ethical violations in psychology case study

Ethical Considerations In Psychology Research

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Ethics refers to the correct rules of conduct necessary when carrying out research. We have a moral responsibility to protect research participants from harm.

However important the issue under investigation, psychologists must remember that they have a duty to respect the rights and dignity of research participants. This means that they must abide by certain moral principles and rules of conduct.

What are Ethical Guidelines?

In Britain, ethical guidelines for research are published by the British Psychological Society, and in America, by the American Psychological Association. The purpose of these codes of conduct is to protect research participants, the reputation of psychology, and psychologists themselves.

Moral issues rarely yield a simple, unambiguous, right or wrong answer. It is, therefore, often a matter of judgment whether the research is justified or not.

For example, it might be that a study causes psychological or physical discomfort to participants; maybe they suffer pain or perhaps even come to serious harm.

On the other hand, the investigation could lead to discoveries that benefit the participants themselves or even have the potential to increase the sum of human happiness.

Rosenthal and Rosnow (1984) also discuss the potential costs of failing to carry out certain research. Who is to weigh up these costs and benefits? Who is to judge whether the ends justify the means?

Finally, if you are ever in doubt as to whether research is ethical or not, it is worthwhile remembering that if there is a conflict of interest between the participants and the researcher, it is the interests of the subjects that should take priority.

Studies must now undergo an extensive review by an institutional review board (US) or ethics committee (UK) before they are implemented. All UK research requires ethical approval by one or more of the following:

• Department Ethics Committee (DEC) : for most routine research.
• Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) : for non-routine research.
• External Ethics Committee (EEC) : for research that s externally regulated (e.g., NHS research).

Committees review proposals to assess if the potential benefits of the research are justifiable in light of the possible risk of physical or psychological harm.

These committees may request researchers make changes to the study’s design or procedure or, in extreme cases, deny approval of the study altogether.

The British Psychological Society (BPS) and American Psychological Association (APA) have issued a code of ethics in psychology that provides guidelines for conducting research.  Some of the more important ethical issues are as follows:

Informed Consent

Before the study begins, the researcher must outline to the participants what the research is about and then ask for their consent (i.e., permission) to participate.

An adult (18 years +) capable of being permitted to participate in a study can provide consent. Parents/legal guardians of minors can also provide consent to allow their children to participate in a study.

Whenever possible, investigators should obtain the consent of participants. In practice, this means it is not sufficient to get potential participants to say “Yes.”

They also need to know what it is that they agree to. In other words, the psychologist should, so far as is practicable, explain what is involved in advance and obtain the informed consent of participants.

Informed consent must be informed, voluntary, and rational. Participants must be given relevant details to make an informed decision, including the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits. Consent must be given voluntarily without undue coercion. And participants must have the capacity to rationally weigh the decision.

Components of informed consent include clearly explaining the risks and expected benefits, addressing potential therapeutic misconceptions about experimental treatments, allowing participants to ask questions, and describing methods to minimize risks like emotional distress.

Investigators should tailor the consent language and process appropriately for the study population. Obtaining meaningful informed consent is an ethical imperative for human subjects research.

The voluntary nature of participation should not be compromised through coercion or undue influence. Inducements should be fair and not excessive/inappropriate.

However, it is not always possible to gain informed consent.  Where the researcher can’t ask the actual participants, a similar group of people can be asked how they would feel about participating.

If they think it would be OK, then it can be assumed that the real participants will also find it acceptable. This is known as presumptive consent.

However, a problem with this method is that there might be a mismatch between how people think they would feel/behave and how they actually feel and behave during a study.

In order for consent to be ‘informed,’ consent forms may need to be accompanied by an information sheet for participants’ setting out information about the proposed study (in lay terms), along with details about the investigators and how they can be contacted.

Special considerations exist when obtaining consent from vulnerable populations with decisional impairments, such as psychiatric patients, intellectually disabled persons, and children/adolescents. Capacity can vary widely so should be assessed individually, but interventions to improve comprehension may help. Legally authorized representatives usually must provide consent for children.

Participants must be given information relating to the following:

• A statement that participation is voluntary and that refusal to participate will not result in any consequences or any loss of benefits that the person is otherwise entitled to receive.
• Purpose of the research.
• All foreseeable risks and discomforts to the participant (if there are any). These include not only physical injury but also possible psychological.
• Procedures involved in the research.
• Benefits of the research to society and possibly to the individual human subject.
• Length of time the subject is expected to participate.
• Person to contact for answers to questions or in the event of injury or emergency.
• Subjects” right to confidentiality and the right to withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences.

Debriefing after a study involves informing participants about the purpose, providing an opportunity to ask questions, and addressing any harm from participation. Debriefing serves an educational function and allows researchers to correct misconceptions. It is an ethical imperative.

After the research is over, the participant should be able to discuss the procedure and the findings with the psychologist. They must be given a general idea of what the researcher was investigating and why, and their part in the research should be explained.

Participants must be told if they have been deceived and given reasons why. They must be asked if they have any questions, which should be answered honestly and as fully as possible.

Debriefing should occur as soon as possible and be as full as possible; experimenters should take reasonable steps to ensure that participants understand debriefing.

“The purpose of debriefing is to remove any misconceptions and anxieties that the participants have about the research and to leave them with a sense of dignity, knowledge, and a perception of time not wasted” (Harris, 1998).

The debriefing aims to provide information and help the participant leave the experimental situation in a similar frame of mind as when he/she entered it (Aronson, 1988).

Exceptions may exist if debriefing seriously compromises study validity or causes harm itself, like negative emotions in children. Consultation with an institutional review board guides exceptions.

Debriefing indicates investigators’ commitment to participant welfare. Harms may not be raised in the debriefing itself, so responsibility continues after data collection. Following up demonstrates respect and protects persons in human subjects research.

Protection of Participants

Researchers must ensure that those participating in research will not be caused distress. They must be protected from physical and mental harm. This means you must not embarrass, frighten, offend or harm participants.

Normally, the risk of harm must be no greater than in ordinary life, i.e., participants should not be exposed to risks greater than or additional to those encountered in their normal lifestyles.

The researcher must also ensure that if vulnerable groups are to be used (elderly, disabled, children, etc.), they must receive special care. For example, if studying children, ensure their participation is brief as they get tired easily and have a limited attention span.

Researchers are not always accurately able to predict the risks of taking part in a study, and in some cases, a therapeutic debriefing may be necessary if participants have become disturbed during the research (as happened to some participants in Zimbardo’s prisoners/guards study ).

Deception research involves purposely misleading participants or withholding information that could influence their participation decision. This method is controversial because it limits informed consent and autonomy, but can provide otherwise unobtainable valuable knowledge.

Types of deception include (i) deliberate misleading, e.g. using confederates, staged manipulations in field settings, deceptive instructions; (ii) deception by omission, e.g., failure to disclose full information about the study, or creating ambiguity.

The researcher should avoid deceiving participants about the nature of the research unless there is no alternative – and even then, this would need to be judged acceptable by an independent expert. However, some types of research cannot be carried out without at least some element of deception.

For example, in Milgram’s study of obedience , the participants thought they were giving electric shocks to a learner when they answered a question wrongly. In reality, no shocks were given, and the learners were confederates of Milgram.

This is sometimes necessary to avoid demand characteristics (i.e., the clues in an experiment that lead participants to think they know what the researcher is looking for).

Another common example is when a stooge or confederate of the experimenter is used (this was the case in both the experiments carried out by Asch ).

According to ethics codes, deception must have strong scientific justification, and non-deceptive alternatives should not be feasible. Deception that causes significant harm is prohibited. Investigators should carefully weigh whether deception is necessary and ethical for their research.

However, participants must be deceived as little as possible, and any deception must not cause distress.  Researchers can determine whether participants are likely distressed when deception is disclosed by consulting culturally relevant groups.

Participants should immediately be informed of the deception without compromising the study’s integrity. Reactions to learning of deception can range from understanding to anger. Debriefing should explain the scientific rationale and social benefits to minimize negative reactions.

If the participant is likely to object or be distressed once they discover the true nature of the research at debriefing, then the study is unacceptable.

If you have gained participants’ informed consent by deception, then they will have agreed to take part without actually knowing what they were consenting to.  The true nature of the research should be revealed at the earliest possible opportunity or at least during debriefing.

Some researchers argue that deception can never be justified and object to this practice as it (i) violates an individual’s right to choose to participate; (ii) is a questionable basis on which to build a discipline; and (iii) leads to distrust of psychology in the community.

Confidentiality

Protecting participant confidentiality is an ethical imperative that demonstrates respect, ensures honest participation, and prevents harms like embarrassment or legal issues. Methods like data encryption, coding systems, and secure storage should match the research methodology.

Participants and the data gained from them must be kept anonymous unless they give their full consent.  No names must be used in a lab report .

Researchers must clearly describe to participants the limits of confidentiality and methods to protect privacy. With internet research, threats exist like third-party data access; security measures like encryption should be explained. For non-internet research, other protections should be noted too, like coding systems and restricted data access.

High-profile data breaches have eroded public trust. Methods that minimize identifiable information can further guard confidentiality. For example, researchers can consider whether birthdates are necessary or just ages.

Generally, reducing personal details collected and limiting accessibility safeguards participants. Following strong confidentiality protections demonstrates respect for persons in human subjects research.

What do we do if we discover something that should be disclosed (e.g., a criminal act)? Researchers have no legal obligation to disclose criminal acts and must determine the most important consideration: their duty to the participant vs. their duty to the wider community.

Ultimately, decisions to disclose information must be set in the context of the research aims.

Withdrawal from an Investigation

Participants should be able to leave a study anytime if they feel uncomfortable. They should also be allowed to withdraw their data. They should be told at the start of the study that they have the right to withdraw.

They should not have pressure placed upon them to continue if they do not want to (a guideline flouted in Milgram’s research).

Participants may feel they shouldn’t withdraw as this may ‘spoil’ the study. Many participants are paid or receive course credits; they may worry they won’t get this if they withdraw.

Even at the end of the study, the participant has a final opportunity to withdraw the data they have provided for the research.

Ethical Issues in Psychology & Socially Sensitive Research

There has been an assumption over the years by many psychologists that provided they follow the BPS or APA guidelines when using human participants and that all leave in a similar state of mind to how they turned up, not having been deceived or humiliated, given a debrief, and not having had their confidentiality breached, that there are no ethical concerns with their research.

But consider the following examples:

a) Caughy et al. 1994 found that middle-class children in daycare at an early age generally score less on cognitive tests than children from similar families reared in the home.

Assuming all guidelines were followed, neither the parents nor the children participating would have been unduly affected by this research. Nobody would have been deceived, consent would have been obtained, and no harm would have been caused.

However, consider the wider implications of this study when the results are published, particularly for parents of middle-class infants who are considering placing their young children in daycare or those who recently have!

b)  IQ tests administered to black Americans show that they typically score 15 points below the average white score.

When black Americans are given these tests, they presumably complete them willingly and are not harmed as individuals. However, when published, findings of this sort seek to reinforce racial stereotypes and are used to discriminate against the black population in the job market, etc.

Sieber & Stanley (1988) (the main names for Socially Sensitive Research (SSR) outline 4 groups that may be affected by psychological research: It is the first group of people that we are most concerned with!

• Members of the social group being studied, such as racial or ethnic group. For example, early research on IQ was used to discriminate against US Blacks.
• Friends and relatives of those participating in the study, particularly in case studies, where individuals may become famous or infamous. Cases that spring to mind would include Genie’s mother.
• The research team. There are examples of researchers being intimidated because of the line of research they are in.
• The institution in which the research is conducted.

salso suggest there are 4 main ethical concerns when conducting SSR:

• The research question or hypothesis.
• The treatment of individual participants.
• The institutional context.
• How the findings of the research are interpreted and applied.

Ethical Guidelines For Carrying Out SSR

Sieber and Stanley suggest the following ethical guidelines for carrying out SSR. There is some overlap between these and research on human participants in general.

Privacy : This refers to people rather than data. Asking people questions of a personal nature (e.g., about sexuality) could offend.

Confidentiality: This refers to data. Information (e.g., about H.I.V. status) leaked to others may affect the participant’s life.

Sound & valid methodology : This is even more vital when the research topic is socially sensitive. Academics can detect flaws in methods, but the lay public and the media often don’t.

When research findings are publicized, people are likely to consider them fact, and policies may be based on them. Examples are Bowlby’s maternal deprivation studies and intelligence testing.

Deception : Causing the wider public to believe something, which isn’t true by the findings, you report (e.g., that parents are responsible for how their children turn out).

Informed consent : Participants should be made aware of how participating in the research may affect them.

Justice & equitable treatment : Examples of unjust treatment are (i) publicizing an idea, which creates a prejudice against a group, & (ii) withholding a treatment, which you believe is beneficial, from some participants so that you can use them as controls.

Scientific freedom : Science should not be censored, but there should be some monitoring of sensitive research. The researcher should weigh their responsibilities against their rights to do the research.

Ownership of data : When research findings could be used to make social policies, which affect people’s lives, should they be publicly accessible? Sometimes, a party commissions research with their interests in mind (e.g., an industry, an advertising agency, a political party, or the military).

Some people argue that scientists should be compelled to disclose their results so that other scientists can re-analyze them. If this had happened in Burt’s day, there might not have been such widespread belief in the genetic transmission of intelligence. George Miller (Miller’s Magic 7) famously argued that we should give psychology away.

The values of social scientists : Psychologists can be divided into two main groups: those who advocate a humanistic approach (individuals are important and worthy of study, quality of life is important, intuition is useful) and those advocating a scientific approach (rigorous methodology, objective data).

The researcher’s values may conflict with those of the participant/institution. For example, if someone with a scientific approach was evaluating a counseling technique based on a humanistic approach, they would judge it on criteria that those giving & receiving the therapy may not consider important.

Cost/benefit analysis : It is unethical if the costs outweigh the potential/actual benefits. However, it isn’t easy to assess costs & benefits accurately & the participants themselves rarely benefit from research.

Sieber & Stanley advise that researchers should not avoid researching socially sensitive issues. Scientists have a responsibility to society to find useful knowledge.

• They need to take more care over consent, debriefing, etc. when the issue is sensitive.
• They should be aware of how their findings may be interpreted & used by others.
• They should make explicit the assumptions underlying their research so that the public can consider whether they agree with these.
• They should make the limitations of their research explicit (e.g., ‘the study was only carried out on white middle-class American male students,’ ‘the study is based on questionnaire data, which may be inaccurate,’ etc.
• They should be careful how they communicate with the media and policymakers.
• They should be aware of the balance between their obligations to participants and those to society (e.g. if the participant tells them something which they feel they should tell the police/social services).
• They should be aware of their own values and biases and those of the participants.

Arguments for SSR

• Psychologists have devised methods to resolve the issues raised.
• SSR is the most scrutinized research in psychology. Ethical committees reject more SSR than any other form of research.
• By gaining a better understanding of issues such as gender, race, and sexuality, we are able to gain greater acceptance and reduce prejudice.
• SSR has been of benefit to society, for example, EWT. This has made us aware that EWT can be flawed and should not be used without corroboration. It has also made us aware that the EWT of children is every bit as reliable as that of adults.
• Most research is still on white middle-class Americans (about 90% of research is quoted in texts!). SSR is helping to redress the balance and make us more aware of other cultures and outlooks.

Arguments against SSR

• Flawed research has been used to dictate social policy and put certain groups at a disadvantage.
• Research has been used to discriminate against groups in society, such as the sterilization of people in the USA between 1910 and 1920 because they were of low intelligence, criminal, or suffered from psychological illness.
• The guidelines used by psychologists to control SSR lack power and, as a result, are unable to prevent indefensible research from being carried out.

American Psychological Association. (2002). American Psychological Association ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”.  American Psychologist ,  19 (6), 421.

Caughy, M. O. B., DiPietro, J. A., & Strobino, D. M. (1994). Day‐care participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development of low‐income children.  Child development ,  65 (2), 457-471.

Harris, B. (1988). Key words: A history of debriefing in social psychology. In J. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. 188-212). New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Applying Hamlet’s question to the ethical conduct of research: A conceptual addendum. American Psychologist, 39(5) , 561.

Sieber, J. E., & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially sensitive research.  American psychologist ,  43 (1), 49.

The British Psychological Society. (2010). Code of Human Research Ethics. www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf

Further Information

• MIT Psychology Ethics Lecture Slides

BPS Documents

• Code of Ethics and Conduct (2018)
• Good Practice Guidelines for the Conduct of Psychological Research within the NHS
• Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Animals
• Guidelines for ethical practice in psychological research online

APA Documents

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

Counseling Ethics Code: 10 Common Ethical Issues & Studies

Despite their potentially serious consequences, ethical issues are common, and without preparation and reflection, many might be violated unwittingly and with good intentions.

In this article, you’ll learn how to identify and approach a variety of frequently encountered counseling ethical issues, and how a counseling ethics code can be your moral compass.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology, including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

This Article Contains:

Counseling & psychotherapy ethics code explained, 7 interesting case studies, 3 common ethical issues & how to resolve them, ethical considerations for group counseling, a take-home message.

Most of us live by a certain set of values that guide our behavior and mark the difference between right and wrong. These values almost certainly influence how you approach your work as a counselor .

Following these values might feel natural and even intuitive, and it might feel as though they don’t warrant closer examination. However, when practicing counseling or psychotherapy, working without a defined counseling code of ethics is a bit like sailing a ship without using a compass. You might trust your intuitive sense of direction, but more often than not, you’ll end up miles off course.

Fortunately, there are a variety of professional organizations that have published frameworks to help counselors navigate the challenging and disorienting landscape of ethics.

Members of these organizations are often recommended or required to adhere to a framework, so if you belong to one of them and you’re not familiar with their respective code of ethics, this should be your first port of call. However, these ethical frameworks are also often available online for anyone to read, and so you don’t need to join an organization to adhere to its principles.

Each organization takes a slightly different approach to their code of ethics, so you may find it useful to view several to find one that resonates best with your practice. As an example, the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (2018) has a framework that emphasizes aspiring to a variety of different values and personal moral qualities.

Those values include protecting clients, improving the wellbeing and relationships of others, appreciating the diversity of perspectives, and honoring personal integrity. Personal moral qualities include courage, empathy , humility, and respect.

These values and qualities are not meant to be strict criteria, and there is no wholly objective way to interpret them. For example, two counselors might display the same legitimate values and qualities while arriving at different conclusions to an ethical problem. Instead, they reflect a general approach to how a counselor should think about ethics.

Nevertheless, this approach to ethics may be overly prescriptive for you, in which case a looser and more general framework may be better suited to the nature of your practice. Most professional organizations recognize this, and there is a set of foundational principles that feature widely across different frameworks and refine the collection of different values and qualities described above into simpler terms.

These principles are autonomy , beneficence, non-maleficence, fidelity, justice, veracity, and self-respect (American Counseling Association, 2014; British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, 2018). They are largely consistent across frameworks aside from some minor variations.

• Autonomy is the respect for a client’s free will.
• Beneficence and non-maleficence are the commitment to improve a client’s wellbeing and avoid harming them, respectively.
• Fidelity is honoring professional commitments.
• Veracity is a commitment to the truth.
• Justice is a professional commitment to fair and egalitarian treatment of clients.
• Self-respect is fostering a sense that the counselor is also entitled to self-care and respect.

Putting these principles into practice doesn’t require a detailed framework. Instead, as the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2018) recommends, you can simply ask yourself, “ Is this decision supported by these principles without contradiction? ” If so, the decision is ethically sound. If not, there may be a potential ethical issue that warrants closer examination.

