The increasing globalization of our
world has created a state where it is incumbent upon psychologists
and relevant professionals to view psychological ethics from a
global perspective. Professionals may encounter new challenges in
the application of ethical principles when they work abroad or with
different cultures at home. Such challenges will likely require
knowledge, understanding, thinking, flexibility and creative
problem-solving on the part of the psychologist, as he or she
reframes what it means to behave professionally in the context of a
local culture. By contrast, there are ethical principles that
transcend specific cultures and can be applied globally . This is not to say, however, that ethical
behaviors and standards that affirm the value of local cultures can
also be applied globally to the discipline of psychology. Actually,
those who have tried to do this, have failed. For example, a Task
Force on Ethics was set up by the European
Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA) in 1990
with the aim of producing a common ethical code for psychologists
in Europe. As stated in Lindsay, Koene, Øvereeide, and Lang
(2008, p. 10), “It was evident at
the first meeting of the Task Force in Copenhagen 1990, however,
that this aspiration was unrealistic. A number of associations had
their own codes, but not all. These codes had much similarity
(Lindsay, 1992) but there were
also a number of significant differences, mainly with detail rather
than principle […]. Nevertheless, each had been devised by the
association in question to meet their specific requirements, and a
common code might not ensure this occurred. Furthermore, in many
cases (e.g., BPS) a vote of members was needed to change the code.
Hence, it was decided that a common code was too difficult to
achieve.” (Lindsay et al., 2008,
p. 10). Furthermore, a question arises not only as to whether or
not establishing international ethical behavioral
standards is feasible, but also as to whether it is
desirable and in the best interest of worldwide societies. Perhaps
what is needed is not a common code of ethics that includes
enforceable standards of behavior, but a better understanding of
the differences in the local and regional application of ethical
principles across cultures. Cultures have much to learn from each
other.
The current chapter elucidates the role
of professional ethics in the discipline of psychology through a
review of the emergence and development of ethics documents in
psychology, and an examination of the contribution and significance
of a universalist approach to ethics in a globalizing world. The
chapter closes with a discussion on the gradual evolution and
future of ethics in professional psychology from a global
perspective.
Deontology: Are Ethics Universalist, Cultural or Personal?
The term “deontology ” refers to the study of ethics that
focus on the inherent morality of a behavior (Conway &
Gawronski, 2013). The term
“ethics” is derived from the Greek word ethikos which itself is derived from
the Greek word ethos,
meaning custom or character. It refers to a system of moral
principles and values related to human conduct that defines what is
morally right or wrong, i.e., what is good and bad behavior. In
ethics, the term “ethical principle ” refers to an overarching generic and
widely held moral belief of what is “right” in interactions between
human being and with the environment (Gauthier & Pettifor,
2012). Ethical principles are
deeply rooted in our view of the purpose and meaning of life or
existence in general.
Professional
ethics can be conceptualized as universalist, cultural or
personal (Conway & Gawronski, 2013; Falicov, 2014). A universalist perspective asserts that a
relationship can exist between the global and local cultures and
allow for ethical principles to transcend any one individual
culture. More specifically, the values inherent in a code of ethics
can be thoughtfully adapted and applied on a global scale. The
universalist approach is similar to moral
absolutism in that certain behaviors are predetermined to be either
ethical or unethical based on a set of expectations determined by a
profession. By contrast, a cultural perspective postulates that a
universal approach subverts local cultures’ norms, customs,
beliefs, laws and values at the expense of the more dominant
culture, which is responsible for the dissemination of a common
code of ethics. The subversion of the local culture ultimately
results in a type of cultural imperialism, and an appearance of
globalism or universality which may be
artificial. Finally, a personal perspective affords the individual
the liberty to govern and determine his or her actions, judgements,
and attitudes to be morally right or wrong. Professional
psychological ethics presumes a common perspective and a
deontological ethical position. Thus, a code of ethics delineates a
minimal set of expectations that are required of an individual to
join a profession or, more generally speaking, an association or an
institution.
