Decoding the Ethics Code, Ch. 1

USING WORDS TO SHARE REALITY. 10

A Code of Ethics

for Psychology

How Did We Get Here?

In a field so complex, where individual and social values are yet but ill

defined, the desire to play fairly must be given direction and consistency by

some rules of the game. These rules should do much more than help the

unethical psychologist keep out of trouble; they should be of palpable aid

to the ethical psychologist in making daily decisions.

—Hobbs (1948, p. 81)

Beginnings

The American Psychological Association (APA) has had more than five decades of experience constructing and revising an ethics code that strives to reflect both the

aspirations and practical aspects of ethical decisions made by members of the profession.

The creation and each subsequent revision of the APA Ethics Code has been

driven by the desire for standards that would encourage the highest endeavors of

psychologists, ensure public welfare, promote sound relationships with allied professions,

and promote the professional standing of the discipline (Hobbs, 1948).

Discussions within APA regarding the need for an ethics code in psychology

arose in response to an increase in professional activity and public visibility of its

members before and after World War II. During this period, the societal value of

the still young discipline of psychology was evidenced as psychologists developed

group tests to help the armed services quickly determine the draft eligibility of

young men in wartime and provided mental health services to hospitalized soldiers

when they returned home. In 1947, the first APA Committee on Ethical Standards

for Psychologists was appointed. The committee, chaired by Edward Tolman,

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 1 A Code of Ethics for Psychology——3

wanted to create a code of ethics for psychologists that would be more than a

document with an imposing title (Hobbs, 1948). The members were committed to

producing professional standards that would provide psychologists with a set of

values and practical techniques for identifying and resolving moral problems.

To achieve these goals, the committee decided to draw on the knowledge of the

field to create a process of developing a code that would “be effective in modifying

human behavior” (Hobbs, 1948, p. 82). According to Hobbs, “This is an old and

familiar task to psychologists, their very stock in trade, in fact. The only difference

here is that human behavior means specifically the behavior of psychologists”

(p. 82). Drawing on the knowledge of group processes during that period, the committee

conceived the task of developing ethical standards as one of group dynamics

(Hobbs, 1948). The process chosen was the critical incident method (Flanagan,

1954), a technique that involved asking the members of the APA to describe a situation

they knew of firsthand, in which a psychologist made a decision having ethical

implications, and to indicate the ethical issues involved.

A second committee, chaired by Nicholas Hobbs, reviewed more than 1,000 such

incidents submitted by APA members. The committee identified major ethical

themes emerging from the incidents that focused on psychologists’ relationships

with and responsibilities to others, including patients, students, research participants,

and other professionals. Many of the incidents reflected the political climate

of the postwar period, including confrontations between academic freedom and

McCarthyism and dilemmas faced by psychologists working in industry asked to

design tests for the purpose of maintaining racial segregation in the workforce. As

different segments of the code were created, drafts were submitted to the membership

for critique and revision. A final draft was adopted by the APA in 1952 and

published in 1953.

Revisions Preceding the 2010 Ethics Code

At the time of the adoption of the first Ethics Code, continual review and revision

based on the experience and perspectives of members was seen as integral to maintaining

the value of the Ethics Code for both the profession and the public (Adkins,

1952). As a result, the Ethics Code of the APA has undergone eleven revisions since

1953. The 1953 version was more than 170 pages long and included case examples

illustrating each ethical standard. The standards themselves were written broadly,

using aspirational rather than narrow legalistic language. Subsequent revisions

eliminated the cases from the text itself and moved toward more specific language.

