Decoding the Ethics Code, Ch. 2

USING WORDS TO SHARE REALITY. 11

CHAPTER 2

The Introduction and

Applicability Section,

Preamble, and

General Principles

What Do They Mean?

Psychologists are committed to increasing scientific and professional

knowledge of behavior and people’s understanding of themselves and

others and to the use of such knowledge to improve the condition of

individuals, organizations, and society. Psychologists respect and protect

civil and human rights and the central importance of freedom of

inquiry and expression in research, teaching, and publication. They

strive to help the public in developing informed judgments and choices

concerning human behavior.

—Ethical Principles of Psychologists and

Code of Conduct (APA, 2010c)

The 2010 Ethics Code begins with the Introduction and Applicability section,

followed by the Preamble and a set of five General Principles that

reflect the underlying values and ideals of the discipline.

The remainder of the code is composed of 151 enforceable standards that

describe required, prohibited, and permitted behaviors. This chapter highlights the

implications for ethical conduct of the Introduction and Applicability section,

Preamble, and General Principles. Readers can refer to Appendix A where the full

text of the Ethics Code is provided.

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.

16——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Understanding the Introduction and

Applicability Section and the Preamble

To Whom Does the Ethics Code Apply?

Membership in the APA commits members and student affiliates to comply with

the standards of the Ethics Code. Many psychology programs adopt the Ethics

Code into its faculty and student policies.

To What Does the Ethics Code Apply?

The answer to this question is all activities, all persons, all settings, and all communication

contexts that are conducted, encountered, or used in one’s role as a

psychologist.

Activities include, but are not limited to, clinical, counseling, and school practice;

research; teaching and supervision; public service and policy development;

program design, implementation, and evaluation; construction,

administration, and interpretation of assessment instruments; organizational

consulting; forensic activities; and administration.

Persons include individual clients/patients, research participants, and students;

children and adults of all ages; individuals with or without mental disorders;

individuals with disabilities; persons from diverse cultural and language backgrounds

and different sexual orientations; individuals within families, groups,

and organizations; attorneys; and other professionals.

Settings include military bases, schools, research laboratories, universities, private

or group practice offices, business organizations, hospitals, managed care

companies, the courts, private and public social services programs, government

agencies, and public spaces where research or intervention is carried out.

Communication contexts include research, consultation, and the delivery of

services in person or through postal, telephone, fax, Internet, television, radio,

and other electronic transmissions.

Psychologists should be aware that the Introduction and Applicability section

clearly states that lack of awareness or misunderstanding of any part of the Ethics

Code is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.

Professional Versus Personal Activities

The Ethics Code applies only to psychologists’ activities that are part of their

scientific, educational, professional, or consulting roles. The code does not apply

to the purely private conduct of psychologists, although the APA may take action

against a member after his or her conviction of a felony, whether or not it directly

resulted from activities performed in the member’s role as a psychologist.

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 2 The Introduction and Applicability Section, Preamble, and General Principles——17

In some situations, distinctions between professional and personal activities

may appear ambiguous. For example, if a psychology professor has a personal web

page that includes racist comments, will these comments be relevant to his professional

role if some of his students have access to this page? If a counseling psychologist

criticizes the professionalism of a school psychologist during a parent

meeting at her children’s school, will other parents perceive her statements as at

least partially professional? Pipes, Holstein, and Aguirre (2005) suggest some questions

that may help psychologists determine when their personal actions are tilting

toward their role as a psychologist and thus subject to the Ethics Code:

Is the behavior linked to a role played by psychologists?

Does the behavior, on its face, seem at least partially professional?

Is there a high probability that those with whom the psychologist works will

be affected?

Does the action threaten the professional credibility of the psychologist or the

discipline of psychology?

What Is the Relevance of

Specific Language Used in the Ethics Code?

To fulfill the Ethics Code’s professional, educational, public, and enforcement goals,

the language of the Ethics Code needs (a) to have the clarity necessary to provide

adequate notice of behaviors that would be considered code violations, (b) to be

applicable across many multifaceted roles and responsibilities of psychologists, and

of the Ethics Code must be specific enough to provide guidance and general

enough to allow for critical thinking and professional judgment.