Regardless of whether you navigate using values, qualities, or principles, it’s important to be prepared for how they might be challenged in practice. As explained above, these are not intended to be strict criteria, and it’s good to foster a healthy amount of flexibility and intuition when applying your ethical framework to real-life situations.

You might also interpret challenges to other principles. There is no correct or incorrect interpretation to any of these cases (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2016; Zur, 2008).

For each, consider where you think the problem lies and how you would respond.

A counselor has been seeing their client for several months to work through substance use issues. A good rapport has been formed, but the client has not complied with meeting goals set during therapy and has not reduced their substance use.

The counselor feels they may benefit from referring the client to a trusted colleague who specializes in helping individuals with substance use issues who are struggling to engage with therapy. The counselor contacts the colleague and arranges an appointment within their client’s schedule.

When the client is informed, the client is upset and does not wish to be seen by the colleague. The counselor replies that rescheduling is not possible, and they should consider the appointment a necessary part of therapy.

Beneficence

A counselor working as part of a university service is assigned a client expressing issues with their body image. The counselor lacks any knowledge in working with these issues, but feels as though they may help the client, given the extent of their experience with other issues.

On reflection, the counselor decides to contact a colleague outside the university service who specializes in body image issues and asks for supervision and advice.

Non-maleficence

A counselor developing a new exposure-based form of anxiety therapy is working with a client with severe post-traumatic stress. There is promising evidence suggesting the therapy is effective for reducing mild anxiety, but it is unknown whether the therapy is effective in more extreme cases.

As a result, the counselor recognizes that this client in particular would provide a particularly valuable case study for developing the therapy. The counselor recommends this therapy to the client.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

A client with a history of depression and suicidal ideation has been engaging successfully with therapy for the last year. However, recently they have experienced an unfortunate coincidence of extremely challenging life events because of their unstable living arrangement.

The counselor has noticed problematic behaviors and thought patterns emerging, and is seriously concerned about the client’s mental health given the history.

In order to have the client moved from their challenging living environment, they decide to recommend that the client be hospitalized for suicidal ideation, despite there being no actual sign of suicidal ideation and their client previously expressing the desire to avoid hospitalization.

A school counselor sees two students who are experiencing stress regarding their final exams. The first is a high-achieving and popular student who is likable, whereas the second is a student with a history of poor attendance and engagement with their education.

The counselor agrees that counseling is appropriate for the first student, but recommends the second student does not attend counseling, instead addressing the “transient” exam stress by directing their energy into “working harder.”

A counselor is assigned a teenage client after both the client and their family consent to therapy for issues with low mood. After the first session together, it is apparent that the client has been withholding information about their mental health from their family and is showing symptoms typical of clinical depression.

The counselor knows that their client is a high-performing student about to enter a prestigious school and that the client’s family has high hopes for the future. The counselor reassures the family that there is no cause for serious concern in order to protect them from facing the negative implications of the client’s condition.

Self-interest

A counselor is working with a client who is a professional massage therapist. The client offers a free massage therapy session to the counselor as a gesture of gratitude. The client explains that this is a completely platonic and professional gesture.

The counselor has issues with close contact and also feels as though the client’s gesture may not be entirely platonic. The counselor respectfully declines the offer and suggests they continue their relationship as usual. However, the client discontinues therapy abruptly in response.

Ethics in counseling

Ethical issues do not occur randomly in a vacuum, but in particular situations where various factors make them more likely. As a result, although ethical issues can be challenging to navigate, they are not necessarily difficult to anticipate.

Learning to recognize and foresee common ethical issues may help you remain vigilant and not be taken unaware when encountering them.

Informed consent

Issues of consent are common in therapeutic contexts. The right to informed consent – to know all the pertinent information about a decision before it is made – is a foundational element of the relationship between a counselor and their client  that allows the client to engage in their therapy with a sense of autonomy and trust.

In many ways, consent is not difficult at all. Ultimately, your client either does or does not consent. But informed consent can be deceptively difficult.

As a brief exercise, consider what “informed” means to you. What is the threshold for being informed? Is there a threshold? Is it more important to be informed about some aspects of a choice than others? These questions do not necessarily have a clearcut answer, but nevertheless it is important to consider them carefully. They may determine whether or not your client has given sufficient consent (West, 2002).

A related but distinct challenge to informed consent is that it is inherently subjective. For example, your client may have as much knowledge about a decision as you do and feel as though they fully understand what a decision entails. However, while you have both experience and knowledge of the decision, they only have knowledge.

That is to say, to some extent, it is not possible for your client to be informed about something they have not actually experienced, as their anticipated experience based on their knowledge may be wholly different from their actual experience.

The best resolution to these issues is to avoid treating informed consent like a checkbox that needs to be satisfied, where the client is required to ingest information and then give their consent.

Instead, encourage your client to appreciate the importance of their consent, reflect on their decision, and consider the limitations of their experience. In doing so, while they may not be able to become fully informed in an objective sense, they will achieve the nearest approximation.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Termination of therapy

Another time of friction when ethical issues can surface is at the conclusion of therapy , when the counselor and client go their separate ways. When this termination is premature or happens without a successful resolution of the client’s goals, it is understandable why this time is difficult.

This can be a challenging transition even when therapy is concluded after a successful result. Like any relationship, the one between a counselor and client can become strained when the time comes for it to end.

Your client may feel uncertain about their ability to continue independently or may feel rejected when reminded of the ultimately professional and transactional nature of the relationship (Etherington & Bridges, 2011).

A basic preemptive action that can be taken to reduce the friction between you and your client during this time is ‘pre-termination counseling,’ in which the topic of termination is explicitly addressed and discussed.

This can be anything from a brief conversation during one of the concluding appointments, to a more formal exploration of termination as a concept. Regardless, this can give your client the opportunity to acclimatize and highlight any challenges related to termination that may be important to explore before the conclusion of therapy.

These challenges may involve features of your client’s background such as their attachment history, which may predispose them toward feelings of abandonment, or their experience of anxiety, which may influence their perceived ability to cope independently after therapy.

If you already have knowledge of these features of your client’s background, it may be worth considering these potential challenges well in advance of the termination of therapy.

Online counseling

Remote forms of therapy are becoming increasingly common. This has many obvious benefits for clients and counselors alike; counseling is more accessible than ever, and counselors can offer their services to a broad and diverse audience. However, online counseling is also fraught with commonly encountered ethical issues (Finn & Barak, 2010).

As remote practice frequently takes place outside the structured contexts more typical of traditional counseling, ethical issues commonly encountered in online counseling are rooted in this relative informality.

Online counseling lacks the type of dedicated ethical frameworks described above, which means e-counselors may have no choice but to operate using their own ethical compass or apply ethical frameworks used in traditional counseling that may be less appropriate for remote practice.

Research suggests that some online counselors may not consider the unique challenges of working online (Finn & Barak, 2010). For example, online counselors may feel as though they do not have the same responsibility for mandatory reporting, as their relationship with their clients may not be as directly involved as in traditional counseling.

For online counselors who are aware of their duty to report safeguarding concerns, the inherent anonymity of online clients may present a barrier. Anonymity certainly has the benefit of improved discretion, but it also means a counselor may be unable to identify their client if they feel they are threatened or otherwise endangered.

Online counselors may also be unclear regarding the limits of their jurisdiction, as qualifications or professional memberships attained in one region may not be applicable in others. It can often seem like borders do not exist online, and while to some extent this is true, it is important to respect that jurisdictions exist for a reason, and it may be unethical to take on a client who you are not licensed to work with.

If you work as an e-counselor, the best way to resolve or preemptively prepare for these issues is to acknowledge they exist and engage with them. A good place to start may be to develop a personal framework for your practice that has a plan for issues of anonymity and confidentiality, and includes an indication of how you will report safeguarding concerns.

In a group setting, clients may no longer feel estranged from society or alone in their challenges, and instead view themselves as part of a community of people with shared experiences.

Clients may benefit from insights generated by other group members, and for some individuals, group counseling may literally amplify the benefits of a one-to-one approach.

However, group settings can also bring unique ethical issues. Just as some groups can bring out the best in us, and a therapeutic context can foster shared insights, other groups can become toxic and create a space in which counter-therapeutic behaviors are enabled by the implicit or explicit encouragement of other group members.

Similarly, just as some group leaders can inspire others and foster a productive community, it is also all too easy for group leaders to become victims of their status.

This is true for any relationship in which there is an inherent imbalance of power, such as traditional one-to-one practice, but in a group context, the counselor is naturally invested with a greater magnitude of influence and responsibility. This can lead to the judgment of the counselor becoming warped and increase the risk of overstepping ethical boundaries (Mashinter, 2020).

As a group counselor, first and foremost, you should foster a diligent practice of self-reflection to ensure you are mindful of the actions you take and remain alert to any blind spots in your judgment.

If possible, it may also be useful to examine ethical issues related to your authority by referring to another authority, in the form of supervision with one of your colleagues.

Finally, to prevent counter-therapeutic dynamics from developing within your group of clients, it may be useful to develop a clear code of conduct that emphasizes a commitment to group beneficence through mutual respect (Marson & McKinney, 2019).

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Expand your arsenal and impact with these 17 Positive Psychology Exercises [PDF] , scientifically designed to promote human flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Take a structured approach to preparing for and dealing with ethical issues, whether this is referring to a framework published by a professional organization or simply navigating by a set of core values.

Prepare for the most common types of ethical issues, while also keeping an open mind to the often complex nature of ethics in practice, as well as the specific ethical issues that may be unique to your practice. Case studies can be a useful tool for doing this.

If in doubt, refer to these five steps from Dhai and McQuiod-Mason (2010):

• Formulate the problem.
• Gather information.
• Consult authoritative sources.
• Consider the alternatives.
• Make an ethical assessment.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free .

• American Counseling Association. (2014). Ethical & professional standards . Retrieved July 22, 2021, from https://www.counseling.org/knowledge-center/ethics
• British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. (2018). BACP ethical framework for the counselling professions . Retrieved from https://www.bacp.co.uk/events-and-resources/ethics-and-standards/ethical-framework-for-the-counselling-professions/
• Cottone, R., & Tarvydas, V. (2016). Ethics and decision making in counseling and psychotherapy . Springer.
• Dhai, A., & McQuoid-Mason, D. J. (2010). Bioethics, human rights and health law: Principles and practice . Juta and Company.
• Etherington, K., & Bridges, N. (2011). Narrative case study research: On endings and six session reviews. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research , 11 (1), 11–22.
• Finn, J., & Barak, A. (2010). A descriptive study of e-counselor attitudes, ethics, and practice. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research , 10 (4), 268–277.
• Marson, S. M., & McKinney, R. E. (2019). The Routledge handbook of social work ethics and values . Routledge.
• Mashinter, P. (2020). Is group therapy effective? BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education , 12 (2), 33–36.
• West, W. (2002). Some ethical dilemmas in counseling and counseling research. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling , 30 (3), 261–268.
• Zur, O. (2008). Bartering in psychotherapy & counseling: Complexities, case studies and guidelines. New Therapist , 58 , 18–26.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

I appreciated your insight on the autonomy of the client, and this article was a great help for me in my master’s program and things to consider as I choose the right path for practice.

I enjoyed the lessons

I was recently at a social gathering where a former chemical dependency group counselor also attended. I tried to be polite, however I felt stalked. I was speaking with another person at the event, and he was within earshot of the conversation and hijacked my intent and the conversation. I had to literally seek an escape route. Before the event was over, he knocked my food from my plate and then ran to take the seat intended for me. This person knew that I am a retired professional and had access to my mental and physical health files. To say I was triggered is an understatement. What else could I have done in the moment to protect my psyche from the collateral damage that his inappropriate behaviors caused me? Is there any recourse? Do I now have to avoid the venue for fear he may show up there again and harass me further? Thank you in advance for your prompt attention.

I’m truly sorry to hear about your distressing experience. No one should ever feel cornered or unsafe, especially in social settings. In the moment, prioritizing your safety and well-being is paramount. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, consider:

– Seeking Support : Approach a trusted friend or event organizer to stay with you, making it less likely for the individual to approach. – Setting Boundaries : Politely yet firmly assert your boundaries if you feel safe to do so. Let the person know their behavior is unwelcome. – Seeking Professional Advice : Consider discussing the situation with a legal professional or counselor to understand potential recourse.

Remember, you have every right to attend venues without fear. If you’re concerned about future encounters, perhaps inform the venue’s management about your experience.

Warm regards, Julia | Community Manager

Thanks for the reminder that group counseling is also a whole different thing compared to a more typical counseling session. I’d like to look for professional counseling services soon because I might need help in processing my grief. After my dog died a month ago, it’s still difficult for me to get on with my life and get on with life normally.

https://www.barbarasabanlcsw.net/therapy-with-me

Thanks the topic is well explained have learnt alot from it

Very informative article. I particularly enjoyed the case studies on the ethical principles

Thanks a lot

Ngini Nairobi, Kenya

very useful article .thank u very much. from… Sri Lanka

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Youth Counseling: 17 Courses & Activities for Helping Teens

From a maturing body and brain to developing life skills and values, the teen years can be challenging, and mental health concerns may arise. Teens [...]

How To Plan Your Counseling Session: 6 Examples

Planning is crucial in a counseling session to ensure that time inside–and outside–therapy sessions is well spent, with the client achieving a successful outcome within [...]

65+ Counseling Methods & Techniques to Apply With Your Clients

Counselors have found it challenging to settle on a single definition of their profession or agree on the best counseling methods and techniques to treat [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (21)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (36)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

Ethics & Psychology

• General Resources
• Animal Subjects
• Human Subjects
• Case Studies

Collections of Cases

• Ethics Case Studies in Mental Health Research A large collection of cases addressing issues such as human participants in research, conflict of interest, and the responsible collection, management, and use of research data.
• Ethics Education Library -Psychology Case Studies A collection of over 90 case studies from the Ethics Education Library.
• Ethics Rounds A collection of case studies published in the American Psychological Association's "Monitor on Ethics".

Case Investigations by Government Agencies/Professional Organizations

• Office of Research Integrity Cases summaries from the past four years of investigations and inquiries done by the Office of Research Integrity. Also includes short case summaries from 1994 onwards.

Books, Anthologies, & More

• << Previous: Human Subjects
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2023 10:40 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.iit.edu/psychologyethics

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

APA Code of Ethics: Principles, Purpose, and Guidelines

Codes, Principles, and Standards for Psychologists

Mediaphotos / Getty Images

Understanding the APA Code of Ethics

• APA Code of Ethics' 5 Principles
• The APA Code of Ethics' Standards
• Reporting a Therapist

Ethical Considerations

The big picture.

The APA Code of Ethics equips psychology professionals with standards and principles to follow when dealing with the moral and ethical dilemmas they're likely to face.

Ethics are an important concern in psychology, particularly regarding therapy and research. Working with patients and conducting psychological research can pose various ethical and moral issues that must be addressed.

The American Psychological Association (APA) publishes the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct which outlines aspirational principles as well as enforceable standards that psychologists should use when making decisions.

In 1948, APA president Nicholas Hobbs said, "[The APA Code of Ethics] should be of palpable aid to the ethical psychologist in making daily decisions."

In other words, the APA Code of Ethics is meant to provide a common set of rules that help ensure mutual safety and patient benefit.

When Did the APA Publish Its Code of Ethics?

The APA first published its ethics code in 1953 and has been continuously evolving the code ever since.

What's in the APA's Code of Ethics?

The APA Code of Ethics comprises two key elements:

• Principles : the underlying ethical foundation on which psychologists should base their practices and decisions, whether they work in mental health, research , or business.
• Standards : enforceable rules for ethical conduct, the violation of which can have professional and legal ramifications

Who Is the APA Code of Ethics For?

The APA Code of Ethics applies only to work-related, professional activities including research, teaching, counseling , psychotherapy, and consulting. Private conduct is not subject to scrutiny by the APA's ethics committee.

APA Code of Ethics' 5 Principles

Not all ethical issues are clear-cut, but the APA offers psychologists guiding principles to help them make sound ethical choices within their profession.

The APA Code of Ethics' Five Principles

• Principle A : Beneficence and Non-Maleficence
• Principle B : Fidelity and Responsibility
• Principle C : Integrity
• Principle D : Justice
• Principle E : Respect for People's Rights and Dignity

Principle A: Beneficence and Non-Maleficence

Psychologists should strive to protect the rights and welfare of those with whom they work professionally . This includes the clients they see in clinical practice, animals that are involved in research and experiments , and anyone else with whom they engage in professional interaction.

This principle encourages psychologists to strive to eliminate biases , affiliations, and prejudices that might influence their work. This includes acting independently in research and not allowing affiliations or sponsorships to influence results.

Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility

Psychologists have a moral responsibility to help ensure that others working in their profession also uphold high ethical standards . This principle suggests that psychologists should participate in activities that enhance the ethical compliance and conduct of their colleagues.

Serving as a mentor, taking part in peer review, and pointing out ethical concerns or misconduct are examples of how this principle might be put into action. Psychologists are also encouraged to donate some of their time to the betterment of the community.

Principle C: Integrity

In research and practice, psychologists should never attempt to deceive or misrepresent . For instance, in research, deception can involve fabricating or manipulating results in some way to achieve desired outcomes. Psychologists should also strive for transparency and honesty in their practice.

Principle D: Justice

Mental health professionals have a responsibility to be fair and impartial. It also states that people have a right to access and benefit from advances that have been made in the field of psychology. It is important for psychologists to treat people equally.

Psychologists should also always practice within their area of expertise and also be aware of their level of competence and limitations.

Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity

Psychologists should respect the right to dignity, privacy, and confidentiality of those they work with professionally . They should also strive to minimize their own biases as well as be aware of issues related to diversity and the concerns of particular populations.

For example, people may have specific concerns related to their age, socioeconomic status, race , gender, religion, ethnicity, or disability.

The APA Code of Ethics' Standards

The 10 standards found in the APA ethics code are enforceable rules of conduct for psychologists working in clinical practice and academia.

The 10 Standards Found in the APA Code of Ethics

• Resolving Ethical Issues
• Human Relations
• Privacy and Confidentiality
• Advertising and Other Public Statements
• Record Keeping and Fees
• Education and Training
• Research and Publication

These standards tend to be broad in order to help guide the behavior of psychologists across a wide variety of domains and situations.

They apply to areas such as education, therapy, advertising, privacy, research, and publication.

1: Resolving Ethical Issues

This standard of the APA ethics code provides information about what psychologists should do to resolve ethical situations they may encounter in their work. This includes advice for what researchers should do when their work is misrepresented and when to report ethical violations.

2: Competence

Psychologists must practice within their areas of expertise. When treating clients or working with the public, psychologists must make clear what they are and are not trained to do.

An Exception to This Standard

This standard stipulates that in an emergency situation, professionals may provide services even if it falls outside the scope of their practice in order to ensure that access to services is provided.

3: Human Relations

Psychologists frequently work with a team of other mental health professionals. This standard of the ethics code is designed to guide psychologists in their interactions with others in the field.

This includes guidelines for dealing with sexual harassment, and discrimination, avoiding harm during treatment and avoiding exploitative relationships (such as a sexual relationship with a student or subordinate).

4: Privacy and Confidentiality

This standard outlines psychologists’ responsibilities in maintaining patient confidentiality . Psychologists are obligated to take reasonable precautions to keep client information private.

However, the APA also notes that there are limitations to confidentiality. Sometimes psychologists need to disclose information about their patients in order to consult with other mental health professionals, for example.

In cases where information must be divulged, psychologists must strive to minimize these intrusions on privacy and confidentiality.

5: Advertising and Other Public Statements

Psychologists who advertise their services must ensure that they accurately depict their training, experience, and expertise. They also need to avoid marketing statements that are deceptive or false.