From the beginning of its more than 50-year history, each revision of the APA’s

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct has been guided by the

following objectives (Hobbs, 1948):

To express the best ethical practices in the field as judged by a large representative

sample of members of the APA

To reflect an explicit value system as well as clearly articulated decisional and

behavioral rules

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

4——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

To be applicable to the full range of activities and role relationships encountered

in the work of psychologists

To have the broadest possible participation among psychologists in its development

and revisions

To influence the ethical conduct of psychologists by meriting widespread

identification and acceptance among members of the discipline

Aspirational Principles and Enforceable Standards

At its heart, an ethics code should reflect the moral principles underlying the

values of the profession. For most professions, ethical behaviors are generally those

that fulfill the fundamental moral obligations to do good, to do no harm, to respect

others, and to treat all individuals honestly and fairly. For some, statements of general

principles are sufficient to guide the ethical behavior of persons devoted to the

ideals of their profession. For others, however, statements describing specific types

of behaviors that meet these ideals are necessary to maximize the code’s utility and

to provide a means of evaluating its efficacy (Schur, 1982).

The form in which ethical guidelines are written will determine whether an ethics

code is an aspirational or enforceable document. Although all codes should have

a foundation in moral principles, the document can take one of three forms. An

aspirational code is composed of statements of broadly worded ideals and principles

that do not attempt to define with any precision right and wrong behaviors. An

educational code combines ethical principles with more explicit interpretations

that can help individual professionals make informed decisions in morally ambiguous

contexts. An enforceable code includes a set of standards that specifically

describes behaviors required and proscribed by the profession and is designed to

serve as a basis for adjudicating grievances (Frankel, 1996).

The original APA Ethics Code, and seven revisions that followed up to 1990,

gradually combined statements of aspirational principles with general guidelines

and enforceable standards for ethical behavior. During this period the increasing

legalistic reaction of consumers and psychologists involved in charges of ethical

violations by psychologists raised concerns about the fairness of subjective interpretations

of such broadly worded principles and standards. Moreover, a rise in the

number of appeals to decisions made by the APA Ethics Committee and regulatory

bodies (e.g., state licensing boards) that relied on the APA Ethics Code for their

disciplinary procedures suggested that adjudicatory decisions based on this type of

format would be increasingly difficult to enforce and thus a disservice to the APA

membership (Bersoff, 1994). Accordingly, to strengthen both the enforceability and

credibility of APA ethical guidelines, crafters of the 1992 APA Ethics Code separated

the enforceable standards from the aspirational principles to make the standards

simple, behaviorally focused, and representative of unitary concepts (Canter,

Bennett, Jones, & Nagy, 1994).

During the revision process leading to the 1992 Ethics Code, some psychologists

argued that adjudication based on specific ethical standards rather than general

principles would diminish the moral foundation on which the APA Ethics

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 1 A Code of Ethics for Psychology——5

Committee charged with adjudicating ethics complaints could base its decisions.

Others supported the move toward separate enforceable standards, arguing that in

practice, limiting the standards to legally and procedurally unenforceable wording

would dilute the ethical goals intended by the foundational principles (Fisher &

Younggren, 1997).

The 1992 Ethics Code represented a radical change from its predecessors in both

structure and content. For the first time, clear distinctions were made between

aspirational principles that articulated foundational values of the discipline and

specific decision rules articulated in 180 distinct ethical standards that would be

subject to enforcement by the APA, other organizations, and licensing boards that

adopted them (Canter, Bennett, Jones, & Nagy, 1994).

The Process of Developing the

2002 Ethics Code

Since its inception in 1953, each revision of the APA Ethics Code has been driven

by the evolving roles and responsibilities of psychologists within a constantly

changing sociocultural, economic, political, and legal landscape. As discussed later

in this chapter, with two exceptions, the 2010 Ethics Code is identical to the version

adopted by the APA in 2002. Major trends influencing revisions leading to the 2002

Ethics Code included (a) the growth and influence of health maintenance organizations

(HMOs) on the provision of health services, (b) the advent of Internetmediated

research and practice and the use of other electronic media, (c) greater

sensitivity to the needs of culturally and language-diverse populations in research

and practice, (d) increasing participation of psychologists in the legal system, and

(e) the sea change from paternalistic to autonomy-based public attitudes and federal

regulations affecting industries, organizations, health care, research, and educational

institutions.