This section includes some general guidance for interpreting the language of the

Ethics Code. The implications of specific terminology to specific standards are

addressed in greater detail in relevant chapters.

Due Notice

Adjudicatory decisions based on an ethics code remain vulnerable to overturn

on appeal if defendants can argue they had no forewarning that specific behaviors

were ethical violations (Bersoff, 1994). For example, language in enforceable standards

requiring psychologists to be “alert to,” “to guard against,” or “to respect”

certain factors is problematic because the behaviors expected by these terms

remain undefined and are thus vulnerable to subjective interpretation by psychologists,

consumers, and ethics committees. Accordingly, the language of the

enforceable standards in the Ethics Code was crafted to describe the behaviors that

are required and those that are proscribed in a manner that would be reasonably

understood by readers.

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.

18——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Applicability Across Diverse Roles and Contexts

Psychologists teach, conduct research, provide therapy, administer and interpret

psychological tests, consult to business, provide legal testimony, evaluate

school programs, serve in public service sectors and the military, and take on a

multitude of different scientific and professional roles. An enforceable ethics

code for psychologists must therefore be worded broadly enough to ensure that

(a) standards apply across a broad range of activities in which psychologists are

engaged, (b) role-specific standards are clearly presented as such, and (c) standards

do not compromise scientific, practice, or consulting activities through inattention

to or inconsistencies with the constantly changing realities of professional

and legal responsibilities.

This requirement, viewed alongside the need for language providing due

notice, means that some standards reflecting generally accepted ethical values in

one work area were not included in the current Ethics Code because they could

not be worded in such a way as to prevent undue burden on psychologists working

in another area. For example, the Ethics Code Task Force (ECTF) struggled

with appropriate wording for a general “honesty” standard within the Human

Relations section that would reflect the aspirational principle of integrity.

However, such a general standard had to be abandoned because it risked prohibiting

ethically acceptable practices such as paradoxical therapy and deception

research. The principle of integrity is reflected in more circumscribed standards,

including Standards 5.01, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements; 5.02,

Statements by Others; 6.06, Accuracy in Reports to Payors and Funding Sources;

and 8.10, Reporting Research Results. For additional discussion on this issue,

readers may wish to refer to the Hot Topic in Chapter 8 on avoiding false and

deceptive statements in scientific and clinical expert testimony.

The Use of Modifiers

A modifier is a word or phrase that qualifies the meaning of an ethical rule.

Modifiers in the Ethics Code include terms such as appropriate, potentially, to the

extent feasible, and attempt to. An explanation for the use of “modifiers” is provided

in the Introduction and Applicability section of the code. The use of modifiers is

necessary for standards that are written broadly to allow for professional judgment

across a wide range of psychological activities and contexts. For example, the term

feasible in a standard permits psychologists to evaluate whether factors within the

specific context in which they are working justify delaying or not implementing

behaviors required by a particular standard. Modifiers are also used to eliminate

injustice or inequality that would occur without the modifier. For example, a modifier

such as appropriate signals that the behaviors required to comply with a standard

can vary with the psychological characteristics of the persons involved, psychologists’

roles, or specific situational demands. A modifier such as the term relevant is

used in standards to guard against language that would create a rigid rule that would

be quickly outdated. Below are three examples of the use of modifiers:

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 2 The Introduction and Applicability Section, Preamble, and General Principles——19

Standard 10.01a, Informed Consent to Therapy, requires psychologists to

obtain informed consent from clients/patients as early as is feasible in the

therapeutic relationship. The phrase “as early as is feasible” provides decisional

latitude when fully informed consent during an initial therapy session

may not be possible or clinically appropriate. A client/patient may be experiencing

acute distress that requires immediate psychological intervention and

for which informed consent procedures may be clinically contraindicated.

Psychologists may need to wait for feedback from a client’s/patient’s HMO

before consent discussions regarding fees can be completed.

Standard 3.10b, Informed Consent, requires that for persons who are legally

incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists “provide an appropriate

explanation.” The term appropriate indicates that the nature of the

explanation will vary depending on, among other factors, the person’s

developmental level, cognitive capacities, mental status, and language

preferences and proficiencies.

