1

Resolving Ethical Issues

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. According to APA,
if psychologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation of their work, they take reasonable steps
to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation. Psychologists have professional and
scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific individuals, organizations, and
communities with whom they work to ensure that their workThus, Standard 1.01 of the APA
Ethics Code focuses on corrective action that must be taken when psychologists learn that
others have misused or misrepresented their work. To remedy misuse, psychologists can
write letters to or speak with interested parties, request retraction of, misrepresentations or
discuss with appropriate persons the corrective measures to be taken.

For example, a school psychologist completed a report summarizing her assessment

of a child whose test results did not meet diagnostic criteria for serious emotional
disturbance. Several days later, she learned that the principal of her school, who desired to fill
a special education quota, had forwarded to the superintendent of schools only those parts of
the assessment report that could be interpreted as confirming the student as having a serious
emotional disturbance. The psychologist asked the principal to send the entire report,
explaining the ethical issues involved (Standard 1.03, Conflict Between Ethics and
 2

Organizational Demands).In another example, a health psychologist who had developed a

commercially marketed instrument for assessing environmental and psychosocial risks for
children diagnosed with asthma discovered that the company responsible for test scoring had
miskeyed some of the items. The psychologist contacted the company and requested that it
(a) immediately correct the error for future use, (b) rescore tests that had been subject to the
miskeying, and (c) send practitioners who had used the scoring service the rescored test
results with a letter of explanation.

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.
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. To
ethically navigate conflicting obligations, psychologists must have sufficient understanding
of the Ethics Code standards and be familiar with laws and regulations relevant to their
activities as psychologists (APA, 2012).
Requirements of the Ethics Code may conflict with judicial authority, with state or
federal laws, or with regulations governing the activities of psychologists working in the
military, correctional facilities, or other areas of public service.
Standard 1.02 requires that psychologists take action when conflicts between the
Ethics Code and laws, regulations, or governing legal authority arise. Specific steps that may
be taken include informing appropriate authorities of the conflict, explaining the rationale for
the Ethics Code standard, and recommending ways to resolve the conflict consistent with
General Principles and Ethical Standards. The permissive portion of the standard recognizes
that in some contexts, when legal ethics and professional ethics conflict, each may be equally
defensible in terms of moral principles. For example, in some instances, a judicial review
requested by a psychologist in response to a court order may determine that full release of
 3

confidential therapy notes is required to protect the legal right of a defendant or plaintiff to a
fair trial. In such situations, Principle D (Justice) is in conflict with Principle E (Respect for
People‘s Rights and Dignity), and Standard 1.02 permits psychologists to draw upon ethical
decision-making strategies, to decide whether to obey or disobey the court order. It is
important to note that Standard 1.02 does not require compliance with law.
For example, a research psychologist had recently completed an intervention study
designed to improve mother–infant interaction patterns of teen parents. All interactions were
videotaped for coding.
The psychologist received a request from Child Protective Services (CPS) for the
videotapes of a participant whom CPS was currently investigating for charges of child
neglect. In consultation with his university attorney, the psychologist sent a letter to CPS
respectfully refusing to release the tapes. The letter explained the confidentiality that had
been promised to all participants and her obligation to protect participant confidentiality
under the Ethics Code (Standard 4.01, Protecting Confidentiality; Standard 8.02, Informed
Consent to Research).

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. As per APA, 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.
Organizational norms assist organizations in meeting their obligations through
regulating the behavior of board members, business managers, hospital and school
administrators, employees, and others who provide services for the organization. The
function of an organization determines these norms and often requires psychologists to adopt
a role that is different from a healing role (Allen, 2013). Unlike scientific and professional
norms in psychology, organizational norms in many instances prioritize the needs or welfare
of the organization over those of the individual. This emphasis does not necessarily result in
an ethical dilemma. For example, to meet its productivity requirements, a company may ask a
psychologist to develop performance tests for specific positions and use the results of the
 4

tests to retain or fire employees who do not meet performance criteria. If the company relies
on the psychologist‘s expertise to develop a valid, reliable, and culturally fair test and the
nature and purpose of the test are explained to employees, then the demands of the
organization and the Ethics Code do not conflict Standards 3.01, Unfair Discrimination;
3.11b, Psychological Services Delivered To or Through Organizations; 9.02, Use of
Assessments; 9.05, Test Construction.