In 1996, the APA Ethics Committee appointed the Ethics Code Task Force

(ECTF), a 14-member committee whose membership reflected the scientific, educational,

professional, gender, ethnic, and geographic diversity of the discipline. Over

the 5-year period, members included Celia B. Fisher (Chair), Peter Appleby, Bruce

Bennett, Laura Brown, Linda F. Campbell, Nabil ElGhoroury, Dennis J. Grill, Jessica

Henderson Daniel, Samuel J. Knapp, Gerald P. Koocher, Marcia Moody, Peter E.

Nathan, Thomas D. Oakland, Mary H. Quigley, Julia M. RamosGrenier, Abigail

Sivan, Steven N. Sparta, Elizabeth Swenson, Melba J. T. Vasquez, and Brian Wilcox.

The Purpose of an Ethics Code

The mission of the task force was to develop and implement a plan for revision

of the 1992 Ethics Code. In its deliberations, the ECTF considered the importance

of both the purpose and process of ethics code development, recognizing that such

consideration would determine the content and format of the code and, ultimately,

whether psychologists would support it.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

6——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The many goals identified by the ECTF to guide the Ethics Code revision process

included the professional, educational, public, and enforcement values of a code of

ethics. These values guided decisions regarding inclusion and exclusion of ethical

requirements and prohibitions and the language used to craft the General Principles

and Ethical Standards.

Establishing the Integrity of a Profession

One purpose of an ethics code is to help establish and maintain the viability of

a profession. An ethics code reflects a collective decision that a profession is better

off when ethical standards are not based solely on individual assessments of what

is or what is not morally acceptable. Adoption of a set of core values that reflect

consensus among members of a discipline distinguishes psychology as a “community

of common purpose” and enhances public confidence in individuals who have

been trained to meet the profession’s ethical standards (Callahan, 1982; Frankel,

1996; Seitz & O’Neill, 1996). Acceptance of an identified set of core values by individual

psychologists across the broad spectrum of psychological activities also helps

protect the integrity of the profession by focusing the attention of individual psychologists

on their responsibilities and duties to others and expectations that all

members of the profession have a stake in behaving by the rules.

A core value of the discipline of psychology, as articulated in the Preamble of the

current Ethics Code, is the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups

with whom psychologists work.

Education and Professional Socialization

A second purpose of an ethics code is its professional socialization function. A

document reflecting the profession’s values and standards provides a guide to what

psychologists should reasonably expect of themselves and one another. A code can

be conceived as an enabling document that acts as a support and guide to individual

psychologists in their efforts to resolve ethical dilemmas (Frankel, 1996; Sinclair,

Poizner, Gilmour-Barrett, & Randall, 1987). A code of ethics also serves to deter

psychologists from engaging in unethical conduct before a problem develops by

specifically proscribing what the profession has identified as unethical behaviors

(Fisher & Younggren, 1997). In addition, it assists faculty and supervisors in communicating

the values of the profession to graduate students and to new Ph.D.s

with limited professional experience.

Public Trust

A third purpose of an ethics code is to gain public trust by demonstrating that

psychologists are members of a responsible and substantial profession with high

standards. A code can serve a public relations value by being seen as a contract with

society to act in consumers’ best interest. A professional ethics code also provides

standards against which the public can hold psychologists accountable. It thus

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 1 A Code of Ethics for Psychology——7

offers a means by which members of the public can draw on norms prescribed by

the profession itself to evaluate the conduct of scientists, educators, consultants,

and practitioners with whom they interact.

Enforcement Value

A profession that demonstrates it can monitor itself is less vulnerable to external

regulation. A fourth purpose of an ethics code is to provide a clear statement of the

types of behaviors considered ethical violations to guide psychologists in avoiding

such behaviors, to assist consumers in making ethical complaints, and to ensure

that such complaints can be adjudicated clearly and fairly by the APA and other

organizations (Fisher & Younggren, 1997). The APA Ethics Code also serves as a

guide for licensing boards, courts, and other institutions for the evaluation of the

responsible conduct of psychology and is thus a means of avoiding capricious standards

set by nonpsychologists. The Ethics Code can also help psychologists defend

their decisions to courts, institutions, or government agencies that would encourage

them to go against the values of the profession.