Under Standard 2.01c, Boundaries of Competence, psychologists planning to

engage in activities new to them must undertake relevant education, training,

supervised experience, consultation, or study. By including the term relevant,

this standard can continue to be applied to new roles, new techniques, and

new technologies, as they emerge over time.

What Is “Reasonable”?

In the Introduction and Applicability section, the term reasonable is defined as

the “prevailing professional judgment of psychologists engaged in similar activities

in similar circumstances, given the knowledge the psychologist had or should have

had at the time.” The use of this term serves two functions. It prohibits psychologists

from exercising idiosyncratic ethical judgments inconsistent with the prevailing

values and behaviors of members of the profession. In doing so, it provides

other psychologists and recipients of psychological services, students, and research

participants a professional standard against which to judge psychologists’ ethical

behaviors. At the same time, by requiring that criteria for compliance or violation

of an Ethical Standard be judged against the prevailing practices of peers, the use of

the term reasonable guards against unrealistic or unfair expectations of responsible

conduct. The wording enables psychologists to launch a legitimate defense of their

actions based on current best practices in the field and documentation of efforts to

resolve problems in an ethical manner. The examples below illustrate these two

applications of the term reasonable:

Standard 4.07, Use of Confidential Information for Didactic or Other Purposes,

prohibits psychologists from disclosing in public statements confidential and

personally identifiable information about those with whom they work unless

they have taken “reasonable steps to disguise the person or organization.” The

term reasonable recognizes that despite steps to protect confidentiality that

would be considered ethically acceptable by other psychologists (i.e., the use of

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.

20——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

pseudonyms; disguising gender, ethnicity, age, setting, and business products),

persons to whom the statements refer may recognize (or erroneously attribute

the description to) themselves or others may be privy to information not under

the psychologist’s control that leads to identification.

Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others, requires that psychologists

who delegate work to employees, supervisees, research or teaching assistants,

interpreters, or others “take reasonable steps to authorize only those responsibilities

that such persons can be expected to perform competently on the

basis of their education, training, or experience, either independently or with

the level of supervision being provided.” In this case, a psychologist who

asked a secretary who spoke the same language as a client/patient to serve as

an interpreter during an assessment would not have taken steps considered

reasonable in the prevailing view of the profession. On the other hand, a

psychologist who hired an interpreter based on an impressive set of credentials

in mental health evaluation would not be in violation if the interpreter

had fabricated the credentials.

“Client/Patient” and “Organizational Client”

Throughout the Ethics Code, the combined term client/patient refers to individual

persons to whom a psychologist is providing treatment, intervention, or

assessment services. The term organizational clients, organizations, or clients refers

to organizations, representatives of organizations, or other individuals for whom

the psychologist is providing consultation, organization or personnel evaluations,

test development, research, forensic expertise, or other services that do not involve

a treatment, intervention, or diagnostic professional relationship with the person to

whom services are provided. For example, a bank hired a psychologist to provide

counseling services to employees who had experienced trauma during a recent robbery.

In this context, the bank was the psychologist’s “client” or “organizational

client,” and the employees who sought the psychologist’s counseling services were

the clients/patients. To further illustrate this distinction, readers can compare the

use of the term client in Standard 3.11, Psychological Services Delivered To or

Through Organizations, with the use of the term client/patient in Standard 10.01,

Informed Consent to Therapy.

How Is the Ethics Code Related to

APA Ethics Enforcement?

The APA Ethics Committee investigates complaints against APA members alleging

violations of the APA Ethics Code that was in effect at the time the conduct

occurred. The APA Ethics Committee Rules and Procedures detail the ethics

enforcement process and can be obtained online at http://www.apa.org/ethics/

code/committee.aspx. Below is a brief summary of these rules and procedures.

