Decoding The Ethics Code
Decoding The Ethics Code
Respond in 1000 words with three or more scholarly references. Use citations, cite your references. Please use attachment to answer question. Cite every sentence with content from your sources. There are a few ways to do that including just putting the citation at the end of each sentence.
What did you find most interesting or “surprising” about the attachment
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, Decoding The Ethics Code
ORDER A PLAGIARISM – FREE PAPER NOW
socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law.
Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people and appropriately consider
the relevance of personal characteristics based on factors such as age, gender,
gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,
disability, or socioeconomic status (Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and
Dignity). Much of the work of psychologists entails making valid discriminating
judgments that best serve the people and organizations they work with and fulfilling
their ethical obligations as teachers, researchers, organizational consultants, and
practitioners. Standard 3.01 of the APA Ethics Code (APA, 2002b) does not prohibit
such discriminations.
The graduate psychology faculty of a university used differences in standardized test
scores, undergraduate grades, and professionally related experience as selection criteria Decoding The Ethics Code
for program admission.
A research psychologist sampled individuals from specific age, gender, and cultural
groups to test a specific hypothesis relevant to these groups.
An organizational psychologist working for a software company designed assessments
for employee screening and promotion to distinguish individuals with the
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
92——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS
Standard 3.01 does not require psychologists offering therapeutic assistance to
accept as clients/patients all individuals who request mental health services. Discerning
and prudent psychologists know the limitations of their competence and accept to
treat only those whom they can reasonably expect to help based on their education,
training, and experience (Striefel, 2007). Psychologists may also refuse to accept
clients/patients on the basis of individuals’ lack of commitment to the therapeutic
process, problems they have that fall outside the therapists’ area of competence, or their Decoding The Ethics Code
perceived inability or unwillingness to pay for services (Knapp & VandeCreek, 2003).
Psychologists must, however, exercise reasonable judgment and precautions to
ensure that their work does not reflect personal or organizational biases or prejudices
that can lead to injustice (Principle D: Justice). For example, the American
Psychological Association’s (APA’s) Resolution on Religious, Religion-Based, and/or
Religion-Derived Prejudice (APA, 2007d) condemns prejudice and discrimination
against individuals or groups based on their religious or spiritual beliefs, practices,
adherence, or background.
Standard 3.01 prohibits psychologists from making unfair discriminations based
on the factors listed in the standard.
requisite information technology skills to perform tasks essential to the positions from
individuals not possessing these skills.
A school psychologist considers factors such as age, English language proficiency, and
hearing or vision impairment when making educational placement recommendations.
A family bereavement counselor working in an elder care unit of a hospital regularly
considered the extent to which factors associated with the families’ culture or religious
values should be considered in the treatment plan.
A psychologist conducting couples therapy with gay partners worked with clients to
explore the potential effects of homophobia, relational ambiguity, and family support
on their relationship (Green & Mitchell, 2002)Decoding The Ethics Code.
The director of a graduate program in psychology rejected a candidate for program
admission because the candidate indicated that he was a Muslim.
A consulting psychologist agreed to a company’s request to develop pre-employment
procedures that would screen out applicants from Spanish-speaking cultures based on
the company’s presumption that the majority of such candidates would be undocumented
residents.
A psychologist working in a Medicaid clinic decided not to include a cognitive component
in a behavioral treatment based solely on the psychologist’s belief that lowerincome
patients were incapable of responding to “talk therapies.”
One partner of a gay couple who recently entered couple counseling called their psychologist
when he learned that he tested positive for the HIV virus. Although when
working with heterosexual couples the psychologist strongly encouraged clients to
inform their partners if they had a sexually transmitted disease, she did not believe such
an approach was necessary in this situation based on her erroneous assumption that
all gay men engaged in reckless and risky sexual behavior (see Palma & Iannelli, 2002).