The Revision Process and Approval

of the 2002 Ethics Code

The ECTF was committed to an open and collaborative revision process that

would be guided by the objectives articulated by the first ethics code committee

(Hobbs, 1948).

In response to the continually evolving legal landscape of ethics adjudication

and federal regulation of science and health practices, the ECTF also concluded

that although law should not dictate the content of the ethics code, sensitivity to

law would protect the integrity of the document as a useful tool for the everyday

ethical decisions of psychologists. The 2002 Ethics Code revision process involved

the following:

Collecting from psychologists engaged in a broad spectrum of scientific and

professional activities critical incidents describing ethical challenges they

had encountered, actual or ideal ethical approaches to these challenges, and

the extent to which the existing 1992 Ethics Code could be applied to these

challenges

Establishing an open call for and review of comments from the membership,

graduate students, state psychological associations, licensing boards, and the

public on the adequacy of the 1992 Ethics Code and on the content and format

of each of seven drafts produced by the ECTF

Opening ECTF meetings to observers from different APA constituencies so as

to benefit from their insights and perspectives

Ongoing legal review by APA General Counsel and outside defense, plaintiff,

Federal Trade Commission, and federal regulatory attorneys

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

8——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Ongoing feedback from consumers, students, APA divisions and committees,

the APA Ethics Committee, the APA Board of Directors, and the APA Council

of Representatives

After reviewing more than 1,300 comments and feedback on seven drafts, in August

2002, the APA Council of Representatives voted unanimously to adopt the final revision

as the new Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2002b).

The 2010 Amendments: The Controversy

Over Psychologists’ Involvement in

Inhumane Military Interrogations

The APA has taken a strong historical stance against psychologists’ involvement in

torture (American Psychiatric Association & APA, 1985; APA Council of

Representatives, 1986; APA Presidential Task Force, 2005). In 2006, the APA Council

of Representatives unequivocally prohibited participation of its members in torture

and other cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment and included

a nonexhaustive list of 19 specifically barred interrogation techniques, including

mock executions, water boarding, sexual humiliation, and exploitation of phobias

or psychopathology (APA Council of Representatives, 2006). The Council’s statement

also noted, “It is consistent with the APA Ethics Code for psychologists to

serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for

national security-related purposes.”

However, congressional investigation into the alleged role of psychologists in

developing harsh interrogation programs for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA;

Steele & Morlin, 2007) raised serious questions as to whether a consultative role can

be morally distinguished from involvement in torture if the tactic is used in the psychologist’s

presence or with the psychologist’s awareness, or is based on techniques

the psychologist has developed for the purpose of interrogation. While there was little

disagreement that military psychologists were highly qualified to assess detainees’

mental health during or following harsh interrogations or that at the time the executive

branch had determined that such interrogations were lawful, some forcefully

argued that any psychological activity conducted in a setting in which prisoners are

not afforded basic human rights—such as the right to an attorney, habeas corpus, and

against self-incrimination—is unethical (Olson, Soldz, & Davis, 2008).

This controversy extended to the wording of Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between

Ethics and Law Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, and Standard 1.03,

Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands. Some argued that the language

in these standards could be interpreted as permitting psychologists to be

associated with violations of human rights if conflicts between the Ethics Code and

laws or organizational policies could not be resolved. On June 1, 2010, the APA

voted to amend the language of these two standards to make clear that when there

is a conflict between ethics and law or between ethics and organizational demands,

psychologists are prohibited from “engaging in activities that would justify or

defend violating human rights” (APA, 2010a, 2010c).

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 1 A Code of Ethics for Psychology——9

Format and Distinctive Features of

the APA Ethics Code

Why Does the Ethics Code Separate General Principles

From Enforceable Standards?