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 2 The Introduction and Applicability Section, Preamble, and General Principles——21

Ethics Complaints

Complaints to the Ethics Committee may be brought by APA members or nonmembers

or initiated by members of the Ethics Committee (sua sponte complaints)

within specified time periods. A complaint may be dismissed prior to review by the

Ethics Committee if it does not meet jurisdictional criteria or if, on preliminary

review, the Ethics Office director and the Ethics Committee chair or their designees

fail to find grounds for action. If the Ethics Committee does have jurisdiction and the

complaint provides grounds for action, the case is opened, violations of specific

Ethical Standards are charged, and an investigation is begun. The psychologist against

whom the complaint is made receives a charge letter and is given an opportunity to

provide the committee with comment and materials regarding the allegations.

Failure of the respondent to cooperate with the Ethics Committee is itself an

ethical violation (APA Ethics Code Standard 1.06, Cooperating With Ethics

Committees; see Chapter 4). However, in response to a request by a respondent, the

committee may proceed or stay the ethics process if the respondent is involved in

civil or criminal litigation or disciplinary proceedings in other jurisdictions.

Psychologists who do not wish to contest the allegations may submit to the APA an

offer of “resignation while under investigation.”

Sanctions

The Ethics Committee reviews the materials and resolves to either dismiss the

case or recommend one of the following actions:

Reprimand. A reprimand is given when a violation was not of a kind likely to

cause harm to another person or to cause substantial harm to the profession

and was not otherwise of sufficient gravity as to warrant a more severe sanction.

Censure. The Ethics Committee may issue a censure if the violation was of a

kind likely to cause harm to another person, but the violation was not of a kind

likely to cause substantial harm to another person or to the profession and was

not otherwise of sufficient gravity as to warrant a more severe sanction.

Expulsion. A member can be expelled from the APA when the violation was of

a kind likely to cause substantial harm to another person or the profession or

was otherwise of sufficient gravity as to warrant such action.

Stipulated resignation. Contingent on execution of an acceptable affidavit and

approval by the Board of Directors, members may be offered a stipulated

resignation following a committee finding that they committed a violation of

the Ethics Code or failed to show good cause why they should not be expelled.

The Ethics Committee may also issue directives requiring the respondent to

(a) cease and desist from an activity, (b) obtain supervision or additional training

or education, (c) be evaluated for and obtain treatment if appropriate, or (d) agree

to probationary monitoring.

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.

22——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A psychologist who has been found in violation of the Ethics Code may respond

to the recommendation by requesting an independent case review or, in the case of

expulsion, an in-person proceeding before a formal hearing committee.

Notification

The director of the Ethics Office informs the respondent and the complainant

of the final disposition in a matter, provides to the APA membership on an annual

basis the names of individuals who have been expelled and those who have resigned

from membership while under investigation, and informs the APA Council of

Representatives in confidence who received a stipulated resignation and who

resigned from membership while under investigation. The Board of Directors or

the Ethics Committee may also determine that additional notification is necessary

to protect the APA or the public or to maintain APA standards. The Ethics Office

director may also notify state boards, affiliated state and regional associations, the

American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP), the Association of State and

Provincial Psychology Boards, the Council for the National Register of Health

Service Providers in Psychology, and other appropriate parties. In addition, the APA

may provide such information to any person who submits a request about a former

member who has lost membership because of an ethical violation.

Show Cause Procedure

The Ethics Committee can also take action against a member if a criminal

court, licensing board, or state psychological association has already taken

adverse action against the member. The rationale for such actions can go beyond

a violation of the Ethics Code and can include conviction of a felony or revocation

of state licensure.

How Is the Ethics Code Related to

Sanctions by Other Bodies?

The APA Ethics Code is widely used by other bodies regulating the ethical science

and practice of psychology. It is intended to be applied by the APA Ethics

Committee and by other bodies that choose to adopt specific standards. The

Introduction and Applicability section states,

Actions that violate the standards of the Ethics Code may also lead to the

imposition of sanctions on psychologists or students whether or not they are

APA members by bodies other than APA, including state psychological associations,

other professional groups, psychology boards, other state or federal

agencies, and payors for health services.

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 2 The Introduction and Applicability Section, Preamble, and General Principles——23

In contrast to the Ethical Standards, as stated in the General Principles section,

the aspirational principles of the Ethics Code are not intended to represent specific

obligations or the basis for imposing sanctions.