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 (#102) , and 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and
Organizational Demands (#103) .)

The following are examples of psychologists appropriately initiating an informal

resolution when they become aware of misconduct by another psychologist:
A psychologist with no prior education, training, or supervised experience in
neuropsychological assessment began to incorporate a number of such instruments into a
battery of tests for elderly clients (Standard 2.01a, Boundaries of Competence). After a
colleague brought her lack of training to her attention, an informal resolution was
achieved when the psychologist agreed to obtain appropriate training in neuropsychological
assessment before continuing to use such techniques. standard specifically requires
psychologists to make known their commitment to the Ethics
Code in communications with the organization.
 5

1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations

Ethical standard 1.05 holds that 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 An assistant professor of psychology began data collection without
submitting a research proposal to the university‘s IRB (Standard 8.01, Institutional
Approval). After a senior faculty member brought this to the psychologist‘s attention, the
researcher agreed to submit an IRB application and to cease data collection contingent on
IRB approval.

Psychology professor reviewing an assistant professor‘s promotion application

materials discovered that the faculty member had several publications that plagiarized articles
written by a senior colleague (8.11, Plagiarism). The psychologist presented the evidence to
the chair of the department. The chair and the professor informed the faculty member that
they had discovered the plagiarism and would be forwarding the information to the university
committee on ethical conduct and, if the committee found that plagiarism had occurred,
would inform the journal in which the articles were published. A client told a psychologist
about the sexual misconduct of another psychologist with whom the client had previously
been in psychotherapy (Standard 10.05, Sexual Intimacies with Current Therapy
Clients/Patients). Judging that it was clinically appropriate, the psychologist discussed with
the client the unethical nature of the previous therapist‘s behavior and the available reporting
options. The psychologist, respecting the client‘s request to keep the sexual relationship
confidential, did not pursue reporting the violation (Standard 4.01, Maintaining
Confidentiality). question. (See also Standard 1.02, Conflicts between Ethics and Law,
Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority.) Standard 1.05 requires psychologists to
report ethical violations committed by another psychologist only if the violation has led to or
has the potential to lead to substantial harm and informal resolution is unsuccessful or
inappropriate.
The extent to which most ethical violations have or are likely to cause substantial
harm will depend on the professional or scientific context and the individuals involved. As a
rule of thumb, behaviors likely to cause substantial harm are of a kind similar to sexual
misconduct, insurance fraud, plagiarism, and blatant intentional misrepresentation (APA,
2010). Standard 1.05 also offers nonbinding examples of available reporting options,
including filing acomplaint with the APA or one of its state affiliates if the offending
psychologist is a member of that organization, referring the case to a state licensing board if
the ethical violation also violates state law, or filing a complaint with the appropriate
committee in the institution or organization at which the offending psychologist works. As
does Standard 1.04, Standard 1.05 prioritizes the protection of confidentiality over the duty to
 6

report an ethical violation.

Psychologists may be retained to help an organization, the courts, or an individual
evaluate whether the actions of a psychologist have violated the Ethics Code. Standard 1.05
preserves the ability of members of the discipline to provide expert opinion on the ethical
conduct of their peers by exempting from the reporting requirement psychologists hired to
review the ethical activities of another psychologist.

