activities. At the same time, some problematic situations may arise that merit concrete action. As the lead officer, it typically falls on the president to engage in appropriate action in these situations so as to find a solution to such problems.

The Problem

While I was serving as president of one of the aforementioned associations, the following situation took place. An individual had submitted two abstracts for two symposia (one presentation in each of the two symposia) for the association conference. Both were accepted. However, when the time came to present the information at the conference, the person did not present the content that he or she had submitted for approval. In the first symposium, he or she presented instead some materials whose content was shocking to some of the audience. The individual explained his or her decision to present a different content by simply indicating that had he or she submitted an abstract on the actual content of the talk, it would have never been accepted. In the second talk, instead of presenting the proposed talk, the individual used the time allocated to the talk to engage in some bashing of the association.