Across the country, the Ethics Code is adopted in its entirety or in part in statute

in more than half the state boards responsible for licensing the practice of psychology.

Insurance companies regularly require psychologists applying or reapplying for

professional liability policies to reveal whether they have been the recipient of an

ethics complaint or found in ethical violation by a professional organization, state

board, or state or federal agency, and many retain the right to raise rates or cancel

policies depending on the nature of the violation. In addition, the APA Ethics

Committee may notify other bodies and individuals of sanctions it imposes for

ethical violations. For information on the procedures for filing, investigating, and

resolving ethics complaints, readers should refer to the Rules and Procedures of the

APA Ethics Committee at www.apa.org/ethics/rules.html.

How Is the APA Ethics Code Related to Law?

Civil Litigation

The Introduction and Applicability section clearly states that the Ethics Code is

not intended to be a basis of civil liability: “Whether a psychologist has violated the

Ethics Code standards does not by itself determine whether the psychologist is legally

liable in a court action, whether a contract is enforceable, or whether other legal consequences

occur.” However, psychologists should be aware that it seems highly

unlikely that such a disclaimer would have any legally binding effect. Compliance

with or violation of the Ethics Code may be admissible as evidence in some legal

proceedings, depending on the circumstances. Similarly, although the Ethics Code

states that using the General Principles as a representation of obligations or to apply

sanctions distorts the meaning and purpose of the aspirational principles, attorneys

may introduce into litigation the General Principles or Ethical Standards as evidence

of the ethical values, requirements, or prohibitions of the discipline.

Compliance With Law

Law does not dictate ethics, but sensitivity to law protects the integrity of the

profession. Whereas few standards require psychologists to comply with law, many

standards were written to minimize the possibility that compliance with the Ethics

Code would be in conflict with state laws and federal regulations. Those standards

that require compliance with the law include the following:

Work-related discrimination, Standard 3.01, Unfair Discrimination

Obtaining consent from legally authorized persons for individuals legally

incapable of giving such consent, Standard 3.10b, Informed Consent

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.

24——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Legal prohibitions against disclosure of confidential information, Standards 4.05a

and b, Disclosures

Creation, storage, and disposal of records, Standard 6.01, Documentation of

Professional and Scientific Work and Maintenance of Records

Fee practices, Standard 6.04a, Fees and Financial Arrangements

Care and use of animals in research, Standard 8.09, Humane Care and Use of

Animals in Research

Legal and contractual obligations, Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security

Although there are no specific Ethical Standards for which a criminal conviction

is a violation, the Introduction and Applicability section and the APA Rules and

Regulations clearly state that the APA may take action against a member after his or

her conviction of a felony, including expulsion from the organization.

Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations,

or Other Governing Legal Authority

In applying the Ethics Code to their scientific and professional work, psychologists

may find relevant laws, regulations, or other governing legal authority that conflict

with the Ethical Standards. As articulated in the Introduction and Applicability section,

psychologists must comply with the Ethics Code if it establishes a higher standard

of conduct than is required by law. When an Ethical Standard is in direct conflict with

law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists must make known

their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible

manner in keeping with basic principles of human rights. If the conflict is unresolvable

via such means, psychologists are permitted to adhere to the legal requirements,

but only if such adherence cannot be used to justify or defend violation of human

rights (Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other

Governing Legal Authority; see also the section on “The 2010 Amendments: The

Controversy over Psychologists’ Involvement in Inhumane Military Interrogations”

in Chapter 1 and the Hot Topic “Human Rights and Psychologists Involvement in

Assessments Related to Death Penalty Cases” at the end of Chapter 4).

General Principles

Ethics are principles of action based on a commonly accepted system of

values, and agreement upon these principles and values must be reached

before progress toward an acceptable code can be expected.

—Bixler and Seeman (1946, p. 486)

“A genuine and practical code of ethics . . . stems from a philosophy as well as a

need” (Bixler & Seeman, 1946, p. 486). The moral values from which the APA

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 2 The Introduction and Applicability Section, Preamble, and General Principles——25

Ethical Standards stem are articulated in five General Principles. These principles

are aspirational, intended to inspire psychologists toward the highest ethical

ideals of the profession. Unlike the Ethical Standards, they do not represent

specific or enforceable behavioral rules of conduct. The General Principles

articulate the moral vision of psychology’s common community of purpose.