1.06 Cooperating with Ethics Committees

APA holds that Psychologists cooperate in ethics investigations, proceedings, and

resultingrequirements 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 non-cooperation. A
profession that demonstrates that it can monitor itself promotes public confidence in the
services of its members. Thus, an ethics code must enable professional organizations to
effectively adjudicate ethics complaints. Membership in the APA and its affiliated state
psychological associations brings with it a commitment to adhere to the Ethical Standards of
the profession. To ensure the validity and viability of APA ethics adjudication, Standard 1.06
requires that when called on to do so, psychologists cooperate with APA and state affiliated
ethics investigations, proceedings, and resulting requirements. Standard 1.06 permits
psychologists to request that an APA or affiliated state psychological association ethics
committee delay decision of a complaint pending the outcome of litigation
related to the complaint. If, however, the ethics committee declines such a request, failure to
cooperate will be considered a violation of Standard 1.06.

For example a patient submitted a complaint to the APA charging a neuropsychologist

with misinterpreting the results of an assessment battery, leading to an inaccurate diagnosis
and subsequent denial of disability (Standards 3.04, Avoiding Harm; 9.06, Interpreting
Assessment Results). To fully respond to the complaint, the psychologist needed to obtain the
patient’s written release so that the psychologist could submit to the ethics committee the test
report and other information about the patient relevant to the complaint. Despite reasonable
efforts, the patient refused to sign the release. The psychologist provided the APA Ethics
Committee documentation of his requests to the client and her written refusal as well as a
statement indicating how the client’s refusal placed confidentiality limitations on his ability
to fully respond to the committee’s request.

1.07 Improper Complaints

Psychologists do not file or encourage the filing of ethics complaints that are made
with reckless disregard for or wilful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.
Unfounded and revengeful complaints can taint a scientific or professional career, lead to
 7

unfair denial of professional liability insurance or hospital and dilute public trust in the
profession. Feelings of hostility and intent to do harm may accompany a valid complaint
against psychologists who have acted unethically. However, the language of this standard
was crafted to focus on the complaining psychologist‘s disregard for available information
that would disprove the allegation rather than on the personal motives underlying the
complaint. Examples of improper complaints to the APA Ethics Committee often involve
academic colleagues, business rivals, or psychologists with opposing forensic roles who
attempt to misuse the ethics adjudication process as a means of defeating a competitor rather
than addressing wrongful behavior or who attempt to dilute a complaint against them through
a counter-complaint. The discipline of psychology and the public benefit from psychologists
monitoring the ethical activities of other psychologists, but both are damaged when the Ethics
Code is misused as a weapon to harass or otherwise harm members of the profession.
For example, two academic psychologists, well-known for conducting
methodologically rigorous research on the validity of children‘s eyewitness testimony, were
often asked to serve as forensic experts on opposing sides in criminal cases. The defence
attorney who had retained one of the psychologists for a highly publicized child abuse case
was concerned that a recent article published by the opposing psychologist would be
potentially damaging to the defendant‘s case. At the attorney‘s urging, the psychologist
submitted a complaint to the APA Ethics Committee claiming that the opposing psychologist
had fabricated the data. The psychologist based her complaint only on the fact that the data
seemed ―too good to be true‖(see also Standard 3.06, Conflict of Interest).

1.08 Unfair Discrimination against Complainants and Respondents

According to APA, 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. Situations arise in which employees, colleagues, students, or student applicants
accuse others or are accused of sexual harassment or other forms of professional misconduct.
Standard 1.08 protects the rights of individuals to make ethical complaints without suffering
unfair disciplinary actions from psychologists responsible for their employment, academic
admission, or training. The standard also protects the rights of those accused of unethical
behaviors to pursue their career paths pending resolution of a complaint.
The Ethics Code makes clear that psychologists have a responsibility to be
concerned about the ethical compliance of their colleagues‘ scientific and professional
conduct (Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility and Standards 1.04, Informal Resolution of
Ethical Violations; 1.05, Reporting Ethical Violations). Standard 1.08 supports the
implementation of this obligation by prohibiting unfair discrimination against those who
make ethics complaints. Standard 1.08 also recognizes that not all complaints have a basis in
fact or rise to the threshold of an ethics violation. Therefore, the standard prohibits
psychologists from unfair discrimination against individuals who have been accused of, but
not found to have committed, an ethical violation.
 8

Rference

https://www.psychologyfind.com