Professional Ethics and a Universalist Perspective
The importance of a code of ethics or a code of conduct lies in the
document’s delineation of ethical principles , appropriate behaviors, and its ability to
establish psychology as a profession. Professional psychological
codes of ethics and codes of conduct guide psychologists’
behaviors. Such documents are intended to support psychologists as
they meet the public responsibilities of the profession.
Professional codes of ethics further serve as an accountability
framework to adjudicate complaints from the public. Ensconced
within a professional code of ethics or a code of conduct is a
minimal set of expectations that align with the norms and values of
a particular culture, and are judged to be morally right. As such,
psychologists are expected to act in congruence with the code of
ethics or the code of conduct across time, context and clients. A
corollary of this expectation is that psychologists may be expected
to challenge the legal system when their legal obligations threaten
the principles ensconced in the code of ethics or the code of
conduct. It is expected that the code of ethics or the code of
conduct supersedes a nation’s laws when the risks associated with
acting in accordance with the legal system outweighs the benefits
to the client. Thus, it is the intention of a society’s code of
ethics or a code of conduct to ensure that psychologists exercise good moral judgment in the application
of the ethical guiding principles or behavioral standards and that
the code will pervade all psychologists’ professional
activities.
Ethics Documents in Psychology: Emergence and Development
Emergence
Codes that decree desired professional
and societal behaviors have existed since Antiquity (e.g.,
Code of Hammurabi,
Hippocratic Oath). Prior to
World War II, however, ethics codes for psychologists did not
exist. The convergence of several factors following the war
contributed to the development of codes of ethics for
psychologists. In 1945–1946, for example, the Nuremberg Trials
disclosed to the world the extent of torture carried out by medical
professionals in Nazi Germany. As a result, the public demanded
greater professional scrutiny and stricter standards (Sinclair,
Simon, & Pettifor, 1996), and
the medical profession developed the Nuremberg Code of Ethics
in Medical Research (1947). This code had tremendous influence on the
subsequent development of professional codes of ethics. The
Nuremberg Code , in combination with the
1948 World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Geneva (WMA,
1948), and the WMA Declaration of Helsinki (WMA,
1964) formed the foundation for
modern psychological research ethics in many countries in Europe
and North America.
In 1945, the first legislation in the
world for the regulation of psychological practice for the purpose
of protecting the public from harm was passed in the state of
Connecticut in the United States (Pettifor, Estay, & Paquet,
2002). The remaining American
states, and provincial/territorial jurisdictions in Canada all
followed suit. With legislated regulation, it also became essential
to develop codes of ethics and the means to handle disciplinary
complaints. In 1948, the American Psychological Association
(APA) began working on the first code of
ethics for psychologists, again to protect the public from harm. In
the development of its first code of ethics, the APA depended
heavily on continued consultation with its members on the kinds of
ethical dilemmas that they encountered in practice. A final draft
was adopted by APA in 1952 and published in 1953 (APA,
1953; Fisher, 2003). Since then, the code has been revised
nine times. The latest revision was adopted by the APA Council of
Representatives in 2002 (APA, 2002a, 2002b).
Over the years, the APA Ethics Code has been used as model for the
development of codes in other psychology jurisdictions, albeit with
modifications to meet local needs.
Since the development of the first
APA Ethics Code, more than 70 national
codes of ethics have been developed globally (see
http://psychology-resources.org/explore-psychology/standards/ethics/codes-of-ethics-of-national-psychology-organisations/
for a list), with the majority being developed in the past
quarter-century. In addition, a number of psychological
organizations have revised their codes. An examination of these
codes reveals that some codes tend to be more prescriptive in
nature and define in behavioral terms what one must or must not do as a psychologist without
linking standards to specific ethical principles or values while
other codes tend to be more aspirational in nature, and link
standards to overarching principles and values. To reflect those
differences, the term “codes of conduct” is used to refer to the
former and the term “codes of ethics” is used to refer to the
latter. These two terms are often mistakenly used interchangeably.
They are, in fact, two unique documents. Codes
of conduct are used primarily to govern behavior, while
codes of ethics are used primarily to govern ethical-decision
making; codes of conduct are enforceable, while aspirational
ethical principles without further elaboration are not. Some codes
of ethics such as the Canadian
Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological
Association, 2000) explicitly
require psychologists to engage in an ethical decision-making
process, but they are the exceptions.