This also applies to how psychologists are portrayed by the media when providing their expertise or opinion in articles, blogs, books, or television programs.

When presenting at conferences or giving workshops, psychologists should also ensure that the brochures and other marketing materials for the event accurately depict what the event will cover.

6: Record Keeping and Fees

Maintaining accurate records is an important part of a psychologist’s work, whether the individual is working in research or with patients. Patient records include case notes and other diagnostic assessments used in the course of treatment.

In terms of research, record-keeping involves detailing how studies were performed and the procedures that were used. This allows other researchers to assess the research and ensures that the study can be replicated.

7: Education and Training

This standard focuses on expectations for behavior when psychologists are teaching or training students.

When creating courses and programs to train other psychologists and mental health professionals , current and accurate evidence-based research should be used.

This standard also states that faculty members are not allowed to provide psychotherapy services to their students.

8: Research and Publication

This standard focuses on ethical considerations when conducting research and publishing results .

For example, the APA states that psychologists must obtain approval from the institution that is carrying out the research, present information about the purpose of the study to participants, and inform participants about the potential risks of taking part in the research.

9: Assessment

Psychologists should obtain informed consent before administering assessments. Assessments should be used to support a psychologist’s professional opinion, but psychologists should also understand the limitations of these tools.

They should also take steps to ensure the privacy of those who have taken assessments.

10: Therapy

This standard outlines professional expectations within the context of providing therapy. Areas that are addressed include the importance of obtaining informed consent and explaining the treatment process to clients.

Confidentiality is addressed, as well as some of the limitations to confidentiality, such as when a client poses an immediate danger to himself or others.

Minimizing harm, avoiding sexual relationships with clients, and continuation of care are other areas that are addressed by this standard.

For example, if a psychologist must stop providing services to a client for some reason, they are expected to prepare clients for the change and help locate alternative services.

What Happens When a Therapist Violates the APA Code of Ethics?

After a report of unethical conduct is received, the APA may censure or reprimand the psychologist, or the individual may have their APA membership revoked. Complaints may be referred to others, including state professional licensing boards.

State psychological associations, professional groups, licensing boards, and government agencies may also choose to impose penalties against the psychologist.

Health insurance agencies and state and federal payers of health insurance claims may also pursue action against professionals for ethical violations related to treatment, billing, or fraud.

Those affected by ethical violations may also opt to seek monetary damages in civil courts.

Illegal activity may be prosecuted in criminal courts. If this results in a felony conviction, the APA may take further actions including suspension or expulsion from state psychological associations and the suspension or loss of the psychologist's license to practice.

How Can I Report a Therapist for Unethical Behavior?

Unfortunately, therapists do commit ethical violations. If you would like to file a complaint against a therapist, contact your state's psychologist licensing board.

How to Find Your State's Psychologist Board

Here is a list of the U.S. psychology boards . Choose your state and refer to the contact information provided.

Because psychologists often deal with extremely sensitive or volatile situations, ethical concerns play a big role in professional life.

The most significant ethical issues include:

• Client Welfare : Given the roles they serve, psychologists often work with individuals who are vulnerable due to their age, disability, intellectual ability, and other concerns. When working with these individuals, psychologists must always strive to protect the welfare of their clients.
• Informed Consent : Psychologists are responsible for providing a wide range of services in their roles as therapists, researchers, educators, and consultants. When people are acting as consumers of psychological services, they have a right to know what to expect. In therapy, obtaining informed consent involves explaining what services are offered, what the possible risks might be, and the patient’s right to leave treatment. When conducting research, informed consent involves letting participants know about any possible risks of taking part in the research.
• Confidentiality : Therapy requires providing a safe place for clients to discuss highly personal issues without fear of having this information shared with others or made public. However, sometimes a psychologist might need to share some details such as when consulting with other professionals or when they are publishing research. Ethical guidelines dictate when and how some information might be shared, as well as some of the steps that psychologists should take to protect client privacy.
• Competence : The training, education, and experience of psychologists is also an important ethical concern. Psychologists must possess the skill and knowledge to properly provide the services that clients need. For example, if a psychologist needs to administer a particular assessment in the course of treatment, they should have an understanding of both the administration and interpretation of that specific test.

Although the APA Code of Ethics provides respected principles and enforceable standards for professional conduct, psychology is not free from ethical controversy. For example, debates over psychologists’ participation in torture and the use of animals in psychological research remain hot-button ethical concerns.

Nevertheless, reputable psychologists commonly turn to the APA Code of Ethics for help with moral and ethical issues and decisions commonly faced in their profession.

American Psychological Association. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Including 2010 and 2016 Amendments. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association 2020 https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Hobbs N. The development of a code of ethical standards for psychology .  American Psychologist. 1948;3(3):80–84.https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060281

Conlin WE, Boness CL. Ethical considerations for addressing distorted beliefs in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2019;56(4):449-458. doi:10.1037/pst0000252

Stark L. The science of ethics: Deception, the resilient self, and the APA code of ethics, 1966-1973. J Hist Behav Sci . 2010;46(4):337-370. doi:10.1002/jhbs.20468

Smith RD, Holmberg J, Cornish JE. Psychotherapy in the #MeToo era: Ethical issues . Psychotherapy (Chic). 2019;56(4):483-490. doi:10.1037/pst0000262

Erickson Cornish JA, Smith RD, Holmberg JR, Dunn TM, Siderius LL. Psychotherapists in danger: The ethics of responding to client threats, stalking, and harassment. Psychotherapy (Chic). 2019;56(4):441-448. doi:10.1037/pst0000248

American Psychological Association. Complaints regarding APA members .

American Psychological Association. Council Policy Manual. Policy Related to Psychologists' Work in National Security Settings and Reaffirmation of the APA Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Adopted by APA Council of Representatives, August 2013. Amended by APA Council of Representatives, August 2015. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association 2020 https://www.apa.org/about/policy/national-security

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Psychiatr Psychol Law
• v.25(3); 2018

Moral Challenges for Psychologists Working in Psychology and Law

Alfred allan.

School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia

States have an obligation to protect themselves and their citizens from harm, and they use the coercive powers of law to investigate threats, enforce rules and arbitrate disputes, thereby impacting on people's well-being and legal rights and privileges. Psychologists as a collective have a responsibility to use their abilities, knowledge, skill and experience to enhance law's effectiveness, efficiency, and reliability in preventing harm, but their professional behaviour in this collaboration must be moral. They could, however, find their personal values to be inappropriate or there to be insufficient moral guides and could find it difficult to obtain definitive moral guidance from law. The profession's ethical principles do, however, provide well-articulated, generally accepted and profession-appropriate guidance, but practitioners might encounter moral issues that can only be solved by the profession as a whole or society.

Disciplines and professions have an obligation to serve the interests of both society and its individual members (MacDonald, 1995 ; Parsons, 1968 ). Modern societies and individuals therefore expect psychologists to provide services to law that I define broadly to include the correction, investigative and justice systems. Psychologists provide services to these systems directly as administrators, consultants, policy advisers or practitioners using psychological resources (data, methods and instruments) that other psychologists have created as researchers, documented, edited, reviewed or taught. Some practitioners use these resources to provide therapeutic or rehabilitation services, but my focus is on the psychologists (assessors) who use psychological resources to generate information that law uses to make decisions that invariably impact on people's well-being and their legal rights and privileges.

Society's Use of Law and Coercion

The roots of law go back to the hunter-gatherer groups, which could only survive external threats and achieve their goals by ensuring internal order, strengthening the cohesion of the group, promoting mutually beneficial cooperation, and checking destructive selfish behaviour (Cosmides, 2015 ; Krasnow, Delton, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2015 ). Modern neuroscientists and psychologists (see, e.g. Rilling & Sanfey, 2011 ) confirm the belief of generations of scholars that people crave structure and order (see, e.g. Freud, 1927 ; Kelsen, 1943 ; Mill, 1859/ 1974 ) and feel wronged when others violate social norms (Rilling & Sanfey, 2011 ; Sanfey, 2007 ). Researchers (see, e.g. Pietrini, Guazzelli, Basso, Jaffe, & Grafman, 2000 ; Strang, Fischbacher, Utikal, Weber, & Falk, 2014 ) also confirm the historical view (see, e.g. Kelsen, 1943 ; Piaget, 1932/ 1965 ) that people's primitive survival need to protect themselves and significant others from further abuse (Von Fürer-Haimendor, 1967 ) predisposes victims to retaliate by taking revenge (for a discussion see McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2013 ; Tripp & Bies, 1997 ).

States try to prevent vigilante behaviour (Hogan & Emler, 1981 ) that can lead to harmful cycles of violence by creating law that provides victims access to grievance procedures and remedies that they can use to offset the consequences of wrongful behaviour. Law therefore allows State organs to intervene in disputes by forcing people to undertake activities (e.g. community service, paying damages or fines) or to discontinue activities (e.g. trespassing on property or contacting specific people), or suspending or modifying their rights or privileges (e.g. imprisoning them or restricting their access to, or opportunity to parent, their children).

Since the 16th century, States involuntarily detain people whose lack of insight as a consequence of their mental disorders might cause them to harm themselves or others, on the basis that they lack the competency to make rational decisions (Allan, 2002 ). States, however, also increasingly use the risk of harm to people and the broader society to justify regulating the activities of competent people, such as compelling cyclists to wear head protection, preventing people from smoking in public spaces or paying for consensual sex (Mis, 2016 ). States further use criminal law to investigate and control the behaviour of people, and psychologists have recently expressed moral concerns about their peers’ involvement in three types of regulation of activities.

Law, firstly, uses psychologists to assess people's risk of reoffending in an attempt to control those with a propensity to commit crimes. Law tries to prevent these people from committing future crimes by detaining them (even if they had not been found guilty of crimes, see, e.g. McSherry, 2014 ), or compelling them to wear radio transmitters, or preventing them from going to locations (e.g. close to schools).

Law, secondly, uses psychologists to develop behavioural profiles of suspects using covertly collected information (Allan, 2015 ) or using information for another purpose than that for which they had obtained consent to use it (see, e.g. Inmate Welfare Committee, William Head Institution v Canada, 2003  – Inmate case). The Canadian Federal Court in the Inmate case held that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Bill of Rights (Charter; Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 ) did not stop Correctional Services Canada (Corrections Canada) psychologists from completing a Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R; Hare, 1991 ) using file data without offenders’ consent if Corrections Canada needed it to fulfil its legislative mandate of protecting the public.

The final concern is psychologists’ involvement in forensic interviews and interrogations as supervisors or consultants of investigators (e.g. observing actual or video recordings of interviews and making suggestions to interviewers) or as investigative interviewers (e.g. in family and child protection or criminal matters). Law has used interviews since the dawn of history (Donohue, 2008 ), but people who associate them with the Inquisition (Burman, 2004 ) and police abuse (Ofshe & Leo, 1997 ) often view them negatively. Psychology's involvement with interviews is not new because interviewers, interrogators and investigators have used psychological data (Münsterberg, 1908/1925) , and psychologists have adopted investigative roles (see, e.g. Marbe, 1930 ; Münsterberg, 1908/ 1925 ) since the emergence of psychology as a separate discipline. Psychologists’ purported involvement in so-called enhanced interviewing and its association with torture, however, has led to contemporary debates about psychologists’ role and the use of psychological knowledge during interviews and interrogations (see, e.g. Arrigo, DeBatto, Rockwood, & Mawe, 2015 ; O'Donohue, Maragakis, Snipes, & Soto, 2015 ; O'Donohue et al., 2014 ; Suedfeld, 2007 ).

A theme underlying these three activities is that they involve psychologists in law's use of ‘organized coercion ‘ (Lloyd, 1964 , p. 41) to achieve its goals (Dworkin, 1986 ; Hart, 2012 ). Philosophers accept that States can use coercive legal powers to control autonomous people's behaviour, but since the 18th (Von Humboldt, 1792/1854) and 19th (Mill, 1859/1974) centuries they argued that this is only justified when directed toward prevention of harm to other individuals (the private harm principle ). Modern philosophers argue that there is also a public harm principle that allows States to use coercion to prevent harm to public interests (see, e.g. Feinberg, 1973 ). States that use coercion to prevent harm, however, often also cause unavoidable and unintended harm (see, e.g. Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009 ), and therefore the net result might be immoral (wrong and/or bad). Citizens should therefore scrutinise the morality (rightness and goodness) of the purpose, provisions and administration of coercive legislation.

Some argue that legislators sometimes introduce coercive criminal legislation for the purpose of attracting votes rather than preventing harm (see, e.g. Nutall, 2000 ), whilst others contend that it reflects the public's punitive and intolerant opinion about certain forms of offending behaviour (see, e.g. De Keijser, 2014 ; De Keijser & Elffers, 2009 ), such as terrorism (Carlé, Charron, Milochevitch, & Hardeman, 2004 ; Van de Lagemaat, 2012 ). Perceived public opinion, however, might not accurately reflect public morality (i.e. what society as a whole considers as right and good) because it fluctuates depending on variables such as people's education and socio-economic status (Carpenter, 1889 ) and could be swayed by external influences such as biased messages from police in search of more resources and the media that make money out of crime coverage (Roberts & Plesničar, 2015 ). People should further consider the provisions of the relevant legislation that determine the kind, magnitude, probability and immediacy of the targeted harm that justify the unavoidable and unintended harm caused by the lawful intervention (Brookbanks, 2002 ). In particular, they need to consider who should determine the relevant risks and what degree of certainty they should have that interventions will cause direct and immediate harm of a lesser magnitude than the targeted harm (McAlinden, 2001 ). Psychologists might not necessarily engage in the debate regarding the purpose and provisions of relevant legislation, but they should consider the moral appropriateness of their direct or indirect involvement in the administration of the relevant legislation.

Personal Decision Making

A range of factors make people's moral decisions poorer than they estimate (see, e.g. Allison, Messick, & Goethals, 1989 ; Tenbrunsel, 1998 ). For instance, their affiliation needs, emotions, feelings of disgust and other mechanisms that protect their self-worth and self-interest (Babcock & Loewenstein, 1997 ; Babcock, Loewenstein, & Issacharoff, 1997 ; Epley & Caruso, 2004 ; Greenwald, Pickrell, & Farnham, 2002 ; Hastorf & Cantril, 1954 ) could influence their decisions (for a critial overview see Newell & Shanks, 2014 ). People, in part, make decision-making mistakes because the constant demands on their finite cognitive abilities to make multiple decisions rapidly (see, e.g. Ericsson, Charness, Feltovich, & Hoffman, 2006 ; Gigerenzer & Todd, 1999 ; Rieskamp & Hoffrage, 1999 ; Simon, 1955 , 1956 ; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974 ) lead them to make decisions non-consciously (see, e.g. Greene & Haidt, 2002 ; Reynolds, 2006 ). People make non-conscious decisions using two closely related constructs – namely, prototypes , which are neural representations (Smolensky, 1988 ) of objects or notions (e.g. do no harm), and heuristics , which are methods that allow people to arrive ‘at satisfactory solutions with modest amounts of computation ‘(Simon, 1990 , p. 11).

People would not be able to survive if they did not make decisions non-consciously, and such decisions work well for routine situations, but not necessarily when people have to make novel or complex moral decisions in professional contexts. The first problem is that psychologists might tend to choose the first satisfactory option that they identify without distinguishing relevant and irrelevant evidence, alternative options and the evidence for and against options (Simon, 1955 , 1956 ; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981 , 1986 ). The second is that psychologists’ inclination to avoid cognitive dissonance (see, e.g. Festinger, 1957 ) might lead them to use prototypes based on their subjective personal values that are not appropriate for professional decisions. For instance, compassion is an admirable personal trait, but psychologists who are overly compassionate could make decisions leading to boundary violations in professional relationships (Allan, 2017 ).

However, people can improve the quality of their moral decision making by using the method that experts use (Campitelli & Gobet, 2010 ; Morris & Moore, 2000 ; Rest, 1979 ). This includes two broad strategies. The first is to develop heuristics that allow them to identify and choose the best of the available solutions by focussing on relevant information and analysing it as deeply and abstractly as the complexity of tasks require and the time allows (Campitelli & Gobet, 2004 ). The second strategy, and more important for this article, is to develop prototypes to guide their conscious and non-conscious decision making (see Allan, 2017 , for a discussion). Psychologists develop and internalise these prototypes by storing objective chunks (Chase & Simon, 1973 ) or templates (Gobet & Simon, 1996 ) of normative information that they then use to solve moral problems. The problem confronting psychologists is where to find external and objective norms that transcend their personal values to internalise as prototypes. A place where they might find them is in the decisions of courts.

Law and Morality

Most psychologists could find it difficult to establish what moral principles underlie law because two rival traditions exist in law regarding who should decide the morality of legislation and what principles they should apply when doing so. Proponents of natural law generally believe that judges must decide the morality of legislation by applying the universal law that humans ‘possessed in a state of nature ‘ (Lloyd, 1964 , p. 83), but often disagree about what law humans possessed in a state of nature. They initially used divine law as a yardstick, but later adopted the fundamental rights identified during and after the Reformation (Witte, 2007 ). These rights (see, e.g. Bill of Rights of the United States, 1791 ), however, often do not flow from a clear set of moral principles, but rather from arbitrary assumptions about the desires of people with a specific socio-cultural history (Lloyd, 1964 ).

Legal positivists in contrast generally make a clear distinction between legal (what is the law?) and moral (what ought the law be?) questions and argue that all people, including judges, must follow and obey existing law and use legitimate means to change such law, or parts of it, that they consider immoral (Lloyd, 1964 ). Positivists therefore believe that judges should refrain from questioning the morality of the purpose and provisions of legislation, which means that they could administer immoral legislation as happened in, for example, Nazi Germany.

Proponents of both traditions therefore, particularly since the Second World War, started looking at human rights law to find a set of moral principles that provides natural law supporters with a set of generally accepted and universal moral principles and positivists with legal principles based on a clear moral foundation (Lloyd, 1964 ). The foundational moral principle of human rights law is respect for human dignity (McCrudden, 2008 ), which philosophers such as Locke (1690/2005) , Rousseau (1762/2002) and Kant (1785/ 2001 , 1796/1887) initially developed. Most people consider the United Nations’ ( 1948 ) Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the cornerstone of human rights law, but it and other United Nations treatises and instruments, such as the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (United Nations, 1985 ), do not automatically form part of countries’ domestic law (Allan, 2013a ). People living in countries that adopted United Nations treaties and instruments can, however, lodge complaints with the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations established under Article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations, 1966 ).

Countries can also incorporate human (sometimes called fundamental or natural) rights into their constitutions (see, e.g. Constitution of Ireland, 1937 ) or other legislation (see, e.g. the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 ). Countries thereby give their citizens claim rights (see Corbin, 1919 ; Feinberg, 1973 ; Hohfeld, 1919 ) that they can enforce in courts, by contrast to unenforceable moral rights. Some regional bodies, such as the Council of Europe ( 1950 ), furthermore developed their own conventions on human rights (Council of Europe, 1950 ) and more specific instruments such as the Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Prevention of Torture Convention; Council of Europe, 1987 ). Bodies such as the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment aim to prevent human rights violations, and citizens of member states can approach bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights for relief after having exhausted the remedies available under their domestic law.

These bodies apply human rights law when they consider the provisions of member countries’ legislation and its administration and often hear matters with profound moral implications (see, e.g. Wackenheim v France, 2002 ), and their decisions carry much weight and provide useful information on moral issues (see, e.g. Grosskopf v Germany, 2010 , on preventative detention). However, psychologists trying to solve professional issues will often find it difficult to identify well-articulated, comprehensive and applied principles by studying the decision of these bodies because they hear relatively few cases and usually undertake legal (see, e.g. Selmouni v France, 1999 ) rather than moral analyses of issues.

