Handbook of International Psychology Ethics

Codes and Commentary from Around the World

Karen L. Parsonson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367374464
• eBook ISBN: 9781000403060
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Clinical Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The Handbook of International Psychology Ethics discusses the most central, guiding principles of practice for mental health professionals around the world. For researchers, practicing mental health professionals, and students alike, the book provides a window into the values and belief systems of cultures worldwide. Chapters cover ethics codes from psychological associations and societies on five continents, translating each code into English and discussing vital questions around how the code is put into practice, what it means to association members and society at large, as well as how the code was developed within its unique historical, political, and cultural context.

1

Understanding Psychology's Ethics Codes from an International Perspective

The Importance of Non-Ethnocentric Appreciation and Comparisons

Karen L. Parsonson

DOI: 10.4324/9780367814250-1

Introduction

To begin with, I am indebted to the many Psychology professionals around the world who have contributed to this work. Their belief in my vision, to present their ethics codes in their own words, is the essence of not only collegiality, but idiographic study. What they have provided is the ultimate in every cross-cultural psychologist’s dream: their knowledge and experience, in their own words.

In keeping with the theme of this book, we will begin by explaining the purpose and importance of ethics codes for the practice of psychology. For those of us who have or are practicing, it is a moot point, but bears explication. It is the basis of ethical practice, which is a cornerstone of the profession. This is followed by a brief history of Psychology ethics codes across the world in order to provide a frame of reference. Next, we will explore how Psychology ethics codes are culturally based, an assertion that has become well-accepted among researchers and theorists, alike. Further to this, we will examine earlier research comparing and contrasting international Psychology ethics codes, followed by non-ethnocentric research that compares the codes taking an idiographic approach with no value judgments. Finally, we will present the intent and accomplishments of this book, presenting a representative sample of ethics codes from each continent around the world as described by those who developed them. The participation of these individuals and the work it has entailed is indescribable. They have contributed immensely to the knowledge and understanding of international ethics codes far beyond what has been available ever before.

Further to the aim of non-ethnocentric comparison, this book represents the first attempt to not only address the cultural contribution to the development and writing of ethics codes, but it is explained by the actual professionals who have contributed to the development and writing of their country’s ethics codes or their subsequent revisions. Each country’s representative not only addresses the contribution of culture to their ethics code, but also explains the history and development of their respective code, as well as what it means to them as mental health professionals and their fellow citizens.

All continents are represented, along with access/links to their ethics codes that are both translated into English (if necessary) by themselves (not simply individuals who happen to know their language), as well as presented in their native language if it is not English. What follows is the developers’ stories of their own countries’ ethics codes (or revisions), in their own words. The book will also discuss the EFPA’s Meta-Code, the template for all European countries’ ethics codes, as well as the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists and culminates in a qualitative, non-ethnocentric discussion and comparison of the ethics codes as presented.

Of particular note, a number of countries have anecdotally reported that this process has helped them immensely in understanding their own history of their psychological societies, the original development of their codes, as well as re-connected them to important individuals in their countries’ history of the practice of Psychology. That, in and of itself, is noteworthy, as it ensures the recognition and contribution of generations past and the continuity of consistent professional growth.

The Purpose and Importance of Ethics Codes to the Ethical Practice of Psychology

The first recognizable ethics code is the Hippocratic Oath (between the 5^th and 3^rd centuries BCE). It applies to medical ethics but is still in use in various forms for physicians today. Ethics codes are prevalent in just about every profession in existence today. They are of paramount importance to ethical practice within the field of Psychology. Their aim is to protect clients, research subjects, clinical practitioners, and the public in general.

Without getting too much into the history and theory of ethics (which dates back thousands of years and is an area of study unto itself independent of psychology), one question begs answering. Should following ethics codes be simply what one “ought to do”, or should it be what a “virtuous person” does? This takes us back to Aristotelian ethics (which is far outside the purview of this book), but should it be something professionals want to do or have to do? This is an important point to consider, not only in the teaching of ethics to Psychology graduate students but in how ethics codes are both framed and applied in practice.

To put it simply, deontological ethics focuses on whether the action is right or wrong, based on a set of rules or moral obligation. Conversely, virtues-based ethics focus on the consequences of actions, with a virtuous person choosing to do what is right, not what they “ought to do”. Anderson and Handelsman (2010, 2013) elegantly transpose this issue into the discussion of virtue ethics as applied to the mental health professions. They define ethical virtues as encompassing the “their own personal and professional qualities or traits that guide their choices” (p. 5), which are a part of professional identity. Further, they suggested that these “internal aspects” are a part of the decisions clinicians make every day. Even more specifically, to Kitchener and Anderson (2011) virtue ethics (or “moral character”) “is more important than conformity to rules because a virtuous person is more likely to understand the principles and rules on which he or she acts” (p. 58).

Returning more specifically to ethics codes in Psychology, Pettifor (2004) clarified that the objective of Psychology ethics codes was to focus on promoting ideal professional behavior using aspirational principles that encourage reflection and ethical decision-making within a moral framework, and regulation of professional behavior practicing monitoring and disciplinary action against those who violate established standards of conduct. This definition includes both an aspirational (non-enforceable but guidance-based) component and standards of practice (enforceable and subject to disciplinary action).