The General Principles provide a conceptual framework that expresses the aspirational

values of the common community of psychologists, and the behavioral

rules articulated in the standards flow from these principles. They impart core

moral values reflecting the highest ideals of the profession: promoting the welfare

and protecting the rights of others, doing no harm, and acting faithfully and

responsibly with integrity and fairness. The principles themselves are not enforceable

but represent the ideals shaping the enforceable standards.

The 151 standards differ from the principles in that by using behaviorally specific

language they can be enforced by the APA Ethics Committee and other state or

professional organizations that adopt the Code. The explicitly stated ethical conduct

in these standards provide APA members with sufficient due notice of the

ethical behaviors required and prohibited by the APA, lend support to members’

ability to defend their ethical actions, and increase the APA’s success in sustaining

decisions by the APA Ethics Committee in court, thus strengthening both the

enforceability and credibility of APA’s ethical oversight procedures.

General and Area-Specific Standards

The Ethics Code includes six general standard sections that apply to all psychological

activities: (1) Resolving Ethical Issues, (2) Competence, (3) Human Relations,

(4) Privacy and Confidentiality, (5) Advertising and Other Public Statements, and

(6) Record Keeping and Fees. These standards are worded broadly to apply to the

broad range of scientific and professional work performed by psychologists. There are

four additional sections reflecting specialized activities of psychologists: (1) Education

and Training, (2) Research and Publication, (3) Assessment, and (4) Therapy.

Are Standards Relevant to Teaching, Research,

Assessment, and Therapy Restricted to

Their Specific Sections in the Code?

No! Standards within the first six general sections apply to all psychological activities.

Where Are Standards That Apply to Activities

in Forensic Psychology?

Forensic psychologists engage in a wide range of activities, including assessment,

treatment, teaching, research, consultation, and public statements. In these activities,

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

10——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

they must conform to the relevant general and area specific standard sections

throughout the Ethics Code. Forensic or court-related work activities are explicitly

mentioned in Standards 2.01f, Boundaries of Competence; 3.05c, Multiple

Relationships; 3.10c, Informed Consent; 9.01a, Bases for Assessments; 9.03c,

Informed Consent in Assessments; 9.04b, Release of Test Data; 9.10, Explaining

Assessment Results; 9.11, Maintaining Test Security; and 10.02b, Therapy Involving

Couples or Families.

The forensic icons and case illustrations throughout this book are meant to

assist in quickly identifying standards applicable to forensic work. Hot Topics at the

end of Chapters 8 and 12 provide in-depth analysis of the relevance of Ethics Code

standards to testimony given by psychologists in legal settings. Case 1 in Appendix B

provides readers with an opportunity to examine the relevance of the human rights

language in Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, and

Other Governing Legal Authority, to forensic assessment of intellectual disability in

death penalty cases.

Where Are Standards That Apply to Work

With and Within Organizations?

Psychologists working in industry, consulting, or delivering services to other

organizations should refer to Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered To or

Through Organizations. This standard lists the information that must be provided

to organizational clients beforehand and, when appropriate, to those directly

affected by the organizational services psychologists provide (i.e., employees).

Other standards that explicitly refer to work for or within organizations include

Standards 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands; 3.07, Third

Party Requests for Services; 5.01, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements; 8.05,

Dispensing With Informed Consent for Research; and 9.03, Informed Consent in

Assessments. As with other areas of specialization, the broadly worded enforceable

standards are relevant to and should be carefully read by consulting, organizational,

and industrial psychologists. The industrial–organizational icons and case illustrations

throughout this book are meant to assist in quickly identifying standards

applicable to organizational settings.

Where Are Standards That Apply to Psychologists’

Involvement With Health Maintenance

Organizations (HMOs)?