Psychology's Ethical Principles

Allan ( in press , 2017b) therefore argues that psychologists should use the set of ethical principles that underlies psychology's codes of ethics to develop prototypes to fill in the gaps that law leaves open. Allan ( 2010 , 2016) identified a set of eight principles that underlies most of psychology's codes of ethics and also the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (International Union of Psychological Science [IUPsyS] and the International Association of Applied Psychology [IAAP], 2008 ) that psychologists across the world recognise (Gauthier, Pettifor, & Ferrero, 2010 ). These principles, which can be collapsed into three or five principles with several components (see Table 1 ), reflect the accumulated wisdom of generations of psychologists regarding how the moral foundations that people across the world share should be applied by psychologists who aspire to provide high-quality morally acceptable services to individuals and society.

Ethical principles and the obligations they bring.

Psychologists faced with moral decisions should identify the principle that in the circumstances appears to be more binding than the others, and obey their obligations under it. They might find that their obligations under one principle conflict with those under another, or that they have conflicting obligations to different people under the same principle. Under the non-maleficence principle, psychologists might therefore have to compare the risk of harming infants by removing them from attachment figures to the risk that they could be sexually abused by fathers who have histories of child sexual abuse (see, e.g. Farnell & Chanbau, 2016 ). They should then examine the circumstances to identify the principle, or combination of principles, to which they should give priority and use it to make tentative decisions that they review as circumstances change.

Application of Legal and Ethical Principles

The care (non-maleficence) principle requires psychologists to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to people towards whom they have a responsibility, and the responsibility (social) principle expands this protection to the whole of society, thereby giving assessors prima facie justification to assist States in protecting themselves and their citizens. However, assessors’ behaviour might lead to unavoidable or unintended harmful consequences that exceed the benefits thereof for society, the profession and individuals, thereby violating the care principle. This could be particularly problematic if assessors’ behaviour violates the fidelity principle by bringing the profession into disrepute, thus eroding the public's trust in them and the profession.

Society and individuals can rarely judge professionals’ abilities, knowledge, skill and experience, and if they need to consult them they must trust those that they use to act in their best interests, thereby making trust essential to professions’ existence (see, e.g. MacDonald, 1995 ). Society, individuals and the profession will suffer if people lose trust in psychologists and stop using their services, but more relevant here is the risk that clients and those administering the law might lose trust in them and stop using them. Assessors’ professional behaviour is particularly likely to influence the public's perceptions as their work often receives publicity, especially if there have been miscarriages of justice. They also work with people who are often very emotional because their rights, interests and well-being are at stake and who might therefore be particularly distrustful of psychologists whose opinions they believe are influential even though this might not be true. Assessors can try to keep people's trust in them and the profession by adhering strictly to the justice (procedural) and respect for humanity principles.

Justice Principle

The procedural component of the justice principle reflects people's expectation that others will be fair when they collect and use information to make decisions that will impact on their rights, interests and well-being (Lind & Tyler, 1988 ). Assessors who collect information that will be used to making such decisions (Allan, 2013b ) should specifically consider the seven requirements of this principle.

Assessors should strive to be objective , but, as the discussion of decision making above suggests, they could find it difficult, if not impossible, to avoid bias (Allison et al., 1989 ; Greenwald et al., 2002 ; Moore & Loewenstein, 2004 ). They could be influenced by internal factors such as their emotions, prejudices and self-interest (Diekmann, Samuels, Ross, & Bazerman, 1997 ; Messick, Bloom, Boldizar, & Samuelson, 1985 ), or external factors such as the expectations of their colleagues, managers, legal decision-makers, and assessees (see, e.g. Gutheil & Simon, 2004 ). Psychologists can improve the objectivity of their decision making by using structured and actuarial methods and always trying to work under close supervision (for a general discussion see, e.g. Allan, 2017 ). They should avoid doing non-treatment-related risk assessments of people to whom they provide or provided treatment. The independent reviewers of a murder committed by a parolee in the United Kingdom (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2006 ), for example, concluded that the assessment of the parolee's risk had been wrong and that the ‘fact that this assessment was being made by the psychologist who was also delivering treatment may be a factor in this case ‘ (paragraph 10.1.6).

Assessors should use reliable resources even when they do not anticipate external scrutiny, such as that lawyers might raise concerns about the tests used in their pleadings or cross-examination. They should therefore use scientifically credible resources (e.g. avoid non-peer-reviewed and online resources of uncertain reliability) that are specific and sensitive enough to limit both false positives and false negatives. Assessors in countries with big migrant (particularly refugees) or Indigenous populations (see, e.g. Allan, Dawson, & Allan, 2006 ) might not have such resources because they are usually developed for the majority populations in most countries. Judges in countries such as Australia (see, e.g. DPP v Mangolamara, 2007 ), Canada (see e.g. Ewert v Canada, 2015 ) and New Zealand (see, e.g. R v Peta, 2007 ) have expressed concern about the reliability of the instruments that psychologists use when they assess Indigenous sexual offenders. In Ewert v Canada ( 2015 ) the court used the human rights principles embodied in the Canadian Charter ( 1982 ) to prevent Corrections Canada psychologists from using well-known assessment tools such as the PCL–R and Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993 ) to assess Canadian Aboriginal offenders until Corrections Canada confirmed the reliability of those tools in respect of this group. The Federal Court of Appeals in Canada v Ewert ( 2016 ) overturned this decision but that does not reduce psychologists’ ethical obligation to restrict their use of culturally questionable resources to those cases where there is legal and ethical justification for using them and adhere strictly to other principles, such as by obtaining assessees’ consent and collaboration.

Assessors must also only undertake assessments within their ability, knowledge, skills and experience ( competence ). They should know and understand the theories that underlie the resources they use and be familiar with the relevant and current manuals and related peer-reviewed material (Allan & Grisso, 2014 ). They should be able to select and use appropriate resources and know the psychometric properties of instruments and how to administer them and how to interpret and report their findings. Novice assessors should develop these competencies and gain experience by training and working under close supervision of experienced and competent colleagues. Experienced psychologists should keep abreast of developments in the area they work in by attending professional development training and reading peer-reviewed literature.

They must collect and consider all the reasonably accessible relevant information from representative sources, and if their employers or contracts do not allow them enough time to undertake effective assessments they must try to rectify the problem to avoid foreseeable risk to society, individuals, their employers and themselves. Individual assessors might find it very difficult to negotiate individually with their employers and contractors for realistic time allocations, and they should therefore do so through their professional and industrial bodies.

Assessors must apply the appropriate legal (e.g. test in legislation) and psychological (e.g. diagnostic) criteria to the pertinent information in a logical manner that leads to defensible conclusions . They should point to the limitations of their assessments, data and opinions in their records, reports and testimony and identify and explain departures from previous decisions that they or others have made in similar circumstances (Allan & Grisso, 2014 ). Assessors should report their findings, opinions and, if relevant, decisions, in an objective and detached manner, avoiding subtle exaggerations, acknowledging the limitations of their assessments and data, and distinguishing their observations from their opinions. They must, finally, as far as is practical, inform examinees of their decisions and give them opportunities to correct wrong factual material and ask questions. If required, they should review their conclusions (see Allan & Grisso, 2014 , for a more comprehensive discussion).

The Respect for Humanity Principle

This respect for humanity principle and human rights law have the dignity that all humans share as their philosophical root (see, e.g. Allan, 2013a ). Even philosophers sometimes disagree about whether behaviour is disrespectful of human dignity (see, e.g. Feinberg, 1973 ), but it is clear that no person should behave in a manner that is disrespectful of other people's dignity, or permits others to behave in a manner that disregard their dignity, if the majority of people will find such behaviour offensive (see, e.g. Wackenheim v France , 2002 ). Allan and Davidson ( 2013 , 2015) propose that as a practical guide psychologists in their professional capacity should treat others in accordance with what society considers good manners.

Assessors often experience anger and disgust when they observe the disrespectful way in which those with whom they work behave towards themselves and others. Assessors can be honest with such people about what they think of their behaviour, but must not in return violate their physical or psychological integrity. They should avoid objectifying others by using them for their own means (e.g. administering tests on them merely because they need the experience); dehumanising them by labelling (e.g. calling them psychopaths); or belittling or disregarding their group identity (e.g. assessing them with psychological tests not appropriate for their culture or language). In particular, they should refrain from behaviour that could degrade or impair assessees’ self-esteem, or make them experience fear, anguish or feelings of inferiority, or assist others who do this – to break other peoples’ psychological and physical resistance down constitutes torture (Council of Europe, 1987 ).

Assessors can lessen the risk that people might feel betrayed by them and lose trust in all psychologists by explaining their exceptional role to non-psychologists and by being scrupulously honest with all people with whom they interact as professionals. They must especially inform assessees of the purpose of activities and the limits of privacy that they can offer them. Well-informed competent assessees can then make educated decisions regarding whether they want to proceed with the service, what information they want to disclose to assessors during the process and whether they want to waive their rights and privileges.

Assessors sometimes feel that their assessees lack the opportunity to make informed, free and voluntary decisions. Psychologists, for instance, analyse covertly collected data of people, and obtaining informed consent from them would defeat the purposes of the legislation that they operate under (e.g. the Criminal Investigation [Covert Powers] Act 2012 , WA). However, psychologists can do these analyses if they are satisfied that the agency they work for collected the data with legal warrants authorising the collection, analysis and use of the data (Allan, 2015 ). However, assessors must still adhere diligently to the other ethical principles and specifically avoid analysing data of people with whom they have other professional relationships (e.g. as counsellors). Assessors should further ensure that assessees understand the options they might have and that they may withhold their consent, but also what the consequences would be if they do so. These consequences could be negative for examinees (e.g. their parole applications might fail), and assessors might have legal authority to perform risk assessments using available file data without their collaboration (see, e.g. Inmate Welfare Committee, 2003 ).

States have an obligation to protect themselves and their citizens from harm, and they partly use the coercive powers of the law to achieve this by investigating threats, enforcing rules and arbitrating disputes even though it may impact on people's well-being and their legal rights and privileges. States also require all psychologists to protect them and their citizens from harm by, for instance, requiring them to disclose confidential information if they suspect their clients might cause irreversible harm to themselves or other people and if the only reasonable way of preventing the harm is by disclosing the information. Furthermore, the drafters of professional codes give psychologists the discretion to disclose confidential information to avert risks of harm in emergency situations or to protect ‘the health, welfare or safety of children or vulnerable adults ‘(standard 1(2)(vi)(c), British Psychological Society, 2009 ) even in the absence of such legislation.

Psychologists as a collective, however, also have resources that allow them to assist law (and therefore Society) actively in being more effective, efficient and reliable in preventing harm. The law can use psychologists’ observations (e.g. who has better parenting skills), predictions (e.g. who might reoffend or desist) and intervention (e.g. through rehabilitation or punishment 1. ) skills to prevent or minimise the occurrence of harm. Psychological resources about interviewing, detection of deception, reliability of memory, identification and testimony can reduce the risk of harm (e.g. information that foils terrorist attempts) and miscarriages of justice (e.g. through false confessions or mistaken identifications). Psychologists as a collective therefore have a responsibility to assist the law directly or indirectly in its protective function even thought this may involve them in coercive processes. The profession's ethical principles provide well-articulated, generally accepted and profession-appropriate guidance.

The care and responsibility principles read together justify psychologists’ assistance to the law in protecting States and their citizens even when this involves coercion, but the fidelity principle requires them to refrain from behaviour that might erode the trust in them, their peers or the profession. They can, however, minimise this risk by paying particular attention to the justice and respect for humanity principles, thereby ensuring that people will trust psychologists even though some might feel the law disregard their rights, interests, self-worth and reputation.

Assessors, however, irrespective of their roles, should provide services within the constraints of their social, professional and contractual responsibilities, and they should obtain legal advice and/or involve appropriate professional or industrial bodies if indicated. This might, for instance, happen where psychologists feel that their employers’ instruction might require them to behave unlawfully. Those who feel that employers or contractors require them to violate their professional ethical principles should clarify the situation and seek constructive solutions that will allow them to uphold their ethical principles. Some psychologists might therefore be confronted with the difficult choice of terminating contracts when they cannot reconcile their employers’ expectations with the profession's ethical expectations.

Assessors might, however, sometimes find that issues beyond their control make it difficult for them to achieve the ethical aspirations of their profession. A pressing issue in many countries is the lack of resources to assess Indigenous sexual offenders (see, e.g. Allan et al., 2006 ; Smallbone & Rallings, 2013 ; Spiranovic, 2012 ). Some assessors could rightfully argue that they should refrain from assessing Indigenous sexual offenders. However, doing that ignores psychologists’ broader responsibility to contribute to the protection of members of society (see, e.g. Allan, 2013b ; Allan & Grisso, 2014 ), in this situation specifically the victims of Indigenous sexual offenders who will most likely be Indigenous women and children (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014–15 ; Wundersitz, 2010 ). Assessors finding themselves in this situation could use the care principle to justify the assessments that they undertake if they ensure the optimal outcome for all involved by balancing the benefits, risks and costs of decisions, but the justice (distribute) principle nevertheless requires them to advocate for the development of resources that will eliminate the problem.

1. For a discussion of moral issues regarding punishment see, e.g. Honderich ( 2006 ).

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a keynote paper presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the European Association of Psychology and Law, Toulouse, France, 5–8 July 2016.

The author thanks Maria Allan, Graham Davidson and Crista McDaniel for their comments on previous drafts of this article.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest.