Further, Oakland et al. (2012) clarified four specific purposes of Psychology ethics codes. These included:

1. to educate both professionals and the public about behaviors to expect from psychologists;
2. to promote the public trust;
3. to exemplify legislative, judicial, and administrative policy as it applies to actual practice; and
4. to provide for professionals who do not work in institutions with ethics codes the framework within which to advocate for higher standards.

Additionally, they explained that ethics codes express virtues of moral excellence, principles that are aspirational but advocate aspirational broad rules of conduct, as well as standards that specify behaviors that are enforceable by law.

In terms of social science/psychological research, Wassenaar and Mamotte (2012) traced back the ethical guidelines to protect the welfare of research subjects following the “research” that occurred after World War II with atrocities suffered at the hands of Nazi scientists. Following the Nuremberg Code of Ethics in Medical Research (1947), the authors noted the critical importance of informed consent, which was then followed by the Declaration of Helsinki by the World Medical Association (1964), requiring an ethics review process by research ethics committees. The Belmont Report followed in 1979, written be the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. This report provided an ethical framework to help with resolving ethical dilemmas when it came to research with human subjects. The intent was to emphasize “the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects and developing guidelines to assure that such research is conducted in accordance with those principles”. Towards this end, three basic principles were presented. These included respect for persons, beneficence, and justice via consent (taking into consideration risk/benefit assessment and fair selection of subjects). In a follow-up to this, in 2010 the APA developed a Code of Ethical Conduct for researchers that emphasized:

1. that the ends of research do not justify the means; and
2. that research ethics committees were required to ensure subjects’ dignity and welfare, to prevent harm, and to defend subjects’ rights.

More recently, Rangi and Stoffel (2015) explained that like any discipline, Psychology shares a framework of its own ethical standards that are based specifically on the foundational values of human dignity, caring about people’s well-being, integrity in relationships, and responsibility. The authors noted that these values matched exceptionally well with the four principles of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (to be discussed in greater length later). From a process perspective, they suggested that values or beliefs shared by members of a culture would be expressed as principles. For example, the value of human dignity would be expressed as Respect for persons and their rights. More specifically with respect to Psychology, the authors proposed that ethical issues most highly relevant would be informed and free consent (since both clients and research subjects are vulnerable populations), privacy, the degree of harm (as in minimal risk, for either client or research subject), deception, and debriefing.

A Very Brief History of Psychology Ethics Codes

We clearly see that both the purpose and objectives of Psychology ethics codes are critically important to the ethical practice of Psychology, whether as a clinician or researcher. They provide a set of values and principles, as well as guidelines, rules, direction, courses of action to address ethical dilemmas, and explicit parameters that delineate what is ethical/acceptable behavior and what is not for professionals in the field of Psychology. Without them, judgment about conduct considered “professional” or acceptable is entrusted to the practitioner, which is highly subjective.

The American Psychological Association has frequently been credited with producing the first Psychology ethics code (1953), yet Australia had already published its first ethics code in 1949. Granted, the Australian Overseas Branch of the British Psychological Society (the regulatory body for Australian psychologists at the time) credits having used the Minnesota Society of Applied Psychology’s ethics code from 1947 as a template, but such is the Western-centric focus of Psychology in general. Nevertheless, the APA’s Committee on Ethical Standards for Psychologists was established in 1947. A provisional draft of ethical standards came out in 1953. The Canadian Psychological Association adopted the APA’s ethical standards as set out in 1953 (later to publish its own code in 1986), but following publication of the APA’s ethics code, France and Norway went on to develop their own ethics codes. The British Psychological Society presented its first ethics code in 1954. From the sample discussed in this book, Colombia developed its first ethics code in 1965, Hungary in 1975, and Chile in 1976.

In Europe, the European Federation of Psychological Associations (EFPA) developed the Meta-Code (1995), with a revision in 2005. Its purpose was to serve as a framework from which European countries could develop their own ethics codes. Four aspirational principles were agreed upon: Respect for Person’s Rights and Dignity, Professional Competence, Responsibility, and Integrity.

Meanwhile in South America, six countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela), who are members of the economic and political bloc known as the Mercosur, developed an ethical protocol similar in intent to the Meta-Code in 1997. They agreed upon five ethical principles in their template: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity, Professional Competence, Professional & Scientific Commitment, Integrity, and Social Responsibility. This was developed out of the Psychologists’ Committee of Mercosur and Associated Countries (1997). It is important also to note that two of these countries (Chile and Venezuela) are represented in this book.

In another example of an international effort to ensure the pre-eminence of ethics in the practice of Psychology, the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (UD) was adopted by the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) and the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP) in 2008. As Parsonson and Alquicira (2018) noted in their analysis of international Psychology ethics codes, IUPsyS (with a membership of 85 countries) and IAAP (with a membership of 60 countries) actively enjoined countries worldwide to provide consultation on the UD’s development with focus gro...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• Preface
• List of Psychological Associations and Links to Them
• Contributors
• 1. Understanding Psychology’s Ethics Codes from an International Perspective: The Importance of Non-Ethnocentric Appreciation and Comparisons
• PART 1: African Countries: Nigeria and Zambia
• PART 2: Asian Countries: Indonesia and Singapore
• PART 3: Australasian Countries: Australia and New Zealand
• PART 4: European Countries: Hungary, Slovenia, the UK, and the EFPA’s Meta-Code
• PART 5: South and Central American Countries: Chile, Colombia, Guatemala, Venezuela
• Index