Although psychologists must strive to act in accordance with all the principles,

the moral priority of any one principle will be determined by the specific ethical

problem. The principles are therefore listed in alphabetical order and are not

hierarchically organized.

The General Principles help guide psychologists’ decision making by providing

an analytic framework from which to identify those Ethical Standards that are

appropriate to the situation at hand. Each enforceable standard reflects one or more

of these principles. Below, each principle is described and examples are provided of

standards in which the principle ideals are embedded.

Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Principle A reflects psychologists’ dual obligation to strive to do good and avoid

doing harm. As articulated in the Preamble and in Principle A, psychologists strive

to do good by promoting the welfare of others, treating people and animals

humanely, increasing scientific and professional knowledge of behavior and people’s

understanding of themselves, and improving the condition of individuals, organizations,

and society. Examples of standards reflecting the principle of beneficence

include Standards 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies; 3.09, Cooperation

With Other Professionals; 8.09, Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research; and

8.14, Sharing Research Data for Verification. Principle A represents the joint influences

of beneficence and nonmaleficence in recognition that in rightly practiced

psychology, individuals may be harmed without being wronged. For example, to

preserve academic standards and to ensure grading fairness, teaching psychologists

may be obligated to give a student a poor or failing grade. Similarly, disclosing

confidential information to protect a client/patient, student, or research participant

from self-harm or from harming others may have moral priority over protecting

that individual’s privacy rights (see Standard 4.05, Disclosures). To

maximize good and minimize harm, Principle A also calls for psychologists to be

alert to and guard against personal problems that could lead to exploitation or

harm to individuals or organizations with whom they work (see Standard 2.06,

Personal Problems and Conflicts).

Throughout the enforceable standards of the Ethics Code, psychologists are

expected to avoid harm by maintaining competence, guarding against behaviors that

would lead to exploitation of those with whom they work, minimizing intrusions on

privacy in reports or consultations with colleagues, providing opinions and reports

based only on information or techniques sufficient to substantiate findings, and

terminating therapy when the client/patient is likely to be harmed by continued

services (Standards 2.01, Competence; 2.03, Maintaining Competence; 3.04, Avoiding

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.

26——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Harm; 3.05, Multiple Relationships; 3.08, Exploitative Relationships; 9.01, Bases for

Assessments; and 10.10, Terminating Therapy). Psychologists are also required to

minimize harms by taking steps to remedy those caused by misuse of their work

(Standard 1.01, Misuse of Psychologists’ Work). For additional information, readers

may refer to the Hot Topics in Chapter 7, on disclosures and confidentiality relevant

to parental involvement in mental health services for children and adolescents, and

in Chapter 10, on ethical supervision of trainees.

Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility

Fidelity reflects faithfulness of one human being to another (Ramsey, 2002). In

psychology, such faithfulness includes promise keeping, discharge and acceptance of

fiduciary responsibilities, and appropriate maintenance of scientific, professional, and

teaching relationships. Psychologists recognize their responsibility to obtain and maintain

high standards of competence in their own work and to be concerned about the

ethical compliance of their colleagues. The nature of the competencies and responsibilities

of psychologists to individuals, organizations, and communities will be determined

by the specific scientific or professional relationship. Many of the standards on

competence discussed in Chapter 5 reflect the aspirations articulated in Principle B.

In fulfilling the ideals expressed in Principle B, psychologists seek to meet their

responsibilities by avoiding conflicts of interest that would jeopardize trust or

lead to exploitation or harm and consulting with other professionals when necessary

(see, e.g., Standards 3.05, Multiple Relationships; 3.06, Conflict of Interest;

and 3.09, Cooperation With Other Professionals). The fiduciary and professional

obligations to which Principle B asks psychologists to aspire are also reflected in

the standards on resolving ethical issues (Chapter 4), record keeping and fees

(Chapter 9), and education and training (Chapter 10). Readers may also wish to

refer to Standard 8.01, Institutional Approval, the discussion on submitting

research proposals to institutional review boards (IRBs) in Chapter 11, and the

Hot Topics on psychological assessments and the rules of evidence in Chapter 12

and integration of religion and spirituality in therapy in Chapter 13.