Alfred Allan has declared no conflicts of interest

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

• Allan A. (2002). The past, present and future of mental health law: A therapeutic jurisprudence analysis . Law in Context , 20 ( 2 ), 24–53. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2010). The principles that underlie the 2007 Code . In Allan A. & Love A. W. (Eds.), Ethical practice in psychology - Reflections from the creators of the APS Code of Ethics (pp. 61–76). Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2013a). Are human rights redundant in the ethical codes of psychologists? Ethics and Behavior , 23 ( 4 ), 251–265. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2013.776480 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2013b). Ethics in correctional and forensic psychology: Getting the balance right . Australian Psychologist , 48 ( 1 ), 47–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-9544.2012.00079.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2015). Ethics in psychology and law: An international perspective . Ethics and Behavior , 25 ( 6 ), 443–457. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.952006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2016). An international perspective of law and ethics in psychology (3rd ed.). Somerset, West, South Africa: Inter-Ed Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2017a). Applying research findings to enhance pre-practicum ethics training . Ethics and Behavior . doi: 10.1080/10508422.2017.1313705 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (In press). Being ethical psychologists in coercive settings . In Polaschek D., Day A., & Hollin C. (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook of correctional psychology . London, UK: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A. (2017b). A principled approach to ethical issues for psychologists in prisons and secure settings . In Ireland J. L., Ireland C. A., Fisher M., & Gredecki N. (Eds.), International handbook on forensic psychology in secure settings (pp. 269–282). London, UK: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A., & Davidson G. R. (2013). Respect for the dignity of people: What does this principle mean in practice? Australian Psychologist , 48 ( 5 ), 345–352. doi: Doi = 10.1111_ap.12012 [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A., & Davidson G. R. (2015). Respectful professional behaviour: What does it mean? In Morrissey S., Reddy P., Davidson G. R., & Allan A. (Eds.), Ethics and Professional practice (2nd ed., pp. 25–39). Melbourne, Australia: Cengage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A., Dawson D., & Allan M. M. (2006). Prediction of the risk of male sexual reoffending in Australia . Australian Psychologist , 41 ( 1 ), 60–68. doi: 10.1080/00050060500391886 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan A., & Grisso T. (2014). Ethical principles and the communication of forensic mental health assessments . Ethics and Behavior , 24 ( 6 ), 467–477. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2014.880346 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allison S. T., Messick D. M., & Goethals G. R. (1989). On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect . Social Cognition , 7 ( 3 ), 275–295. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arrigo J. M., DeBatto D., Rockwood L., & Mawe T. G. (2015). The “good” psychologist, “good” torture, and “good” reputation—Response to O'Donohue, Snipes, Dalto, Soto, Maragakis, and Im (2014) “The ethics of enhanced interrogations and torture” . Ethics and Behavior , 25 ( 5 ), 361–372. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2015.1007996 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014-15). Recorded crime - Offenders (4519.0). [ Google Scholar ]
• Babcock L., & Loewenstein G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases . The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 11 ( 1 ), 109–126. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babcock L., Loewenstein G., & Issacharoff S. (1997). Creating convergence: Debiasing biased litigants . Law and Social Inquiry , 22 ( 4 ), 913–925. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.1997.tb01092.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bill of Rights of the United States (1791). from http://consource.org/document/bill-of-rights/?gclid=CNv3yN7C0MsCFdcRvQodlH8O5Q
• British Psychological Society (2009). Code of conduct, ethical principles and guidelines. from http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/aa%20Standard%20Docs/inf94_code_web_ethics_conduct.pdf
• Brookbanks W. (2002). Public policy, moral panics and the lure of anticipatory containment . Psychiatry, Psychology and Law , 9 ( 2 ), 127–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burman E. (2004). The inquisition: The hammer of heresy . London: Sutton Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campitelli G., & Gobet F. (2004). Adaptive expert decision making: Skilled chess players search more and deeper . Journal of the International Computer Games Association , 27 ( 4 ), 209–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Campitelli G., & Gobet F. (2010). Herbert Simon's decision-making approach: Investigation of cognitive processes in experts . Review of General Psychology , 14 , 354–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Canada v Ewert (2016). FCA 203, Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2016/2016fca2203/2016fca2203.html .
• Canadian Constitution Act (1982). Available at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html .
• Carlé B., Charron S., Milochevitch A., & Hardeman F. (2004). An inquiry of the opinions of the French and Belgian populations as regards risk . Journal of Hazardous Materials , 111 ( 1–3 ), 21–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.02.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carpenter E. (1889). Defence of criminals – Criticism of immorality I . To-day 31-41, Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/carpenter/1889/defence-criminals-1881.htm .
• Chase W. G., & Simon H. A. (1973). Perception in chess . Cognitive Psychology , 4 ( 1 ), 55–81. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Constitution of Ireland (1937). from https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf
• Corbin A. L. (1919). Legal analysis and terminology . Yale Law Journal , 19 , 163–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cosmides L. (1989). The logical of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Watson Selection Task . Cognition , 31 , 187–276. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Council of Europe (1950). European convention on human rights . Retrieved 1/06/2010, from http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
• Council of Europe (1987). Convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or fegrading treatment or punishment . from http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/126
• Criminal Investigation [Covert Powers] Act (2012). Western Australia, Retrieved from https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/pco/prod/FileStore.nsf/Documents/MRDocument:29414P/$FILE/Criminal%20Investigation%20(Covert%20Powers)%20Act%202012%20-%20[00-f0-00].pdf?OpenElement .
• De Keijser J. W. (2014). Penal theory and popular opinion: The deficiencies of direct engagement . In Ryberg J. & Roberts J. V. (Eds.), Popular punishment: On the normative significance of public opinion (pp. 101–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Keijser J. W., & Elffers H. (2009). Public punitive attitudes: A threat to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system? In Oswald M., Bieneck S., & Hupfeld J. (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 55–74). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diekmann K. A., Samuels S. M., Ross L., & Bazerman M. H. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 ( 5 ), 1061–1074. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1061 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donohue L. K. (2008). The cost of counterterrorism: Power, politics, and liberty . New York: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• DPP v Mangolamara (2007). WASC 71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dworkin R. (1986). Law's empire . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Epley N., & Caruso E. M. (2004). Egocentric ethics . Social Justice Research , 17 ( 2 ), 171–187. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericsson K. A., Charness N., Feltovich P. J., & Hoffman R. R. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance . New York: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ewert v Canada (2015). FC 1093, Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc1093/2015fc1093.html .
• Farnell and Chanbau (2016). FCWA 17, avalable at http://www.familycourt.wa.gov.au/_files/Publications/2016FCWA2017anon.pdf .
• Feinberg J. (1973). Social philosophy . New York: Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Festinger L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Evanston, Ill: Row, Peterson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Freud S. (1927). The future of an illusion. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, (1927-1931) (Vol. XXI , pp. 1–56). Retrieved from https://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/The-future-of-illusion/pdf?dl&preview . [ Google Scholar ]
• Gatti U., Tremblay R. E., & Vitaro F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 50 ( 8 ), 991–998. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02057.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauthier J., Pettifor J., & Ferrero A. (2010). The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists: A culture-sensitive model for creating and reviewing a code of ethics . Ethics and Behavior , 20 ( 3/4 ), 179–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gigerenzer G., & Todd P. M. (1999). Fast and frugal heuristics: The adaptive toolbox . In Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M., & Group A. R. (Eds.), Simple Heuristics that make us Smart (pp. 3–34). New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gobet F., & Simon H. A. (1996). Templates in chess memory: A mechanism for recalling several boards . Cognitive Psychology , 31 , 1–40. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1996.0011 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greene J. D., & Haidt J. (2002). How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in cognitive sciences , 6 ( 12 ), 517–523. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenwald A. G., Pickrell J. E., & Farnham S. D. (2002). Implicit partisanship: Taking sides for no reason . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83 ( 2 ), 367–379. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.367 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grosskopf v Germany (2010). ECHR 158, Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1581.html .
• Gutheil T. G., & Simon R. I. (2004). Avoiding bias in expert testimony . Psychiatric Annals , 34 ( 4 ), 260–270. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hare R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised Manual . Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harris G. T., Rice M. E., & Quinsey V. L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument . Criminal Justice and Behavior , 20 ( 4 ), 315–335. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart H. L. A. (2012). The concept of law (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hastorf A. H., & Cantril H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 49 , 129–134. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation (2006). An independent review of a serious further offence case: Anthony Rice . Retrieved December, 12, 2015 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10_05_06_probation.pdf .
• Hogan R., & Emler N. P. (1981). Retributive justice . In Lerner M. J. & Lerner S. C. (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 125-143). NY: Plenum Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hohfeld W. N. (Ed.). (1919). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning: And other legal essays . New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, available from http://archive.org/details/fundamentallegal00hohfuoft [ Google Scholar ]
• Honderich T. (2006). Punishment: The supposed justifications revisited . London: Pluto Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Human Rights Act (1998). (United Kingdom) from http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1.html .
• Inmate Welfare Committee, William Head Institution v Canada (2003). FC 870, Retrieved from http://canlii.ca/t/gg878 .
• International Union of Psychological Science [IUPsyS] and the International Association of Applied Psychology [IAAP] (2008). Universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists . Retrieved from http://www.am.org/iupsys/resources/ethics/univdecl2008.html
• Kant I. (1785/2001). Fundamental principles of the metaphysics of morals . In Wood A. W. (Ed.), Basic writings of Kant (pp. 143–221). New York: The Modern Library. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kant I. (1796/1887). The philosophy of law: An exposition of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence as the science of right (Hastie W. Trans.). Edinburgh: T & T Clark. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelsen H. (1943). Society and nature . Chicago Ill: The University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krasnow M. M., Delton A. W., Cosmides L., & Tooby J. (2015). Group cooperation without group selection: Modest punishment can recruit much cooperation . PLoS ONE , 10 ( 4 ), 1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124561 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lind E. A., & Tyler T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice . New York: Plenum Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lloyd D. (1964). The idea of law . Harmondsworth, UK: Penquin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Locke J. (1690/2005). Two treatise on government . London: Project Gutenberg eBook, available at www.gutenberg.org . [ Google Scholar ]
• MacDonald K. M. (1995). The sociology of professions . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [ Google Scholar ]
• Marbe K. (1930). Autobiography of Karl Marbe . In Murchison C. (Ed.), History of Psychology in Autobiography (Vol. 1 , pp. 181–213). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAlinden A.-M. (2001). Indeterminate sentences for the severely personality disordered . Criminal Law Review , (February), 108–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrudden C. (2008). Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights . European Journal of International Law , 19 ( 4 ), 655–724. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chn043 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCullough M. E., Kurzban R., & Kurzban B. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 36 , 1–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McSherry B. (2014). Throwing away the key: The ethics of risk assessment for preventive detention schemes . Psychiatry, Psychology and Law , 21 ( 5 ), 779–790. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2014.893551 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Messick D. M., Bloom S., Boldizar J. P., & Samuelson C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 21 ( 5 ), 480–500. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(85)90031-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mill J. S. (1859/1974). On liberty . Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mis M. (2016). French law that makes it illegal to pay for sex ‘revolutionary’: Activists . World News , Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-lawmaking-prostitution/french-law-that-makes-it-illegal-to-pay-for-sex-revolutionary-activists-iduskcn0X42DR [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore D. A., & Loewenstein G. (2004). Self-interest, automaticity, and the psychology of conflict of interest . Social Justice Research , 17 ( 2 ), 189–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morris M. W., & Moore P. C. (2000). The lessons we (don't) learn: Counterfactual thinking and organizational accountability after a close call . Administrative Science Quarterly , 45 ( 4 ), 737–765. doi: 10.2307/2667018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Münsterberg H. (1908/1925). On the witness stand: Essays on Psychology and Crime . New York: Doubleday. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newell B. R., & Shanks D. R. (2014). Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 37 ( 1 ), 1–9. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12003214 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nutall C. (2000). Introduction . In Nutall C. (Ed.), Crime and criminal justice in Europe (pp. 9–12). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Donohue W., Maragakis A., Snipes C., & Soto C. (2015). Psychologists and the ethical use of enhanced interrogation techniques to save lives . Ethics and Behavior , 25 ( 5 ), 373–385. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2015.1027769 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Donohue W., Snipes C., Dalto G., Soto C., Maragakis A., & Im S. (2014). The ethics of enhanced interrogations and torture: A reappraisal of the argument . Ethics and Behavior , 24 ( 2 ), 109–125. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2013.814088 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ofshe R. J., & Leo R. A. (1997). The social psychology of police interrogations: The theory and classification of tue and false confessions . Studies in Law, Politics and Society , 16 , 189–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons T. (1968). Professions . In Sills D. L. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of social sciences (Vol. 12 , pp. 536–546). New York: MacMillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piaget J. (1932/1965). The moral judgement of the child . New York: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pietrini P., Guazzelli M., Basso G., Jaffe K., & Grafman J. (2000). Neural correlates of imaginal aggressive behavior assessed by positron emission tomography in healthy subjects . American Journal of Psychiatry , 157 , 1772–1781. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• R v Peta (2007) 2 NZLR 627. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rest J. R. (1979). Development in judging moral issues . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reynolds S. J. (2006). A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-making process: Implications for study and practice . Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 ( 4 ), 737–748. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rieskamp J., & Hoffrage U. (1999). When do people use simple heuristics, and how can we tell? In Gigerenzer G., Todd P. M., & Group A. R. (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 141–167). New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rilling J. K., & Sanfey A. G. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making . Annual Review of Psychology , 62 ( 1 ), 23–48. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131647 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts J. V., & Plesničar M. M. (2015). Sentencing, legitimacy, and public opinion . In Meško G. & Tankebe J. (Eds.), Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice (pp. 33–51). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rousseau J. J. (1762/2002). The social contract (Cole G. D. H. Trans.). Baltimore: Penguin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanfey A. G. (2007). Social decision-making: Insights from game theory and neuroscience . Science , 318 , 598–602. doi: 10.1126/science.1142996 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selmouni v France (1999). ECHR 66, Retrieved from http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1999/1966.html .
• Simon H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice . The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 69 ( 1 ), 99–118. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment . Psychological Review , 63 ( 2 ), 129–138. doi: 10.1037/h0042769 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior . Annual Review of Psychology , 41 , 1–19. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smallbone S., & Rallings M. (2013). Short-Term predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-99-R for Indigenous and Nonindigenous Australian sexual offenders . Sexual Abuse , 25 ( 3 ), 302–316. doi: 10.1177/1079063212472937 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smolensky P. (1988). On the proper treatment of connectionism . Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 11 ( 1 ), 1–23. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/10.1017/S0140525X00052432 [ Google Scholar ]
• Spiranovic C. (2012). The Static-99 and Static-99-R Norms Project: Developing norms based on Western Australian sex offenders . Crawley: Western Australia University of Western Australia, Retrieved from http://www.law.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2253328/FinalReportForRelease141212_Static99Norms_141212.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Strang S., Fischbacher U., Utikal V., Weber B., & Fals A. (2014). Neural correlates of receiving an apology and active forgiveness: An fMRI study . PLoS ONE , 9 ( 2 ), 1–7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087654 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suedfeld P. (2007). Torture, interrogation, security, and psychology: Absolutistic versus complex thinking . Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy , 7 ( 1 ), 55–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00125.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tenbrunsel A. E. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation . Academy of Management Journal , 41 ( 3 ), 330–339. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tripp T. M., & Bies R. J. (1997). What's good about revenge? The avenger's perspective . In Lewicki R. J., Bies R. J., & Sheppard B. H. (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 6 , pp. 145–160). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky A., & Kahneman D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases . Science , 185 , 1124–1131. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky A., & Kahneman D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice . Science , 211 , 453–458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tversky A., & Kahneman D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions . Journal of Business , 59 ( 4 ), S251–S278. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (1948). Universal declaration of human rights . New York: Allan; Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Introduction.aspx, . [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (1966). International covenant on civil and political rights . New York: Allan; Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx . [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (1985). Declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power . New York: Allan; Retrieved from http://www.unhchr,ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp49.htm . [ Google Scholar ]
• Van de Lagemaat B. (2012). Preparing the Public for Danger: Emotions and the Netherlands against Terrorism Campaign ( Master Thesis ), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Fürer-Haimendor C. (1967). Morals and merit: A study of values and social controls in South Asian societies . London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Humboldt W. (1792/1854). The Sphere and Duties of Government (The Limits of State Action . (J. Coulthard, Trans.). London: John Chapman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wackenheim v France, Communication No 854/1999, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/75/D/854/1999 (2002). Retrieved from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/854-1999.html .
• Witte J. (2007). The reformation of rights: Law, religion and human rights in early modern Calvinism . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wundersitz J. (2010). Indigenous perpetrators of violence: Prevalence and risk factors for offending Research and Public Policy Series . Canberra: AIC. [ Google Scholar ]

Psychology’s Contribution to Ethics: Two Case Studies

• First Online: 22 March 2016

Cite this chapter

• Liz Gulliford 2  

739 Accesses

1 Citations

This paper contends that psychology cannot replace ethics. However, it will be argued, with reference to two case studies, that the empirical investigation of human morality can offer an important contribution to ethics. First, an empirical approach can illuminate matters of definition. Normative ethicists often make distinctions between concepts that do not reflect lay usage, and may seek to refine or reclaim the ‘true’ meaning of words to prevent the erosion of conceptual distinctions. However, it might be argued that they should hold no privileged place when it comes to defining the terms of language as it is used. It is essential that philosophers take seriously the question of what laypeople understand by ethical concepts, partly because the cultural and social differences such analyses reveal are interesting in themselves, but also because there are implications for the relationship between laypeople and the academy. The first case study thus shows that psychology can make a contribution towards defining ethical concepts. Secondly, it will be shown that psychology can elucidate the processes by which ethically desirable ends might be facilitated. Psychological approaches to forgiveness may, for example, help to expedite a goal which may seem remote from the human dynamics of forgiveness. Psychological interventions focus not on when forgiveness is appropriate or fitting (as a normative ethical account might) but on how this goal can be promoted. These methods do not replace ethics, but they do complement it in elucidating how certain ethically desirable ends might be progressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Is Applied Ethics Morally Problematic?

Articulating better, being better: ethical emancipation and the sources of motivation.

Early Confucian Moral Psychology

Al-Mabuk, R., Enright, R.D., & Cardis, P. (1995). Forgiveness education with parentally lovedeprived college students. Journal of Moral Education 24 , 427–444.

Article   Google Scholar  

Augsberger, D. (2000). The new freedom of forgiveness . Chicago: Moody.

Google Scholar  

Bartlett, M., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Gratitude and pro-social behaviour: Helping when it costs you. Psychological Science 17 (4), 319–25.

Baskin, T.W., & Enright, R. D. (2004). Interventions studies on forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counselling and Development 82, 79–90.

Baumeister, R.F., Stillwell, A.M., & Wotman, S.R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 994–1005.

Butler, J. (1970). Upon forgiveness of injuries. In T. A. Roberts (Ed.), Butler’s Fifteen Sermons (pp. 80–89). London: SPCK.

Cherry, S. (2004). Forgiveness and reconciliation in South Africa. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in Context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 160–177). London: T & T Clark.

Coate, M. A. (2004). The capacity for forgiveness. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in Context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 123–143). London: T & T Clark.

Coleman, P. (1998). The process of forgiveness in marriage and the family. In R. D. Enright & J.

North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 75–94). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Coyle, C.T., & Enright, R.D. (1997). Forgiveness intervention with post-abortion men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65, 1042–1046.

Downie, R. S. (1965). Forgiveness. Philosophical Quarterly 15, 128–134.

Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Smile or die: How positive thinking fooled America and the world. London: Granta.

Emmons, R. A., & Shelton, C.M. (2002). Gratitude and the science of positive psychology. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 459–471) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Enright, R.D. (2001). Forgiveness is a Choice . Washington: APA LifeTools.

Enright, R.D., & Fitzgibbons, R.P. (2000). Helping Clients Forgive . Washington: APA.

Book   Google Scholar  

Enright, R.D., Freedman, S., & Rique, J. (1998). The psychology of interpersonal forgiveness. In R.D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring Forgiveness (pp. 46–62). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Fehr, B., & Russell, J.A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology 113 (3), 464–486.

Fehr, B., & Russell, J.A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (3), 425–438.

Freedman, S.R, & Enright, R.D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64, 983–992.

Gregg, A.P., Hart, C. M., Sedikes, C., & Kumashiro, M. (2008). Everyday conceptions of modesty: A prototype analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (7) , 978–992.

Gulliford, E. Z. (1999). Theological and psychological aspects of forgiveness. Unpublished MPhil Thesis, University of Cambridge.

Gulliford, L. (2004a). Intrapersonal forgiveness. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 83–105). London: T & T Clark.

Gulliford, L. (2004b). The healing of relationships. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 106–122). London: T & T Clark.

Gulliford, L. (2013). The head and the heart of the matter in hope and forgiveness. In F. Watts & G. Dumbreck (Eds.), Head and heart: Perspectives from religion and psychology (pp. 273–312). West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press.

Gulliford, L., Morgan, B., & Kristjánsson, K. (2013). Recent work on the concept of gratitude in philosophy and psychology. The Journal of Value Inquiry 47(3 ) , 283–317.

Hebl, J. H., & Enright, R.D. (1993). Forgiveness as a psychotherapeutic goal with elderly females. Psychotherapy 30, 658–667.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations . New York: Wiley.

Hepper, E.G., Ritchie, T.D., Sedikes, C., & Wildschut, T. (2012). Odyssey’s end: Lay conceptions of nostalgia reflect its original Homeric meaning. Emotion 12 , 102–119.

Holloway, R. (2002). On forgiveness. How can we forgive the unforgiveable? Edinburgh: Canongate.

Horsburgh, H.J. (1974). Forgiveness. Canadian Journal of Philosoph, 4 (2), 269–289.

Jones, L.G. (1995). Embodying forgiveness: A theological analysis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans.

Kearns, J.N., & Fincham, F.D. (2004). A prototype analysis of forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (7), 838–855.

Knutson, J., Enright, R., & Garbers, B. (2008). Validating the developmental pathway of forgiveness. Journal of Counseling and Development 86, 193–199.

Lambert, N.M., Graham, S.M., & Fincham, F.D. (2009). A prototype analysis of gratitude: Varieties of gratitude experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35 (9) , 1193–1207.

Lewis, M. (1980). On forgiveness. Philosophical Quarterly 30, 236–245.

Lundahl, B.W., Taylor, M. J., Stevenson, R., & Roberts, K.D. (2008). Process-based forgiveness interventions: A meta-analytic review. Research on Social Work Practice 19, 465–478.

McConnell, T. (1993). Gratitude . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

McCullough, M. E., & Worthington Jr., E. L. (1995). Promoting forgiveness: A comparison of two brief psycho-educational group interventions with a waiting-list control. Counseling and Values 40 (1), 55–68.

McCullough, M.E., Worthington Jr., E.L., & Rachal, K.C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 321–336.

McGary, H. (1989). Forgiveness. American Philosophical Quarterly 26 (4) , 343–351.

Morgan, B., Gulliford, L., & Kristjánsson, K. (2014). Gratitude in the UK: A new prototype analysis and a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Positive Psychology 9 (4), 291–294.

Neblett, W. (1974). Forgiveness and ideals. Mind 73, 269–275.

North, J. (1987). The ‘ideal’ of forgiveness: A philosopher’s exploration. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 15–34). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Richards, N. (1988). Forgiveness. Ethics 99, 79–97.

Roberts, R.C. (2004). The blessings of gratitude: A conceptual analysis. In R.C. Emmons & M.E. McCullough (Eds.), The Psychology of Gratitude (pp. 58–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Roberts, R. C. (in press). The normative and the empirical in the study of gratitude. Res Philosophica. Smedes, L. B. (1984). Forgive and forget: Healing the hurts we don’t deserve . New York: Harper and Row.

Smedes, L. B. (1997). The art of forgiving: When you need to forgive and don’t know how . NY: Ballantine Books, Random House.

Twambley, P. (1976). Mercy and forgiveness. Analysis 36, 84–90.

Wade, S. H. (1989). Forgiveness scale. In P. C. Hill & R.W. Hood (Eds.), Measures of religiosity (pp. 422–425). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

Wade, N. G., & Worthington Jr., E.L. (2003). Overcoming interpersonal offences: Is forgiveness the only way to deal with unforgiveness? Journal of Counseling and Development 81 (3), 343–53.

Wade, N.G., & Worthington Jr., E. L. (2005). In search of a common core: A content analysis of interventions to promote forgiveness. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 42 (2), 160–177.

Wade, N. G., Hoyt, W. T., Kidwell, J. E. M., & Worthington Jr., E.L. (2014). Efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions to promote forgiveness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 82 (1), 154–170.

Watts, F. (2004). Christian theology. In F. Watts & L. Gulliford (Eds.), Forgiveness in context: Theology and psychology in creative dialogue (pp. 50–68). London: T & T Clark.

Wood, A. M., Joseph, S., Lloyd, J., & Atkins, S. (2009). Gratitude influences sleep through the mechanism of pre-sleep cognitions. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 66, 43–48.

Worthington Jr., E. L. (1998). The pyramid model of forgiveness: Some interdisciplinary speculations about unforgiveness and the promotion of forgiveness. In E. L. Worthington Jr. (Ed.), Dimensions of Forgiveness (pp. 107–137). Radnor, Pennsylvania: Templeton Foundation Press.