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc. Decoding The Ethics Code
Chapter 6 Standards on Human Relations——93
Discrimination Proscribed by Law
Standard 3.01 prohibits psychologists from discriminating among individuals on
any basis proscribed by law. For example, industrial–organizational psychologists
need to be aware of nondiscrimination laws relevant to race, religion, and disability
that apply to companies for which they work (e.g., ADA, www.ada.gov; Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm, archive.eeoc
.gov/types/religion.html; Workforce Investment Act of 1998, www.doleta.gov/
usworkforce/wia/wialaw.txt). Psychologists conducting personnel performance
evaluations should avoid selecting tests developed to assess psychopathology (see
Karraker v. Rent-a-Center, 2005). In addition, under ADA (1990), disability-relevant
questions can only be asked of prospective employees after the employer has made
a conditional offer. In some instances, ADA laws for small businesses also apply to
psychologists in private practice, such as wheelchair accessibility. In addition,
HIPAA prohibits covered entities from discriminating against an individual for filing
a complaint, participating in a compliance review or hearing, or opposing an act or
practice that is unlawful under the regulation (45 CFR 164.530[g]).
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 role 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 Decoding The Ethics Code
and Respondents.)
It is always wise for psychologists to be familiar with and comply with applicable
laws and institutional policies regarding sexual harassment. Laws on sexual
harassment vary across jurisdictions, are often complex, and change over time.
Standard 3.02 provides a clear definition of behaviors that are prohibited and considered
sexual harassment under the Ethics Code. When this definition establishes
a higher standard of conduct than required by law, psychologists must comply
with Standard 3.02.
According to Standard 3.02, sexual harassment can be verbal or nonverbal
solicitation, advances, or sexual conduct that occurs in connection with the psychologist’s
activities or role as a psychologist. The wording of the definition was
carefully crafted to prohibit sexual harassment without encouraging complaints
against psychologists whose poor judgments or behaviors do not rise to the level of
harassment. Thus, to meet the standard’s threshold for sexual harassment, behaviors
have to be either so severe or intense that a reasonable person would deem
them abusive in that context, or, regardless of intensity, the psychologist was aware
or had been told that the behaviors are unwelcome, offensive, or creating a hostile
workplace or educational environment. Decoding The Ethics Code
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
94——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS
For example, a senior faculty member who places an arm around a student’s
shoulder during a discussion or who tells an off-color sexual joke that offends a
number of junior faculty may not be in violation of this standard if such behavior
is uncharacteristic of the faculty member’s usual conduct, if a reasonable
person might interpret the behavior as inoffensive, and if there is reason to
assume the psychologist neither is aware of nor has been told the behavior is
offensive.
A hostile workplace or educational environment is one in which the sexual
language or behaviors of the psychologist impairs the ability of those who are the
target of the sexual harassment to conduct their work or participate in classroom
and educational experiences. The actions of the senior faculty member described
above might be considered sexual harassment if the psychologist’s behaviors
reflected a consistent pattern of sexual conduct during class or office hours, if
such behaviors had led students to withdraw from the psychologist’s class, or if
students or other faculty had repeatedly told the psychologist about the discomfort
produced. Decoding The Ethics Code
A senior psychologist at a test company sexually fondled a junior colleague during an
office party.
During clinical supervision, a trainee had an emotional discussion with her female
supervisor about how her own experiences recognizing her lesbian sexual orientation
during adolescence were helping her counsel the gay and lesbian youths
she was working with. At the end of the session, the supervisor kissed the trainee
on the lips.
According to this standard, sexual harassment can also consist of a single intense
or severe act that would be considered abusive to a reasonable person.
A violation of this standard applies to all psychologists irrespective of the status,
sex, or sexual orientation of the psychologist or individual harassed.
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.
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
Chapter 6 Standards on Human Relations——95
According to Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity, psychologists
should eliminate from their work the effect of bias and prejudice based on factors
such as age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual
orientation, disability, language, and socioeconomic status. Standard 3.03 prohibits
behaviors that draw on these categories to harass or demean individuals with
whom psychologists work, such as colleagues, students, research participants, or
employees. Behaviors in violation of this standard include ethnic slurs and negative
generalizations based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, or socioeconomic
status whose intention or outcome is lowering status or reputation. Decoding The Ethics Code
The term knowingly reflects the fact that evolving societal sensitivity to language
and behaviors demeaning to different groups may result in psychologists unknowingly
acting in a pejorative manner. The term knowingly also reflects awareness that
interpretations of behaviors that are harassing or demeaning can often be subjective.