Principle C: Integrity

Maintaining integrity in psychological activities requires honest communication,

truth telling, promise keeping, and accuracy in the science, teaching, and practice of

psychology. It involves refraining from making professional commitments that cannot

be met and avoiding or correcting misrepresentations of one’s work. In following

Principle C, psychologists do not steal, cheat, or engage in fraud or subterfuge. These

ideals are evidenced in Standards 5.01, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements;

6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements; and 8.10, Reporting Research Results. Readers

may also wish to refer to the Hot Topics on avoiding false and deceptive statements in

expert testimony (Chapter 8) and the ethics of managed care (Chapter 9).

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 2 The Introduction and Applicability Section, Preamble, and General Principles——27

In some scientific and professional relationships, deception may be justified to

maximize knowledge gained or the welfare of individuals served. As articulated in

Standard 8.07, Deception in Research, in each instance, psychologists have a serious

obligation to evaluate whether deception is warranted, to decide whether negative

consequences outweigh the benefits to participants or society, and to correct any

mistrust or harm that arises from the use of such techniques.

Principle D: Justice

Principle D calls for psychologists to strive to provide to all people fair, equitable,

and appropriate access to treatment and to the benefits of scientific knowledge.

Psychologists endeavor to be aware of and guard against their own biases and the

prejudices of others that may condone or lead to unjust practices. These ideals are

reflected in Standards 1.08, Unfair Discrimination Against Complainants and

Respondents; 3.01, Unfair Discrimination; 3.02, Sexual Harassment; and 3.03,

Other Harassment. Readers may also wish to refer to the Hot Topics on human

rights and psychological assessment in death penalty cases (Chapter 5) and multicultural

ethical competence (Chapter 5).

Principle D calls for psychologists to select procedures and services that meet the

needs of those with whom they work, recognizing that existing social and economic

inequities may require different but comparable scientific and professional techniques.

The principle of justice also requires that psychologists present their findings

objectively and dispassionately. Enforceable standards reflecting the values of

fairness articulated in Principle D include 7.06, Assessing Student and Supervisee

Performance; 8.04, Client/Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants;

9.01, Bases for Assessments; and 10.02, Therapy Involving Couples or Families.

Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity

Principle E calls for psychologists to “respect the dignity and worth of all people,

and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination.”

Standards requiring informed consent to research, assessment, and therapy

(Standards 3.10, 8.02, 9.03, and 10.01) reflect respect for the autonomous decision

making articulated in Principle E. Psychologists must also be attentive to the circumstances

of individuals who may have limited capacity for autonomous decision

making and take the extra precautions necessary to safeguard these individuals’

rights and welfare. This responsibility is specifically addressed in Standard 3.10b,

Informed Consent. Readers may also wish to refer to the Hot Topics on informed

consent involving adults with impaired decisional capacity (Chapter 6) and informational

risk of genetic testing (Chapter 11) and sections on research involving

children and adolescents in Chapter 11.

Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences,

including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture,

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.

28——PART I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

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

status. They ensure that they are familiar with the scientific and professional knowledge

relevant to these differences and acquire the competencies necessary to perform

their roles effectively. Psychologists strive to be aware of and eliminate from their

work the effect of their own and others’ prejudices. Exemplar standards reflecting

the ideal of respect for individual differences are Standards 2.01, Boundaries of

Competence, and 9.01, Bases for Assessments.

Principle E also addresses psychologists’ duty to protect the rights of individuals

to determine what and with whom the personal information will be shared.

This ideal is embedded in standards on privacy and confidentiality (Chapter 7), as

well as Standards 6.02, Maintenance, Dissemination, and Disposal of Confidential

Records of Professional and Scientific Work; 7.04, Student Disclosure of Personal

Information; and 10.03, Group Therapy. Readers may also refer to the Hot Topic

on “Confidentiality and Involvement of Parents in Mental Health Services for

Children and Adolescents” in Chapter 7.