Psychologists’ involvement with HMOs is addressed in standards throughout the

Ethics Code. The implications of HMOs to standards on record keeping and fees are

discussed in Chapter 9 of this book, followed by a Hot Topic devoted to the application

of the Ethics Code to billing and contractual arrangements with HMOs,

“Managing the Ethics of Managed Care.” Involvement with HMOs is also relevant to

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 1 A Code of Ethics for Psychology——11

standards on privacy and confidentiality (Standards 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics

and Organizational Demands; and 3.07, Third Party Requests for Services) and standards

on informed consent (Standards 3.10, Informed Consent; 8.02, Informed

Consent to Research; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments; and 10.01, Informed

Consent to Therapy). The HMO icons and case illustrations throughout this book are

meant to assist in quickly identifying standards applicable to work involving HMOs.

Are the Standards Relevant to Psychologists

Working in the Military, Law Enforcement,

and Correctional Facilities?

Military and correctional psychologists engage in a range of psychological

activities, including treatment, assessment, research, and consultation, and sometimes

face ethical challenges associated with the dual roles of officer and psychologist

(Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships). As with other contexts in which

psychologists work, the broadly worded enforceable standards are relevant to and

should be carefully read by psychologists in the military and other areas of public

service. The military/correctional psychology icons throughout this book are

meant to assist in quickly identifying standards and case examples applicable to

these contexts. The value of self-care for military as well as other psychologists is

discussed in Hot Topic “The Ethical Component of Self-Care” in Chapter 3.

Is Sufficient Attention Given to Responsibilities

of Administrators of Psychology Programs

and Psychology Faculty?

The Ethics Code devotes a separate section for standards designed to highlight

responsibilities of university administrators and faculty and to strengthen protections

for students. Relevant standards include 7.02, Descriptions of Education and

Training Programs; 7.04, Student Disclosure of Personal Information; 7.05a and b,

Mandatory Individual or Group Therapy; 7.07, Sexual Relationships With Students

and Supervisees; and 8.12c, Publication Credit. The relevance of enforceable standards

to supervision and training is also covered in a Hot Topic, “Ethical Supervision

of Trainees,” in Chapter 10 and Case 7, “Handling Disparate Information for

Evaluating Trainees,” in Appendix B.

Does the Ethics Code Specifically Address

Internet and Other Electronically Mediated

Research and Services?

The past two decades have witnessed an expansion in psychology’s evolving use

of the Internet and other electronic media for behavioral telehealth, psychological

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

12——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

assessment, consulting, video conferencing, public statements, and research.

Throughout each section of the code, the broadly worded enforceable standards are

applicable to these activities and do not require specific reference to the medium in

which research or services are conducted. Use of the Internet and other electronically

mediated forms relevant to research or services is explicitly mentioned in four

standards: 3.10a, Informed Consent; 4.02c, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality;

5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements; and 5.04, Media Presentations.

To quickly locate discussions in this book on how other standards should be

applied to work using electronic media, readers can look for the electronic media

icon in chapters on the enforceable standards. Readers may also refer to Case 5,

“Web-based Advertising for a Community Program Development and Evaluation

Consulting Service” in Appendix B of this book.

Informed Consent for Research,

Assessment, and Therapy

Informed consent is seen by many as the primary means of ensuring the rights

and welfare of those with whom psychologists work. Informed consent is designed

to ensure that research participants and clients/patients are provided with sufficient

information to rationally and voluntarily decide whether they wish to participate in

research or to receive psychological services. The general standard on informed consent

provides direction on the nature of information that must be included in all

informed consent procedures and steps that must be taken to protect the rights of

children and adults with cognitive impairments who are legally unable to provide

consent (Standard 3.10, Informed Consent). The Hot Topic in Chapter 6 of this

book examines specific applications of informed consent standards to adults with

impaired decisional capacity. Additional standards lay out information required for

basic and intervention research; psychological assessments relevant to mental health,

forensic, and employment contexts; and individual and multiperson therapies, as

well as additional consent safeguards for therapies for which generally recognized

techniques and procedures have not been established (Standards 8.02, Informed

Consent to Research; 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in

Research; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments; 10.01, Informed Consent to

Therapy; 10.02, Therapy Involving Couples or Families; and 10.03, Group Therapy).

