 Now talking about exactly the face of the confrontation. Now, once you have decided you have to go for the confrontation. The first thing is to schedule the meeting in advance. If you decided to go ahead with direct meeting, schedule it in advance. Although this should not be done into a threatening manner, it should be in a very polite and a gentle way. An office setting would normally be more appropriate than a home or a restaurant even if the colleague is a friend. So, a formal setting in the confrontation meeting should be done rather than choosing an informal setting for it. Second, to set the tone for a constructive and educative session. The tone in which we have to talk, to explain our point of view, it is also necessary to be very subtle. Do not take on the role of an accuser, judge, jury, or anyone who is a penance dispenser. You cannot blame anyone immediately. You cannot blame anyone. Rather, in a very gentle manner, it is necessary to have a confrontation with him. The session will probably progress best if you view yourself as having an alliance with a colleague. If you make him feel that you are his friends, and you are going to talk to him for his benefit, then probably his benefit will be more than the meeting of the confrontation. Then when entering the confrontation phase, remain calm and self-confident. In this way, we have to identify any individual's problem, try to correct it, keep yourself composed, keep yourself confident. It is very important. The colleague may display some considerable emotions. He can immediately say, why you are saying this to me, what is your work or who told you. So, in such a situation, discussing with him in a non-threatening way, and understanding his emotions, it is very important to proceed with what you are saying. Then describe your ethical obligation, noting the relevant moral principle, which we have just talked about, that first take out the evidence of what he has violated, and ethical code, standard promoting your intervention. Now, in such a situation, please tell him that you have done this ethical violation, you have negated this point of view, you have not followed this rule of the APA, or in this way, in this situation, your profession was not allowed. Never play deductive by trying to trap your colleague through leading questions. In such a situation, when we are concentrating on leading questions, loaded questions, hypothetical questions, we should not do such questions. In such a situation, please explain your point of view, that you have followed these steps with children in this experiment, you did not take care of these guidelines, you did not do de-briefing of deception, you did not take any form consent, and hence, you have done these violations here. Then, if you are intervening on behalf of someone else, you will first have to disclose that why you are there and offer any red flag. Now, if you have come to say that someone has told you to do this work on behalf of me, even then you have to introduce yourself and you have to tell him where he has crossed the red flags, he did not take care of the threats, and he has done some ethical violations and where he is unethical. Allow colleague Ample time to explain and defend his or her position in as much detail as required. Now, it is very important to tell that individual your own point of view and then tell him that you are alish for that. No, this is not the case. Listen to him completely, give him a chance to explain and to prove his or her is very much obligatory. Because in such a situation, the individual we are using or talking about or talking about or talking about emotionally disturbed, frustrated, defensive, repetitive, one has to be very patient while giving the full chance and full time to listen to the opposite party. Then if the colleague become abusive or threatening, attempt to steer the person to more constructive manner. Now, in such a situation if an individual misbehaves, becomes abusive, and starts to repeat, this could involve including another appropriate person or pressing formal charges. Because here informal confrontation ends and after this stage we need to go for formal confrontation. This is the process through which we go through the confrontation with the other person while talking about some unethical, precedent.