Thus, a violation of this standard rests on an objective evaluation that a psychologist
would have or should have been aware that his or her behavior would be
perceived as harassing or demeaning.
This standard does not prohibit psychologists from critical comments about
the work of students, colleagues, or others based on legitimate criteria. For
example, professors can inform, and often have a duty to inform, students that
their writing or clinical skills are below program standards or indicate when a
student’s classroom comment is incorrect or inappropriate. It is the responsibility
of employers or chairs of academic departments to critically review, report on,
and discuss both positive and negative evaluations of employees or faculty.
Similarly, the standard does not prohibit psychologists conducting assessment or
therapy from applying valid diagnostic classifications that a client/patient may
find offensive. Decoding The Ethics Code
3.04 Avoiding Harm
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.
As articulated in Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, psychologists
seek to safeguard the welfare of those with whom they work and avoid or minimize
harm when conflicts occur among professional obligations. In the rightly practiced
profession and science of psychology, harm is not always unethical or avoidable.
Legitimate activities that may lead to harm include (a) giving low grades to students
who perform poorly on exams; (b) providing a valid diagnosis that prevents a
client/patient from receiving disability insurance; (c) conducting personnel reviews
that lead to an individual’s termination of employment; (d) conducting a custody
evaluation in a case in which the judge determines one of the parents must relinquish
custodial rights; or (e) disclosing confidential information to protect the
physical welfare of a third party.
FOR THE USE OF UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX STUDENTS AND FACULTY ONLY.
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION, SALE, OR REPRINTING.
ANY AND ALL UNAUTHORIZED USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
Copyright © 2013 by SAGE Publications, Inc. Decoding The Ethics Code
96——PART II ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS
Steps for Avoiding Harm
Recognizing that such harms are not always avoidable or inappropriate,
Standard 3.04 requires psychologists to take reasonable steps to avoid harming
those with whom they interact in their professional and scientific roles and to
minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.
These steps often include complying with other standards in the Ethics Code,
such as the following:
Parents of a fourth-grade student wanted their child placed in a special education
class. After administering a complete battery of tests, the school psychologist’s
report indicated that the child’s responses did not meet established definitions for
learning disabilities and therefore did not meet the district’s criteria for such
placement.
A forensic psychologist was asked to evaluate the mental status of a criminal
defendant who was asserting volitional insanity as a defense against liability in
his trial for manslaughter. The psychologist conducted a thorough evaluation
based on definitions of volitional insanity and irresistible impulse established by
the profession of psychology and by law. While the psychologist’s report noted
that the inmate had some problems with impulse control and emotional instability,
it also noted that these deficiencies did not meet the legal definition of volitional
that would bar prosecution (see also Hot Topic “Human Rights and
Psychologists’ Involvement in Assessments Related to Death Penalty Cases” in
Chapter 4)Decoding The Ethics Code.
A psychologist conducted therapy over the Internet for clients/patients in a rural area
120 miles from her office. The psychologist had not developed a plan with each client/
patient for handling mental health crises. During a live video Internet session, a client
who had been struggling with bouts of depression showed the psychologist his gun
and said he was going outside to “blow his head off.” The psychologist did not have
the contact information of any local hospital, relative, or friend to send prompt emergency
assistance.
A psychologist with prescription privileges prescribed a Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)-approved neuroenhancer to help a young adult patient suffering from performance
anxiety associated with his responsibilities as quarterback for his college varsity
football team. The psychologist failed to discuss the importance of gradual reduction in
dosage, and she was dismayed to learn that her patient had been hospitalized after he
abruptly discontinued the medication when the football season ended (APA, 2011a;
McCrickerd, 2010; I. Singh & Kelleher, 2010).
Consistent with Standard 10.10a, Terminating Treatment, a psychologist treating a
client/patient with a diagnosis of borderline disorder terminated therapy when she
realized the client/patient had formed an iatrogenic attachment to her that was clearly
interfering with any benefits that could be derived from the treatment. However, her
failure to provide appropriate pretermination counseling and referrals contributed to
the client’s/patient’s emergency hospitalization for suicidal risk (Standard 10.10c,
Terminating Treatment)Decoding The Ethics Code.