Dispensing With Informed Consent

There are some instances in which informed consent is not necessary or not feasible

as a means of protecting the rights and welfare of those with whom psychologists

work. The Ethics Code provides specific descriptions of situations in which the

requirement for informed consent may be waived and the additional steps needed to

ensure individuals are treated with respect and concern for their welfare. These standards

reflect enhanced sensitivity to naturalistic, neuropsychological, forensic, school,

and industrial–organizational contexts in which psychologists provide services, conduct

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Chapter 1 A Code of Ethics for Psychology——13

research, or administer assessments, including anonymous research surveys, assessments

to determine decisional capacity, emergency treatment, and assessment or

treatment mandated by law (Standards 3.10a, Informed Consent; 8.05, Dispensing

With Informed Consent for Research; 9.03a, Informed Consent in Assessments; and

10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy).

Are There Ethical Standards Specific to Issues

of Individual and Cultural Diversity?

Principal D, Justice, and Principal E, Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity, are

reflected in enforceable standards designed to ensure the fair treatment of all individuals

and groups regardless of age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture,

national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic

status. Psychologists must obtain the necessary competencies to work effectively

with diverse populations and are prohibited from engaging in unfair discrimination

or harassment based on any of these characteristics (Standards 2.01b,

Competence; 3.01, Unfair Discrimination; 3.02, Sexual Harassment; 3.03, Other

Harassment). They must provide informed consent information and administer

assessments appropriate to an individual’s language competence and use assessment

techniques whose validity and reliability have been established with members

of the population tested (Standards 3.10, Informed Consent; 9.02, Use of

Assessments). The diversity icon helps readers locate discussions in this book on

how other standards should be applied to individual and group differences. These

issues are also covered in a Hot Topic, “Multicultural Ethical Competence,” in

Chapter 5 and Case 2, “Cultural Values and Competent Health Services to Minors,”

in Appendix B.

What Is the Distinction Between the APA

Ethics Code and Specific APA Guidelines?

The Introduction and Applicability section of the Ethics Code recommends that

members refer to guidelines adopted or endorsed by scientific and professional

psychological organizations as materials that may be useful in applying the Ethics

Code to everyday activities. Specific APA guidelines to which psychologists may

refer are not listed in the current Code. The reason for this decision was that APA

guidelines are frequently revised or become outdated, and in some instances, older

guidelines are inconsistent with standards in the current Ethics Code and prevailing

psychological science and practice. Professional and scientific guidelines are essential

to ethical practice. As indicated earlier, the language of the Ethics Code is intentionally

broad to be as applicable as possible to the wide range of activities that

psychologists perform. Guidelines help psychologists place the standards in the

context of their field of expertise. Guidelines will be cited throughout this book to

illustrate best ethical practices in a given area.

FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.

ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

14——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Under the Ethics Code, Are Psychologists Obligated

to Report Ethics Code Violations of Others?

When psychologists learn about a potential violation by another psychologist,

they must attempt to resolve it informally by bringing it to the attention of the

other psychologist if a resolution appears appropriate and the confidentiality rights

of a research participant, client/patient, organizational client, or others are not

violated (Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations). However,

Standard 1.05, Reporting Ethical Violations, requires psychologists to formally

report an ethical violation if it has or is likely to result in substantial harm, informal

resolution is not appropriate, and the reporting would not violate confidentiality

rights. This standard does not apply to psychologists retained to review another

psychologist’s ethical conduct.

The integrity of the APA adjudication of ethics complaints is jeopardized when

psychologists make “frivolous” complaints, and Standard 1.07, Improper Complaints,

prohibits filing an ethics complaint with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance

of facts that would disprove the allegation. The Ethics Code also prohibits psychologists

from penalizing persons based solely on their having made or been the subject

of an ethics complaint (Standard 1.08, Unfair Discrimination Against Complainants

and Respondents). This standard is often relevant to situations that arise in whistle

blowing, discrimination, and sexual harassment cases.