Worthington Jr., E.L., & Wade, N.G. (1999). The social psychology of forgiveness and unforgiveness and the implications for clinical practice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 18, 358–415.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, School of Education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Liz Gulliford

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liz Gulliford .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

IZEW, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

Cordula Brand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Gulliford, L. (2016). Psychology’s Contribution to Ethics: Two Case Studies. In: Brand, C. (eds) Dual-Process Theories in Moral Psychology. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12053-5_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12053-5_7

Published : 22 March 2016

Publisher Name : Springer VS, Wiesbaden

Print ISBN : 978-3-658-12052-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-658-12053-5

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Yogi, P. \(2015, February 11\). Ethical issues in psychology. Psych Yogi. Retrieved from http://psychyogi.org/ethical-issues-in-psychology.

CITE AS: Yogi, P. \(2015, February 11\). Ethical issues in psychology. Psych Yogi. http://psychyogi.org/ethical-issues-in-psychology.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Research ethics and case studies in psychology: a commentary on Taus v. Loftus

Affiliation.

• 1 Brown University, Providence, RI, USA [email protected].
• PMID: 24902593
• DOI: 10.1177/0886260514534987

Loftus and Guyer have been criticized for the methods they employed in investigating an anonymous case study published by Corwin and Olafson. This article examines the ethical dimensions of their investigation. Loftus and Guyer have offered three defenses for their actions. All three of those defenses lack merit. Their investigation did not constitute oral history because it failed to comport with the basic requirements of that practice. Their investigation did not constitute ethical journalism because of the unjustified use of anonymous sources and the clear violation of basic fairness. Their investigation did not constitute justified medical research because of a failure to analyze or weigh the harms against the benefits. Their methods also violated ethical principles for psychologists, including the rule against activities that could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity. This case demonstrates that there is no ethical way to investigate a clinical case, without the patient's approval, that is both comprehensive enough to provide strong scholarship and yet respectful enough of privacy and medical confidentiality to honor important professional norms.

Keywords: Taus v. Loftus; case studies; confidentiality; ethics; objectivity.

© The Author(s) 2014.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Protecting scientists, science, and case protagonists: a discussion of the Taus v. Loftus commentaries. Dalenberg CJ. Dalenberg CJ. J Interpers Violence. 2014 Dec;29(18):3308-19. doi: 10.1177/0886260514534991. Epub 2014 Jun 9. J Interpers Violence. 2014. PMID: 24913760
• First do no harm: is it any longer safe to write case reports? Brown LS. Brown LS. J Interpers Violence. 2014 Dec;29(18):3260-6. doi: 10.1177/0886260514534992. Epub 2014 May 23. J Interpers Violence. 2014. PMID: 24860072
• Published case reports: one woman's account of having her confidentiality violated. Kluemper NS. Kluemper NS. J Interpers Violence. 2014 Dec;29(18):3232-44. doi: 10.1177/0886260514534990. Epub 2014 Jun 5. J Interpers Violence. 2014. PMID: 24902594
• [The psychologist's responsibilities--legislative issues]. Talarowska M, Florkowski A, Orzechowska A, Zboralski K, Gałecki P. Talarowska M, et al. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2009 Sep;27(159):253-6. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2009. PMID: 19827743 Review. Polish.
• Research ethics. Shahan JB, Kelen GD. Shahan JB, et al. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006 Aug;24(3):657-69. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2006.05.013. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006. PMID: 16877135 Review.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources, other literature sources.

• scite Smart Citations

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• 20 Most Unethical Experiments in Psychology

Humanity often pays a high price for progress and understanding — at least, that seems to be the case in many famous psychological experiments. Human experimentation is a very interesting topic in the world of human psychology. While some famous experiments in psychology have left test subjects temporarily distressed, others have left their participants with life-long psychological issues . In either case, it’s easy to ask the question: “What’s ethical when it comes to science?” Then there are the experiments that involve children, animals, and test subjects who are unaware they’re being experimented on. How far is too far, if the result means a better understanding of the human mind and behavior ? We think we’ve found 20 answers to that question with our list of the most unethical experiments in psychology .

Emma Eckstein

Electroshock Therapy on Children

Operation Midnight Climax

The Monster Study

Project MKUltra

The Aversion Project

Unnecessary Sexual Reassignment

Stanford Prison Experiment

Milgram Experiment

The Monkey Drug Trials

Featured Programs

Facial expressions experiment.

Little Albert

Bobo Doll Experiment

The Pit of Despair

The Bystander Effect

Learned Helplessness Experiment

Racism Among Elementary School Students

UCLA Schizophrenia Experiments

The Good Samaritan Experiment

Robbers Cave Experiment

Related Resources:

• What Careers are in Experimental Psychology?
• What is Experimental Psychology?
• The 25 Most Influential Psychological Experiments in History
• 5 Best Online Ph.D. Marriage and Family Counseling Programs
• Top 5 Online Doctorate in Educational Psychology
• 5 Best Online Ph.D. in Industrial and Organizational Psychology Programs
• Top 10 Online Master’s in Forensic Psychology
• 10 Most Affordable Counseling Psychology Online Programs
• 10 Most Affordable Online Industrial Organizational Psychology Programs
• 10 Most Affordable Online Developmental Psychology Online Programs
• 15 Most Affordable Online Sport Psychology Programs
• 10 Most Affordable School Psychology Online Degree Programs
• Top 50 Online Psychology Master’s Degree Programs
• Top 25 Online Master’s in Educational Psychology
• Top 25 Online Master’s in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
• Top 10 Most Affordable Online Master’s in Clinical Psychology Degree Programs
• Top 6 Most Affordable Online PhD/PsyD Programs in Clinical Psychology
• 50 Great Small Colleges for a Bachelor’s in Psychology
• 50 Most Innovative University Psychology Departments
• The 30 Most Influential Cognitive Psychologists Alive Today
• Top 30 Affordable Online Psychology Degree Programs
• 30 Most Influential Neuroscientists
• Top 40 Websites for Psychology Students and Professionals
• Top 30 Psychology Blogs
• 25 Celebrities With Animal Phobias
• Your Phobias Illustrated (Infographic)
• 15 Inspiring TED Talks on Overcoming Challenges
• 10 Fascinating Facts About the Psychology of Color
• 15 Scariest Mental Disorders of All Time
• 15 Things to Know About Mental Disorders in Animals
• 13 Most Deranged Serial Killers of All Time

Site Information

• About Online Psychology Degree Guide

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

Effective date June 1, 2003 with amendments effective June 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017. Copyright © 2017 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

The American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code) consists of an Introduction, a Preamble , five General Principles  (A-E) and specific Ethical Standards . The Introduction discusses the intent, organization, procedural considerations, and scope of application of the Ethics Code. The Preamble and General Principles are aspirational goals to guide psychologists toward the highest ideals of psychology. Although the Preamble and General Principles are not themselves enforceable rules, they should be considered by psychologists in arriving at an ethical course of action. The Ethical Standards set forth enforceable rules for conduct as psychologists. Most of the Ethical Standards are written broadly, in order to apply to psychologists in varied roles, although the application of an Ethical Standard may vary depending on the context. The Ethical Standards are not exhaustive. The fact that a given conduct is not specifically addressed by an Ethical Standard does not mean that it is necessarily either ethical or unethical.

This Ethics Code applies only to psychologists' activities that are part of their scientific, educational, or professional roles as psychologists. Areas covered include but are not limited to the clinical, counseling, and school practice of psychology; research; teaching; supervision of trainees; public service; policy development; social intervention; development of assessment instruments; conducting assessments; educational counseling; organizational consulting; forensic activities; program design and evaluation; and administration. This Ethics Code applies to these activities across a variety of contexts, such as in person, postal, telephone, Internet, and other electronic transmissions. These activities shall be distinguished from the purely private conduct of psychologists, which is not within the purview of the Ethics Code.

Membership in the APA commits members and student affiliates to comply with the standards of the APA Ethics Code and to the rules and procedures used to enforce them. Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an Ethical Standard is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.

The procedures for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints of unethical conduct are described in the current Rules and Procedures of the APA Ethics Committee . APA may impose sanctions on its members for violations of the standards of the Ethics Code, including termination of APA membership, and may notify other bodies and individuals of its actions. 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. In addition, APA may take action against a member after his or her conviction of a felony, expulsion or suspension from an affiliated state psychological association, or suspension or loss of licensure. When the sanction to be imposed by APA is less than expulsion, the 2001 Rules and Procedures do not guarantee an opportunity for an in-person hearing, but generally provide that complaints will be resolved only on the basis of a submitted record.

The Ethics Code is intended to provide guidance for psychologists and standards of professional conduct that can be applied by the APA and by other bodies that choose to adopt them. 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.

The modifiers used in some of the standards of this Ethics Code (e.g., reasonably, appropriate, potentially) are included in the standards when they would (1) allow professional judgment on the part of psychologists, (2) eliminate injustice or inequality that would occur without the modifier, (3) ensure applicability across the broad range of activities conducted by psychologists, or (4) guard against a set of rigid rules that might be quickly outdated. As used in this Ethics Code, the term reasonable means 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.

In the process of making decisions regarding their professional behavior, psychologists must consider this Ethics Code in addition to applicable laws and psychology board regulations. In applying the Ethics Code to their professional work, psychologists may consider other materials and guidelines that have been adopted or endorsed by scientific and professional psychological organizations and the dictates of their own conscience, as well as consult with others within the field. If this Ethics Code establishes a higher standard of conduct than is required by law, psychologists must meet the higher ethical standard. If psychologists' ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make known their commitment to this Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner in keeping with basic principles of human rights.

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. In doing so, they perform many roles, such as researcher, educator, diagnostician, therapist, supervisor, consultant, administrator, social interventionist, and expert witness. This Ethics Code provides a common set of principles and standards upon which psychologists build their professional and scientific work.

This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific standards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists. It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom psychologists work and the education of members, students, and the public regarding ethical standards of the discipline.

The development of a dynamic set of ethical standards for psychologists' work-related conduct requires a personal commitment and lifelong effort to act ethically; to encourage ethical behavior by students, supervisees, employees, and colleagues; and to consult with others concerning ethical problems.

This section consists of General Principles. General Principles, as opposed to Ethical Standards, are aspirational in nature. Their intent is to guide and inspire psychologists toward the very highest ethical ideals of the profession. General Principles, in contrast to Ethical Standards, do not represent obligations and should not form the basis for imposing sanctions. Relying upon General Principles for either of these reasons distorts both their meaning and purpose.

Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm. In their professional actions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact professionally and other affected persons, and the welfare of animal subjects of research. When conflicts occur among psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm. Because psychologists' scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors that might lead to misuse of their influence. Psychologists strive to be aware of the possible effect of their own physical and mental health on their ability to help those with whom they work.

Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work. Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior, and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm. Psychologists consult with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and institutions to the extent needed to serve the best interests of those with whom they work. They are concerned about the ethical compliance of their colleagues' scientific and professional conduct. Psychologists strive to contribute a portion of their professional time for little or no compensation or personal advantage.

Principle C: Integrity Psychologists seek to promote accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the science, teaching, and practice of psychology. In these activities psychologists do not steal, cheat or engage in fraud, subterfuge, or intentional misrepresentation of fact. Psychologists strive to keep their promises and to avoid unwise or unclear commitments. In situations in which deception may be ethically justifiable to maximize benefits and minimize harm, psychologists have a serious obligation to consider the need for, the possible consequences of, and their responsibility to correct any resulting mistrust or other harmful effects that arise from the use of such techniques.

Principle D: Justice Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons to access to and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being conducted by psychologists. Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precautions to ensure that their potential biases, the boundaries of their competence, and the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices.

Principle E: Respect for People's Rights and Dignity Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status, and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices.

1.01 Misuse of Psychologists' Work If psychologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation of their work, they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation.

1.02 Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands   If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved. (See also Standards 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority , and 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands .)

1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations If an apparent ethical violation has substantially harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organization and is not appropriate for informal resolution under Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations , or is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take further action appropriate to the situation. Such action might include referral to state or national committees on professional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate institutional authorities. This standard does not apply when an intervention would violate confidentiality rights or when psychologists have been retained to review the work of another psychologist whose professional conduct is in question. (See also Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority .)

1.06 Cooperating with Ethics Committees Psychologists cooperate in ethics investigations, proceedings, and resulting requirements of the APA or any affiliated state psychological association to which they belong. In doing so, they address any confidentiality issues. Failure to cooperate is itself an ethics violation. However, making a request for deferment of adjudication of an ethics complaint pending the outcome of litigation does not alone constitute noncooperation.

1.07 Improper Complaints Psychologists do not file or encourage the filing of ethics complaints that are made with reckless disregard for or willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.

1.08 Unfair Discrimination Against Complainants and Respondents Psychologists do not deny persons employment, advancement, admissions to academic or other programs, tenure, or promotion, based solely upon their having made or their being the subject of an ethics complaint. This does not preclude taking action based upon the outcome of such proceedings or considering other appropriate information.

2.01 Boundaries of Competence (a) Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct research with populations and in areas only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional experience.

(b) Where scientific or professional knowledge in the discipline of psychology establishes that an understanding of factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status is essential for effective implementation of their services or research, psychologists have or obtain the training, experience, consultation, or supervision necessary to ensure the competence of their services, or they make appropriate referrals, except as provided in Standard 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies .

(c) Psychologists planning to provide services, teach, or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques, or technologies new to them undertake relevant education, training, supervised experience, consultation, or study.

(d) When psychologists are asked to provide services to individuals for whom appropriate mental health services are not available and for which psychologists have not obtained the competence necessary, psychologists with closely related prior training or experience may provide such services in order to ensure that services are not denied if they make a reasonable effort to obtain the competence required by using relevant research, training, consultation, or study.

(e) In those emerging areas in which generally recognized standards for preparatory training do not yet exist, psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others from harm.

(f) When assuming forensic roles, psychologists are or become reasonably familiar with the judicial or administrative rules governing their roles.

2.02 Providing Services in Emergencies In emergencies, when psychologists provide services to individuals for whom other mental health services are not available and for which psychologists have not obtained the necessary training, psychologists may provide such services in order to ensure that services are not denied. The services are discontinued as soon as the emergency has ended or appropriate services are available.

2.03 Maintaining Competence Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence.

2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments Psychologists' work is based upon established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline. (See also Standards 2.01e, Boundaries of Competence , and 10.01b, Informed Consent to Therapy .)

2.05 Delegation of Work to Others Psychologists who delegate work to employees, supervisees, or research or teaching assistants or who use the services of others, such as interpreters, take reasonable steps to (1) avoid delegating such work to persons who have a multiple relationship with those being served that would likely lead to exploitation or loss of objectivity; (2) 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; and (3) see that such persons perform these services competently. (See also Standards 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies ; 3.05, Multiple Relationships ; 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality ; 9.01, Bases for Assessments ; 9.02, Use of Assessments ; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments ; and 9.07, Assessment by Unqualified Persons .)

2.06 Personal Problems and Conflicts (a) Psychologists refrain from initiating an activity when they know or should know that there is a substantial likelihood that their personal problems will prevent them from performing their work-related activities in a competent manner.

(b) When psychologists become aware of personal problems that may interfere with their performing work-related duties adequately, they take appropriate measures, such as obtaining professional consultation or assistance, and determine whether they should limit, suspend, or terminate their work-related duties. (See also Standard 10.10, Terminating Therapy .)

3.01 Unfair Discrimination In their work-related activities, psychologists do not engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law.

3.02 Sexual Harassment Psychologists do not engage in sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is sexual solicitation, physical advances, or verbal or nonverbal conduct that is sexual in nature, that occurs in connection with the psychologist's activities or roles as a psychologist, and that either (1) is unwelcome, is offensive, or creates a hostile workplace or educational environment, and the psychologist knows or is told this or (2) is sufficiently severe or intense to be abusive to a reasonable person in the context. Sexual harassment can consist of a single intense or severe act or of multiple persistent or pervasive acts. (See also Standard 1.08, Unfair Discrimination Against Complainants and Respondents .)

3.03 Other Harassment Psychologists do not knowingly engage in behavior that is harassing or demeaning to persons with whom they interact in their work based on factors such as those persons' age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status.

3.04 Avoiding Harm (a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable. 

(b) Psychologists do not participate in, facilitate, assist, or otherwise engage in torture, defined as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person, or in any other cruel, inhuman, or degrading behavior that violates 3.04(a).

3.05 Multiple Relationships 

(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psychologist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into another relationship in the future with the person or a person closely associated with or related to the person.

A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist's objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.

Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are not unethical.

(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen factors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen, the psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due regard for the best interests of the affected person and maximal compliance with the Ethics Code.

(c) When psychologists are required by law, institutional policy, or extraordinary circumstances to serve in more than one role in judicial or administrative proceedings, at the outset they clarify role expectations and the extent of confidentiality and thereafter as changes occur. (See also Standards 3.04, Avoiding Harm , and 3.07, Third-Party Requests for Services .)

3.06 Conflict of Interest Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation.

3.07 Third-Party Requests for Services When psychologists agree to provide services to a person or entity at the request of a third party, psychologists attempt to clarify at the outset of the service the nature of the relationship with all individuals or organizations involved. This clarification includes the role of the psychologist (e.g., therapist, consultant, diagnostician, or expert witness), an identification of who is the client, the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained, and the fact that there may be limits to confidentiality. (See also Standards 3.05, Multiple relationships , and 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality.)

3.08 Exploitative Relationships Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have supervisory, evaluative or other authority such as clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, and employees. (See also Standards 3.05, Multiple Relationships ; 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements ; 6.05, Barter with Clients/Patients ; 7.07, Sexual Relationships with Students and Supervisees ; 10.05, Sexual Intimacies with Current Therapy Clients/Patients ; 10.06, Sexual Intimacies with Relatives or Significant Others of Current Therapy Clients/Patients ; 10.07, Therapy with Former Sexual Partners ; and 10.08, Sexual Intimacies with Former Therapy Clients/Patients .)

3.09 Cooperation with Other Professionals When indicated and professionally appropriate, psychologists cooperate with other professionals in order to serve their clients/patients effectively and appropriately. (See also Standard 4.05, Disclosures .)

3.10 Informed Consent (a) When psychologists conduct research or provide assessment, therapy, counseling, or consulting services in person or via electronic transmission or other forms of communication, they obtain the informed consent of the individual or individuals using language that is reasonably understandable to that person or persons except when conducting such activities without consent is mandated by law or governmental regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code. (See also Standards 8.02, Informed Consent to Research ; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments ; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy .)

(b) For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless (1) provide an appropriate explanation, (2) seek the individual's assent, (3) consider such persons' preferences and best interests, and (4) obtain appropriate permission from a legally authorized person, if such substitute consent is permitted or required by law. When consent by a legally authorized person is not permitted or required by law, psychologists take reasonable steps to protect the individual's rights and welfare.

(c) When psychological services are court ordered or otherwise mandated, psychologists inform the individual of the nature of the anticipated services, including whether the services are court ordered or mandated and any limits of confidentiality, before proceeding.

(d) Psychologists appropriately document written or oral consent, permission, and assent. (See also Standards 8.02, Informed Consent to Research ; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments ; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy .)

3.11 Psychological Services Delivered to or Through Organizations (a) Psychologists delivering services to or through organizations provide information beforehand to clients and when appropriate those directly affected by the services about (1) the nature and objectives of the services, (2) the intended recipients, (3) which of the individuals are clients, (4) the relationship the psychologist will have with each person and the organization, (5) the probable uses of services provided and information obtained, (6) who will have access to the information, and (7) limits of confidentiality. As soon as feasible, they provide information about the results and conclusions of such services to appropriate persons.

(b) If psychologists will be precluded by law or by organizational roles from providing such information to particular individuals or groups, they so inform those individuals or groups at the outset of the service.

3.12 Interruption of Psychological Services Unless otherwise covered by contract, psychologists make reasonable efforts to plan for facilitating services in the event that psychological services are interrupted by factors such as the psychologist's illness, death, unavailability, relocation, or retirement or by the client's/patient's relocation or financial limitations. (See also Standard 6.02c, Maintenance, Dissemination, and Disposal of Confidential Records of Professional and Scientific Work .)

4.01 Maintaining Confidentiality Psychologists have a primary obligation and take reasonable precautions to protect confidential information obtained through or stored in any medium, recognizing that the extent and limits of confidentiality may be regulated by law or established by institutional rules or professional or scientific relationship. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others .)

4.02 Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality (a) Psychologists discuss with persons (including, to the extent feasible, persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent and their legal representatives) and organizations with whom they establish a scientific or professional relationship (1) the relevant limits of confidentiality and (2) the foreseeable uses of the information generated through their psychological activities. (See also Standard 3.10, Informed Consent .)

(b) Unless it is not feasible or is contraindicated, the discussion of confidentiality occurs at the outset of the relationship and thereafter as new circumstances may warrant.

(c) Psychologists who offer services, products, or information via electronic transmission inform clients/patients of the risks to privacy and limits of confidentiality.

4.03 Recording Before recording the voices or images of individuals to whom they provide services, psychologists obtain permission from all such persons or their legal representatives. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research ; 8.05, Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research ; and 8.07, Deception in Research .)

4.04 Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy (a) Psychologists include in written and oral reports and consultations, only information germane to the purpose for which the communication is made.

(b) Psychologists discuss confidential information obtained in their work only for appropriate scientific or professional purposes and only with persons clearly concerned with such matters.

4.05 Disclosures (a) Psychologists may disclose confidential information with the appropriate consent of the organizational client, the individual client/patient, or another legally authorized person on behalf of the client/patient unless prohibited by law.

(b) Psychologists disclose confidential information without the consent of the individual only as mandated by law, or where permitted by law for a valid purpose such as to (1) provide needed professional services; (2) obtain appropriate professional consultations; (3) protect the client/patient, psychologist, or others from harm; or (4) obtain payment for services from a client/patient, in which instance disclosure is limited to the minimum that is necessary to achieve the purpose. (See also Standard 6.04e, Fees and Financial Arrangements .)

4.06 Consultations When consulting with colleagues, (1) psychologists do not disclose confidential information that reasonably could lead to the identification of a client/patient, research participant, or other person or organization with whom they have a confidential relationship unless they have obtained the prior consent of the person or organization or the disclosure cannot be avoided, and (2) they disclose information only to the extent necessary to achieve the purposes of the consultation. (See also Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality .)

4.07 Use of Confidential Information for Didactic or Other Purposes Psychologists do not disclose in their writings, lectures, or other public media, confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their clients/patients, students, research participants, organizational clients, or other recipients of their services that they obtained during the course of their work, unless (1) they take reasonable steps to disguise the person or organization, (2) the person or organization has consented in writing, or (3) there is legal authorization for doing so.

5.01 Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements (a) Public statements include but are not limited to paid or unpaid advertising, product endorsements, grant applications, licensing applications, other credentialing applications, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal resumes or curricula vitae, or comments for use in media such as print or electronic transmission, statements in legal proceedings, lectures and public oral presentations, and published materials. Psychologists do not knowingly make public statements that are false, deceptive, or fraudulent concerning their research, practice, or other work activities or those of persons or organizations with which they are affiliated.

(b) Psychologists do not make false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements concerning (1) their training, experience, or competence; (2) their academic degrees; (3) their credentials; (4) their institutional or association affiliations; (5) their services; (6) the scientific or clinical basis for, or results or degree of success of, their services; (7) their fees; or (8) their publications or research findings.

(c) Psychologists claim degrees as credentials for their health services only if those degrees (1) were earned from a regionally accredited educational institution or (2) were the basis for psychology licensure by the state in which they practice.

5.02 Statements by Others (a) Psychologists who engage others to create or place public statements that promote their professional practice, products, or activities retain professional responsibility for such statements.

(b) Psychologists do not compensate employees of press, radio, television, or other communication media in return for publicity in a news item. (See also Standard 1.01, Misuse of Psychologists' Work .)

(c) A paid advertisement relating to psychologists' activities must be identified or clearly recognizable as such.

5.03 Descriptions of Workshops and Non-Degree-Granting Educational Programs To the degree to which they exercise control, psychologists responsible for announcements, catalogs, brochures, or advertisements describing workshops, seminars, or other non-degree-granting educational programs ensure that they accurately describe the audience for which the program is intended, the educational objectives, the presenters, and the fees involved.

5.04 Media Presentations When psychologists provide public advice or comment via print, Internet, or other electronic transmission, they take precautions to ensure that statements (1) are based on their professional knowledge, training, or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice; (2) are otherwise consistent with this Ethics Code; and (3) do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established with the recipient. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments .)

5.05 Testimonials Psychologists do not solicit testimonials from current therapy clients/patients or other persons who because of their particular circumstances are vulnerable to undue influence.

5.06 In-Person Solicitation Psychologists do not engage, directly or through agents, in uninvited in-person solicitation of business from actual or potential therapy clients/patients or other persons who because of their particular circumstances are vulnerable to undue influence. However, this prohibition does not preclude (1) attempting to implement appropriate collateral contacts for the purpose of benefiting an already engaged therapy client/patient or (2) providing disaster or community outreach services.

6.01 Documentation of Professional and Scientific Work and Maintenance of Records Psychologists create, and to the extent the records are under their control, maintain, disseminate, store, retain, and dispose of records and data relating to their professional and scientific work in order to (1) facilitate provision of services later by them or by other professionals, (2) allow for replication of research design and analyses, (3) meet institutional requirements, (4) ensure accuracy of billing and payments, and (5) ensure compliance with law. (See also Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality .)

6.02 Maintenance, Dissemination, and Disposal of Confidential Records of Professional and Scientific Work (a) Psychologists maintain confidentiality in creating, storing, accessing, transferring, and disposing of records under their control, whether these are written, automated, or in any other medium. (See also Standards 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality , and 6.01, Documentation of Professional and Scientific Work and Maintenance of Records .)

(b) If confidential information concerning recipients of psychological services is entered into databases or systems of records available to persons whose access has not been consented to by the recipient, psychologists use coding or other techniques to avoid the inclusion of personal identifiers.

(c) Psychologists make plans in advance to facilitate the appropriate transfer and to protect the confidentiality of records and data in the event of psychologists' withdrawal from positions or practice. (See also Standards 3.12, Interruption of Psychological Services , and 10.09, Interruption of Therapy .)

6.03 Withholding Records for Nonpayment Psychologists may not withhold records under their control that are requested and needed for a client's/patient's emergency treatment solely because payment has not been received.

6.04 Fees and Financial Arrangements (a) As early as is feasible in a professional or scientific relationship, psychologists and recipients of psychological services reach an agreement specifying compensation and billing arrangements.

(b) Psychologists' fee practices are consistent with law.

(c) Psychologists do not misrepresent their fees.

(d) If limitations to services can be anticipated because of limitations in financing, this is discussed with the recipient of services as early as is feasible. (See also Standards 10.09, Interruption of Therapy , and 10.10, Terminating Therapy .)

(e) If the recipient of services does not pay for services as agreed, and if psychologists intend to use collection agencies or legal measures to collect the fees, psychologists first inform the person that such measures will be taken and provide that person an opportunity to make prompt payment. (See also Standards 4.05, Disclosures ; 6.03, Withholding Records for Nonpayment ; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy .)

6.05 Barter with Clients/Patients Barter is the acceptance of goods, services, or other nonmonetary remuneration from clients/patients in return for psychological services. Psychologists may barter only if (1) it is not clinically contraindicated, and (2) the resulting arrangement is not exploitative. (See also Standards 3.05, Multiple Relationships , and 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements .)

6.06 Accuracy in Reports to Payors and Funding Sources In their reports to payors for services or sources of research funding, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure the accurate reporting of the nature of the service provided or research conducted, the fees, charges, or payments, and where applicable, the identity of the provider, the findings, and the diagnosis. (See also Standards 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality ; 4.04, Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy ; and 4.05, Disclosures .)

6.07 Referrals and Fees When psychologists pay, receive payment from, or divide fees with another professional, other than in an employer-employee relationship, the payment to each is based on the services provided (clinical, consultative, administrative, or other) and is not based on the referral itself. (See also Standard 3.09, Cooperation with Other Professionals .)

7.01 Design of Education and Training Programs Psychologists responsible for education and training programs take reasonable steps to ensure that the programs are designed to provide the appropriate knowledge and proper experiences, and to meet the requirements for licensure, certification, or other goals for which claims are made by the program. (See also Standard 5.03, Descriptions of Workshops and Non-Degree-Granting Educational Programs .)

7.02 Descriptions of Education and Training Programs Psychologists responsible for education and training programs take reasonable steps to ensure that there is a current and accurate description of the program content (including participation in required course- or program-related counseling, psychotherapy, experiential groups, consulting projects, or community service), training goals and objectives, stipends and benefits, and requirements that must be met for satisfactory completion of the program. This information must be made readily available to all interested parties.

7.03 Accuracy in Teaching (a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that course syllabi are accurate regarding the subject matter to be covered, bases for evaluating progress, and the nature of course experiences. This standard does not preclude an instructor from modifying course content or requirements when the instructor considers it pedagogically necessary or desirable, so long as students are made aware of these modifications in a manner that enables them to fulfill course requirements. (See also Standard 5.01, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements .)

(b) When engaged in teaching or training, psychologists present psychological information accurately. (See also Standard 2.03, Maintaining Competence .)

7.04 Student Disclosure of Personal Information Psychologists do not require students or supervisees to disclose personal information in course- or program-related activities, either orally or in writing, regarding sexual history, history of abuse and neglect, psychological treatment, and relationships with parents, peers, and spouses or significant others except if (1) the program or training facility has clearly identified this requirement in its admissions and program materials or (2) the information is necessary to evaluate or obtain assistance for students whose personal problems could reasonably be judged to be preventing them from performing their training- or professionally related activities in a competent manner or posing a threat to the students or others.

7.05 Mandatory Individual or Group Therapy (a) When individual or group therapy is a program or course requirement, psychologists responsible for that program allow students in undergraduate and graduate programs the option of selecting such therapy from practitioners unaffiliated with the program. (See also Standard 7.02, Descriptions of Education and Training Programs .)

(b) Faculty who are or are likely to be responsible for evaluating students' academic performance do not themselves provide that therapy. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships .)

7.06 Assessing Student and Supervisee Performance (a) In academic and supervisory relationships, psychologists establish a timely and specific process for providing feedback to students and supervisees. Information regarding the process is provided to the student at the beginning of supervision.

(b) Psychologists evaluate students and supervisees on the basis of their actual performance on relevant and established program requirements.

7.07 Sexual Relationships with Students and Supervisees Psychologists do not engage in sexual relationships with students or supervisees who are in their department, agency, or training center or over whom psychologists have or are likely to have evaluative authority. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships .)

8.01 Institutional Approval When institutional approval is required, psychologists provide accurate information about their research proposals and obtain approval prior to conducting the research. They conduct the research in accordance with the approved research protocol.

8.02 Informed Consent to Research (a) When obtaining informed consent as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform participants about (1) the purpose of the research, expected duration, and procedures; (2) their right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects; (5) any prospective research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incentives for participation; and (8) whom to contact for questions about the research and research participants' rights. They provide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask questions and receive answers. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research ; 8.05, Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research ; and 8.07, Deception in Research .)

(b) Psychologists conducting intervention research involving the use of experimental treatments clarify to participants at the outset of the research (1) the experimental nature of the treatment; (2) the services that will or will not be available to the control group(s) if appropriate; (3) the means by which assignment to treatment and control groups will be made; (4) available treatment alternatives if an individual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to withdraw once a study has begun; and (5) compensation for or monetary costs of participating including, if appropriate, whether reimbursement from the participant or a third-party payor will be sought. (See also Standard 8.02a, Informed Consent to Research .)

8.03 Informed Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research Psychologists obtain informed consent from research participants prior to recording their voices or images for data collection unless (1) the research consists solely of naturalistic observations in public places, and it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or harm, or (2) the research design includes deception, and consent for the use of the recording is obtained during debriefing. (See also Standard 8.07, Deception in Research .)

8.04 Client/Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants (a) When psychologists conduct research with clients/patients, students, or subordinates as participants, psychologists take steps to protect the prospective participants from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation.

(b) When research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra credit, the prospective participant is given the choice of equitable alternative activities.

8.05 Dispensing with Informed Consent for Research Psychologists may dispense with informed consent only (1) where research would not reasonably be assumed to create distress or harm and involves (a) the study of normal educational practices, curricula, or classroom management methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anonymous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival research for which disclosure of responses would not place participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability, or reputation, and confidentiality is protected; or (c) the study of factors related to job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational settings for which there is no risk to participants' employability, and confidentiality is protected or (2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations.

8.06 Offering Inducements for Research Participation (a) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements for research participation when such inducements are likely to coerce participation.

(b) When offering professional services as an inducement for research participation, psychologists clarify the nature of the services, as well as the risks, obligations, and limitations. (See also Standard 6.05, Barter with Clients/Patients .)

8.07 Deception in Research (a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's significant prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.

(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.

(c) Psychologists explain any deception that is an integral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment to participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw their data. (See also Standard 8.08, Debriefing .)

8.08 Debriefing (a) Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for participants to obtain appropriate information about the nature, results, and conclusions of the research, and they take reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that participants may have of which the psychologists are aware.

(b) If scientific or humane values justify delaying or withholding this information, psychologists take reasonable measures to reduce the risk of harm.

(c) When psychologists become aware that research procedures have harmed a participant, they take reasonable steps to minimize the harm.

8.09 Humane Care and Use of Animals in Research (a) Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of animals in compliance with current federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and with professional standards.

(b) Psychologists trained in research methods and experienced in the care of laboratory animals supervise all procedures involving animals and are responsible for ensuring appropriate consideration of their comfort, health, and humane treatment.

(c) Psychologists ensure that all individuals under their supervision who are using animals have received instruction in research methods and in the care, maintenance, and handling of the species being used, to the extent appropriate to their role. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others .)

(d) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to minimize the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain of animal subjects.

(e) Psychologists use a procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation only when an alternative procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value.

(f) Psychologists perform surgical procedures under appropriate anesthesia and follow techniques to avoid infection and minimize pain during and after surgery.

(g) When it is appropriate that an animal's life be terminated, psychologists proceed rapidly, with an effort to minimize pain and in accordance with accepted procedures.

8.10 Reporting Research Results (a) Psychologists do not fabricate data. (See also Standard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements .)

(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their published data, they take reasonable steps to correct such errors in a correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate publication means.

8.11 Plagiarism Psychologists do not present portions of another's work or data as their own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally.

8.12 Publication Credit (a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit .)

(b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as department chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement.

(c) Except under exceptional circumstances, a student is listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student's doctoral dissertation. Faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students as early as feasible and throughout the research and publication process as appropriate. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit .)

8.13 Duplicate Publication of Data Psychologists do not publish, as original data, data that have been previously published. This does not preclude republishing data when they are accompanied by proper acknowledgment.

8.14 Sharing Research Data for Verification (a) After research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release. This does not preclude psychologists from requiring that such individuals or groups be responsible for costs associated with the provision of such information.

(b) Psychologists who request data from other psychologists to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis may use shared data only for the declared purpose. Requesting psychologists obtain prior written agreement for all other uses of the data.

8.15 Reviewers Psychologists who review material submitted for presentation, publication, grant, or research proposal review respect the confidentiality of and the proprietary rights in such information of those who submitted it.

9.01 Bases for Assessments (a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments .)

(b) Except as noted in 9.01c , psychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions. When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their limited information on the reliability and validity of their opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards 2.01, Boundaries of Competence , and 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results .)

(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or provide consultation or supervision and an individual examination is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychologists explain this and the sources of information on which they based their conclusions and recommendations.

9.02 Use of Assessments (a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.

(b) Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested. When such validity or reliability has not been established, psychologists describe the strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation.

(c) Psychologists use assessment methods that are appropriate to an individual's language preference and competence, unless the use of an alternative language is relevant to the assessment issues.

9.03 Informed Consent in Assessments (a) Psychologists obtain informed consent for assessments, evaluations, or diagnostic services, as described in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations; (2) informed consent is implied because testing is conducted as a routine educational, institutional, or organizational activity (e.g., when participants voluntarily agree to assessment when applying for a job); or (3) one purpose of the testing is to evaluate decisional capacity. Informed consent includes an explanation of the nature and purpose of the assessment, fees, involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality and sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions and receive answers.

(b) Psychologists inform persons with questionable capacity to consent or for whom testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations about the nature and purpose of the proposed assessment services, using language that is reasonably understandable to the person being assessed.

(c) Psychologists using the services of an interpreter obtain informed consent from the client/patient to use that interpreter, ensure that confidentiality of test results and test security are maintained, and include in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, discussion of any limitations on the data obtained. (See also Standards 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others ; 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality ; 9.01, Bases for Assessments ; 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results ; and 9.07, Assessment by Unqualified Persons .)

9.04 Release of Test Data (a) The term test data refers to raw and scaled scores, client/patient responses to test questions or stimuli, and psychologists' notes and recordings concerning client/patient statements and behavior during an examination. Those portions of test materials that include client/patient responses are included in the definition of test data . Pursuant to a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data to the client/patient or other persons identified in the release. Psychologists may refrain from releasing test data to protect a client/patient or others from substantial harm or misuse or misrepresentation of the data or the test, recognizing that in many instances release of confidential information under these circumstances is regulated by law. (See also Standard 9.11, Maintaining Test Security .)

(b) In the absence of a client/patient release, psychologists provide test data only as required by law or court order.

9.05 Test Construction Psychologists who develop tests and other assessment techniques use appropriate psychometric procedures and current scientific or professional knowledge for test design, standardization, validation, reduction or elimination of bias, and recommendations for use.

9.06 Interpreting Assessment Results When interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations, psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences, that might affect psychologists' judgments or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant limitations of their interpretations. (See also Standards 2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence , and 3.01, Unfair Discrimination .)

9.07 Assessment by Unqualified Persons Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when such use is conducted for training purposes with appropriate supervision. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others .)

9.08 Obsolete Tests and Outdated Test Results (a) Psychologists do not base their assessment or intervention decisions or recommendations on data or test results that are outdated for the current purpose.

(b) Psychologists do not base such decisions or recommendations on tests and measures that are obsolete and not useful for the current purpose.

9.09 Test Scoring and Interpretation Services (a) Psychologists who offer assessment or scoring services to other professionals accurately describe the purpose, norms, validity, reliability, and applications of the procedures and any special qualifications applicable to their use.

(b) Psychologists select scoring and interpretation services (including automated services) on the basis of evidence of the validity of the program and procedures as well as on other appropriate considerations. (See also Standard 2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence .)

(c) Psychologists retain responsibility for the appropriate application, interpretation, and use of assessment instruments, whether they score and interpret such tests themselves or use automated or other services.

9.10 Explaining Assessment Results Regardless of whether the scoring and interpretation are done by psychologists, by employees or assistants, or by automated or other outside services, psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure that explanations of results are given to the individual or designated representative unless the nature of the relationship precludes provision of an explanation of results (such as in some organizational consulting, preemployment or security screenings, and forensic evaluations), and this fact has been clearly explained to the person being assessed in advance.

9.11 Maintaining Test Security The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data . Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.

10.01 Informed Consent to Therapy (a) When obtaining informed consent to therapy as required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent , psychologists inform clients/patients as early as is feasible in the therapeutic relationship about the nature and anticipated course of therapy, fees, involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality and provide sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions and receive answers. (See also Standards 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality , and 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements .)

(b) When obtaining informed consent for treatment for which generally recognized techniques and procedures have not been established, psychologists inform their clients/patients of the developing nature of the treatment, the potential risks involved, alternative treatments that may be available, and the voluntary nature of their participation. (See also Standards 2.01e, Boundaries of Competence , and 3.10, Informed Consent .)

(c) When the therapist is a trainee and the legal responsibility for the treatment provided resides with the supervisor, the client/patient, as part of the informed consent procedure, is informed that the therapist is in training and is being supervised and is given the name of the supervisor.

10.02 Therapy Involving Couples or Families (a) When psychologists agree to provide services to several persons who have a relationship (such as spouses, significant others, or parents and children), they take reasonable steps to clarify at the outset (1) which of the individuals are clients/patients and (2) the relationship the psychologist will have with each person. This clarification includes the psychologist's role and the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained. (See also Standard 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality .)

(b) If it becomes apparent that psychologists may be called on to perform potentially conflicting roles (such as family therapist and then witness for one party in divorce proceedings), psychologists take reasonable steps to clarify and modify, or withdraw from, roles appropriately. (See also Standard 3.05c, Multiple Relationships .)

10.03 Group Therapy When psychologists provide services to several persons in a group setting, they describe at the outset the roles and responsibilities of all parties and the limits of confidentiality.

10.04 Providing Therapy to Those Served by Others In deciding whether to offer or provide services to those already receiving mental health services elsewhere, psychologists carefully consider the treatment issues and the potential client's/patient's welfare. Psychologists discuss these issues with the client/patient or another legally authorized person on behalf of the client/patient in order to minimize the risk of confusion and conflict, consult with the other service providers when appropriate, and proceed with caution and sensitivity to the therapeutic issues.

10.05 Sexual Intimacies with Current Therapy Clients/Patients Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with current therapy clients/patients.

10.06 Sexual Intimacies with Relatives or Significant Others of Current Therapy Clients/Patients Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with individuals they know to be close relatives, guardians, or significant others of current clients/patients. Psychologists do not terminate therapy to circumvent this standard.

10.07 Therapy with Former Sexual Partners Psychologists do not accept as therapy clients/patients persons with whom they have engaged in sexual intimacies.

10.08 Sexual Intimacies with Former Therapy Clients/Patients (a) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients for at least two years after cessation or termination of therapy.

(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with former clients/patients even after a two-year interval except in the most unusual circumstances. Psychologists who engage in such activity after the two years following cessation or termination of therapy and of having no sexual contact with the former client/patient bear the burden of demonstrating that there has been no exploitation, in light of all relevant factors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since therapy terminated; (2) the nature, duration, and intensity of the therapy; (3) the circumstances of termination; (4) the client's/patient's personal history; (5) the client's/patient's current mental status; (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on the client/patient; and (7) any statements or actions made by the therapist during the course of therapy suggesting or inviting the possibility of a posttermination sexual or romantic relationship with the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple Relationships .)

10.09 Interruption of Therapy When entering into employment or contractual relationships, psychologists make reasonable efforts to provide for orderly and appropriate resolution of responsibility for client/patient care in the event that the employment or contractual relationship ends, with paramount consideration given to the welfare of the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.12, Interruption of Psychological Services .)

10.10 Terminating Therapy (a) Psychologists terminate therapy when it becomes reasonably clear that the client/patient no longer needs the service, is not likely to benefit, or is being harmed by continued service.

(b) Psychologists may terminate therapy when threatened or otherwise endangered by the client/patient or another person with whom the client/patient has a relationship.

(c) Except where precluded by the actions of clients/patients or third-party payors, prior to termination psychologists provide pretermination counseling and suggest alternative service providers as appropriate.

The American Psychological Association’s  Council of Representatives  adopted this version of the APA Ethics Code during its meeting on Aug. 21, 2002. The Code became effective on June 1, 2003. The Council of Representatives amended this version of the Ethics Code on Feb. 20, 2010, effective June 1, 2010, and on Aug. 3, 2016, effective Jan. 1, 2017.  Inquiries concerning the substance or interpretation of the APA Ethics Code should be addressed to the Director, Office of Ethics, American Psychological Association, 750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. The standards in this Ethics Code will be used to adjudicate complaints brought concerning alleged conduct occurring on or after the effective date. Complaints will be adjudicated on the basis of the version of the Ethics Code that was in effect at the time the conduct occurred.

The APA has previously published its Ethics Code as follows:

American Psychological Association. (1953). Ethical standards of psychologists . Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1959). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist , 14 , 279-282.

American Psychological Association. (1963). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist , 18 , 56-60.

American Psychological Association. (1968). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist , 23 , 357-361.

American Psychological Association. (1977, March). Ethical standards of psychologists. APA Monitor , 22-23.

American Psychological Association. (1979). Ethical standards of psychologists . Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1981). Ethical principles of psychologists. American Psychologist , 36 , 633-638.

American Psychological Association. (1990). Ethical principles of psychologists (Amended June 2, 1989). American Psychologist , 45 , 390-395.

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist , 47 , 1597-1611.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist , 57 , 1060-1073.

American Psychological Association. (2010). 2010 amendments to the 2002 “ Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. ” American Psychologist , 65 , 493.

American Psychological Association. (2016). Revision of ethical standard 3.04 of the “ Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct ” (2002, as amended 2010). American Psychologist , 71 , 900.

Request copies of the APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct from the APA Order Department, 750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242, or phone (202) 336-5510.

2010 Amendments

Introduction and Applicability If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make known their commitment to this Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner . If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing authority in keeping with basic principles of human rights.

1.02 Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict , make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code . If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights .

1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and to the extent feasible, resolve the conflict in a way that permits adherence to the Ethics Code. take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights .

2016 Amendment

3.04 Avoiding Harm (a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research participants, organizational clients, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable. 

Additional Resources

2018 APA Ethics Committee Rules and Procedures (PDF, 197KB)

Revision of Ethics Code Standard 3.04 (Avoiding Harm) 

APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2017) (PDF, 272KB)

2016 APA Ethics Committee Rules and Procedures

Revision of Ethical Standard 3.04 of the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (2002, as Amended 2010) (PDF, 26KB)

2010 Amendments to the 2002 "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" (PDF, 39KB)

Compare the 1992 and 2002 Ethics Codes

Contact APA Ethics Office

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Studies UT Star Icon

Case Studies

More than 70 cases pair ethics concepts with real world situations. From journalism, performing arts, and scientific research to sports, law, and business, these case studies explore current and historic ethical dilemmas, their motivating biases, and their consequences. Each case includes discussion questions, related videos, and a bibliography.

A Million Little Pieces

James Frey’s popular memoir stirred controversy and media attention after it was revealed to contain numerous exaggerations and fabrications.

Abramoff: Lobbying Congress

Super-lobbyist Abramoff was caught in a scheme to lobby against his own clients. Was a corrupt individual or a corrupt system – or both – to blame?

Apple Suppliers & Labor Practices

Is tech company Apple, Inc. ethically obligated to oversee the questionable working conditions of other companies further down their supply chain?

Approaching the Presidency: Roosevelt & Taft

Some presidents view their responsibilities in strictly legal terms, others according to duty. Roosevelt and Taft took two extreme approaches.

Appropriating “Hope”

Fairey’s portrait of Barack Obama raised debate over the extent to which an artist can use and modify another’s artistic work, yet still call it one’s own.

Arctic Offshore Drilling

Competing groups frame the debate over oil drilling off Alaska’s coast in varying ways depending on their environmental and economic interests.

Banning Burkas: Freedom or Discrimination?

The French law banning women from wearing burkas in public sparked debate about discrimination and freedom of religion.

Birthing Vaccine Skepticism

Wakefield published an article riddled with inaccuracies and conflicts of interest that created significant vaccine hesitancy regarding the MMR vaccine.

Blurred Lines of Copyright

Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs.

Bullfighting: Art or Not?

Bullfighting has been a prominent cultural and artistic event for centuries, but in recent decades it has faced increasing criticism for animal rights’ abuse.

Buying Green: Consumer Behavior

Do purchasing green products, such as organic foods and electric cars, give consumers the moral license to indulge in unethical behavior?

Cadavers in Car Safety Research

Engineers at Heidelberg University insist that the use of human cadavers in car safety research is ethical because their research can save lives.

Cardinals’ Computer Hacking

St. Louis Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa hacked into the Houston Astros’ webmail system, leading to legal repercussions and a lifetime ban from MLB.

Cheating: Atlanta’s School Scandal

Teachers and administrators at Parks Middle School adjust struggling students’ test scores in an effort to save their school from closure.

Cheating: Sign-Stealing in MLB

The Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scheme rocked the baseball world, leading to a game-changing MLB investigation and fallout.

Cheating: UNC’s Academic Fraud

UNC’s academic fraud scandal uncovered an 18-year scheme of unchecked coursework and fraudulent classes that enabled student-athletes to play sports.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court

A controversial case focuses on Justice Scalia’s personal friendship with Vice President Cheney and the possible conflict of interest it poses to the case.

Christina Fallin: “Appropriate Culturation?”

After Fallin posted a picture of herself wearing a Plain’s headdress on social media, uproar emerged over cultural appropriation and Fallin’s intentions.

Climate Change & the Paris Deal

While climate change poses many abstract problems, the actions (or inactions) of today’s populations will have tangible effects on future generations.

Cover-Up on Campus

While the Baylor University football team was winning on the field, university officials failed to take action when allegations of sexual assault by student athletes emerged.

Covering Female Athletes

Sports Illustrated stirs controversy when their cover photo of an Olympic skier seems to focus more on her physical appearance than her athletic abilities.

Covering Yourself? Journalists and the Bowl Championship

Can news outlets covering the Bowl Championship Series fairly report sports news if their own polls were used to create the news?

Cyber Harassment

After a student defames a middle school teacher on social media, the teacher confronts the student in class and posts a video of the confrontation online.

Defending Freedom of Tweets?

Running back Rashard Mendenhall receives backlash from fans after criticizing the celebration of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in a tweet.

Dennis Kozlowski: Living Large

Dennis Kozlowski was an effective leader for Tyco in his first few years as CEO, but eventually faced criminal charges over his use of company assets.

Digital Downloads

File-sharing program Napster sparked debate over the legal and ethical dimensions of downloading unauthorized copies of copyrighted music.

Dr. V’s Magical Putter

Journalist Caleb Hannan outed Dr. V as a trans woman, sparking debate over the ethics of Hannan’s reporting, as well its role in Dr. V’s suicide.

East Germany’s Doping Machine

From 1968 to the late 1980s, East Germany (GDR) doped some 9,000 athletes to gain success in international athletic competitions despite being aware of the unfortunate side effects.

Ebola & American Intervention

Did the dispatch of U.S. military units to Liberia to aid in humanitarian relief during the Ebola epidemic help or hinder the process?

Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

Was Edward Snowden’s release of confidential government documents ethically justifiable?

Ethical Pitfalls in Action

Why do good people do bad things? Behavioral ethics is the science of moral decision-making, which explores why and how people make the ethical (and unethical) decisions that they do.

Ethical Use of Home DNA Testing

The rising popularity of at-home DNA testing kits raises questions about privacy and consumer rights.

Flying the Confederate Flag

A heated debate ensues over whether or not the Confederate flag should be removed from the South Carolina State House grounds.

Freedom of Speech on Campus

In the wake of racially motivated offenses, student protests sparked debate over the roles of free speech, deliberation, and tolerance on campus.

Freedom vs. Duty in Clinical Social Work

What should social workers do when their personal values come in conflict with the clients they are meant to serve?

Full Disclosure: Manipulating Donors

When an intern witnesses a donor making a large gift to a non-profit organization under misleading circumstances, she struggles with what to do.

Gaming the System: The VA Scandal

The Veterans Administration’s incentives were meant to spur more efficient and productive healthcare, but not all administrators complied as intended.

German Police Battalion 101

During the Holocaust, ordinary Germans became willing killers even though they could have opted out from murdering their Jewish neighbors.

Head Injuries & American Football

Many studies have linked traumatic brain injuries and related conditions to American football, creating controversy around the safety of the sport.

Head Injuries & the NFL

American football is a rough and dangerous game and its impact on the players’ brain health has sparked a hotly contested debate.

Healthcare Obligations: Personal vs. Institutional

A medical doctor must make a difficult decision when informing patients of the effectiveness of flu shots while upholding institutional recommendations.

High Stakes Testing

In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, parents, teachers, and school administrators take different positions on how to assess student achievement.

In-FUR-mercials: Advertising & Adoption

When the Lied Animal Shelter faces a spike in animal intake, an advertising agency uses its moral imagination to increase pet adoptions.

Krogh & the Watergate Scandal

Egil Krogh was a young lawyer working for the Nixon Administration whose ethics faded from view when asked to play a part in the Watergate break-in.

Limbaugh on Drug Addiction

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh argued that drug abuse was a choice, not a disease. He later became addicted to painkillers.

U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte’s “over-exaggeration” of an incident at the 2016 Rio Olympics led to very real consequences.

Meet Me at Starbucks

Two black men were arrested after an employee called the police on them, prompting Starbucks to implement “racial-bias” training across all its stores.

Myanmar Amber

Buying amber could potentially fund an ethnic civil war, but refraining allows collectors to acquire important specimens that could be used for research.

Negotiating Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy lawyer Gellene successfully represented a mining company during a major reorganization, but failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Pao & Gender Bias

Ellen Pao stirred debate in the venture capital and tech industries when she filed a lawsuit against her employer on grounds of gender discrimination.

Pardoning Nixon

One month after Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, Gerald Ford made the controversial decision to issue Nixon a full pardon.

Patient Autonomy & Informed Consent

Nursing staff and family members struggle with informed consent when taking care of a patient who has been deemed legally incompetent.

Prenatal Diagnosis & Parental Choice

Debate has emerged over the ethics of prenatal diagnosis and reproductive freedom in instances where testing has revealed genetic abnormalities.

Reporting on Robin Williams

After Robin Williams took his own life, news media covered the story in great detail, leading many to argue that such reporting violated the family’s privacy.

Responding to Child Migration

An influx of children migrants posed logistical and ethical dilemmas for U.S. authorities while intensifying ongoing debate about immigration.

Retracting Research: The Case of Chandok v. Klessig

A researcher makes the difficult decision to retract a published, peer-reviewed article after the original research results cannot be reproduced.

Sacking Social Media in College Sports

In the wake of questionable social media use by college athletes, the head coach at University of South Carolina bans his players from using Twitter.

Selling Enron

Following the deregulation of electricity markets in California, private energy company Enron profited greatly, but at a dire cost.

Snyder v. Phelps

Freedom of speech was put on trial in a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and their protesting at the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder.

Something Fishy at the Paralympics

Rampant cheating has plagued the Paralympics over the years, compromising the credibility and sportsmanship of Paralympian athletes.

Sports Blogs: The Wild West of Sports Journalism?

Deadspin pays an anonymous source for information related to NFL star Brett Favre, sparking debate over the ethics of “checkbook journalism.”

Stangl & the Holocaust

Franz Stangl was the most effective Nazi administrator in Poland, killing nearly one million Jews at Treblinka, but he claimed he was simply following orders.

Teaching Blackface: A Lesson on Stereotypes

A teacher was put on leave for showing a blackface video during a lesson on racial segregation, sparking discussion over how to teach about stereotypes.

The Astros’ Sign-Stealing Scandal

The Houston Astros rode a wave of success, culminating in a World Series win, but it all came crashing down when their sign-stealing scheme was revealed.

The Central Park Five

Despite the indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the innocence of the Central Park Five, some involved in the case refuse to believe it.

The CIA Leak

Legal and political fallout follows from the leak of classified information that led to the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The Collapse of Barings Bank

When faced with growing losses, investment banker Nick Leeson took big risks in an attempt to get out from under the losses. He lost.

The Costco Model

How can companies promote positive treatment of employees and benefit from leading with the best practices? Costco offers a model.

The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy

How can tech companies and government organizations strike a balance between maintaining national security and protecting user privacy?

The Miss Saigon Controversy

When a white actor was cast for the half-French, half-Vietnamese character in the Broadway production of Miss Saigon , debate ensued.

The Sandusky Scandal

Following the conviction of assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexual abuse, debate continues on how much university officials and head coach Joe Paterno knew of the crimes.

The Varsity Blues Scandal

A college admissions prep advisor told wealthy parents that while there were front doors into universities and back doors, he had created a side door that was worth exploring.

Providing radiation therapy to cancer patients, Therac-25 had malfunctions that resulted in 6 deaths. Who is accountable when technology causes harm?

Welfare Reform

The Welfare Reform Act changed how welfare operated, intensifying debate over the government’s role in supporting the poor through direct aid.

Wells Fargo and Moral Emotions

In a settlement with regulators, Wells Fargo Bank admitted that it had created as many as two million accounts for customers without their permission.

Stay Informed

Support our work.

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Ethical Issues of Psychological Investigation

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Ethics are a key part of psychological investigation, as researchers have the responsibility to ensure that their practice is morally correct ; ill practice could lead to banning from further practice as a psychologist.

There are a number of important issues that researchers should be mindful of when undertaking investigations, with regards to the selection and subsequent treatment of their participants:

• Confidentiality

Participants should remain anonymous so that data cannot be identified as theirs (e.g. their names should be withheld when data is reported).

• Informed consent

Participants must be briefed on objectives of the investigation and what will be required of them should they take part. In turn they must accept these conditions to proceed, and be put under no pressure to do so.

Generally, participants should not be misled during an investigation. However, sometimes participants need to be unaware of the true aims of an investigation - or even that they are participating in a study - to yield results that are considered valid (i.e. the data is a true reflection of what was supposed to be measured). This emphasises the need for participants to be debriefed at end of the study.

When a study ends, participants should be told the true motivations behind the investigation, and given the opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings with the researchers. It is also essential to ensure that the participants leave having not suffered long-lasting negative physical or mental effects, particularly where deception (see above) was utilised for the purposes of the experiment. Having checked that participants are in a positive state of health, they should also be notified of relevant services such as counseling to seek, if partaking in the study presents negative effects.

• Right to withdraw

As part of their briefing prior to giving consent to partake, participants must be informed that they can leave the study at any point if they wish, and are under no obligation to disclose a reason why if they do.

Protection of participants

It is the responsibility of the researcher to ensure that participants are not caused any long-term physical or mental damage. For instance, it may be that participants are temporarily caused distress, although research will be pre-approved by an ethics committee to ensure this is sufficiently minimized, and researchers are expected to take participants through a detailed debriefing (see debriefing).

Working with animals

If non-human animals are to be used in an investigation, researchers can only use species that are considered scientifically suitable according to ethical guidelines. Procedures that could cause physical or mental harm should be avoided where possible, and it is encouraged that investigations take place in their natural environment. Animals must be properly cared for if the study requires them to kept captive.

There are some instances where it is deemed that the costs do not override the benefits of conducting some research. However, it should be appreciated that these ethical guidelines should always be carefully considered when scrutinising whether a study is ethically acceptable to be carried out.

• Ethical Issues

You might also like

Ethics and psychology, explanations for obedience - milgram (1963), research methods - ethics.

Quizzes & Activities

Ethical Guidelines in Psychology - Classroom Posters or Student Handout Set

Poster / Student Handout

Minority Influence - Consistency and Commitment

Psychology Issues and Debates - Two Landing Pages for your Revision

28th December 2017

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.