National
codes that decree desired professional behaviors for
psychologists are designed to provide ethical guidance to
psychologists in all of their professional activities. While some
of them emphasize the need to respect cultural differences and
address cultural issues, none of them are designed to provide
explicit ethical guidance to psychologists providing interventions
or conducting research in other cultures. Since the emergence of
national codes, ethics documents intended to be applied across
national boundaries have been developed to meet new needs.
Regional Development
In the history of ethics documents for
psychologists, the consideration of psychological ethics from a
regional perspective is relatively new. In 1988, the Nordic
countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) were
among the first psychology regions to
adopt a common code of ethics (Aanonsen, 2003). In 1996 and 1997, they revised this code
to be consistent with the Meta-Code of Ethics of the European
Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA, formerly
EFPPA—European Federation of Professional Psychologists’
Associations (EFPPA, 1995). The
revised version was adopted in 1998. Entitled Etiske Prinsipper for Nordiske
Psykologer [In English: Ethical Principles for Nordic
psychologists] (1998), it is
organized around four main ethical
principles : (a) respect for individual rights and dignity,
(b) professional competence, (c) professional and scientific
responsibilities, and (d) professional integrity. All the members
of the Nordic psychological associations are obliged to follow
these principles in their professional practice. The individual
country associations or governments are responsible for the
regulatory systems that include the investigation and adjudication
of disciplinary complaints.
The development of the EFPA Meta-Code of
Ethics (EFPPA, 1995,
2005) is also of great interest
from a global perspective because it provides an example of how a
regional federation of psychologists’ associations with members from several different countries can
promote common high standards for ethical practice (Lindsay et al.,
2008). An EFPA Task Force on
Ethics had been set up in 1990 with the aim of producing a common
ethical code for psychologists in Europe. However, it was evident
at the first meeting of the Task Force that this aspiration was
unrealistic. Instead, the Task Force devised a meta-code that set
out what each member association should address in their codes of
ethics, but left it to the member associations to produce their own
specific codes. Since EFPA adopted the Meta-Code of Ethics in 1995, national
associations with existing codes have revised their codes of ethics
as needed to be consistent with the Meta-Code. European Psychologists’
associations without codes or in the process of developing a code
have used or are using the Meta-Code as a template. The template
comprises four ethical principles: (a) respect for a person’s
rights and dignity, (b) competence, (c) responsibility, and (d)
integrity.
Another regional initiative was led by
the Association of States and Provincial
Psychology Boards (ASPPB) , which represents 63 regulatory
bodies of psychology in the United States and Canada. It provides
services to its member bodies at the state, provincial and
territorial levels in the two countries. The ASPPB Code of
Conduct was first approved by the Board of Directors
of ASPPB in 1990 and revised in 2005
(ASPPB, 2005). It has no
freestanding regulatory force in itself. Rather, it serves as
model, with each jurisdiction deciding how to use it. As the ASSPP
ethics document is a code of conduct, the rules contained in the
Code are essentially unambiguous concerning what behavior in the
professional relationship functions is acceptable and what is
not.
Another important regional initiative was the Protocolo de Acuerdo Marco de Principios
Éticos para el Ejercicio Profesional de los Psicólogos en el
Mercosur y Paises Asociados [In English: Protocol of the
Framework Agreement of Ethical Principles for the Professional
Practice of Psychology in the Mercosur and Associated Countries]
(1997), which was developed by the
Comité Coordinador de Psicólogos del Mercosur y Paises Asociados
[In English: Coordinating Committee of Psychologists of the
Mercosur and Associated Countries] and endorsed in 1997 by six
southeast countries of South America that had formed in 1991 a
common market called “Mercado Común del Sur” or “Mercosur”.
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay were full members, while
Chile and Bolivia served as associated countries. The document
reflects how psychologists from different countries without a
regional association were able to develop an ethical framework for
the professional practice of psychology. The framework includes
five “general” ethical principles: (a) respect for people’s rights
and dignity, (b) professional competence, (c) professional and
scientific commitment, (d) integrity, and (e) social
responsibility. The Coordinating Committee of Psychologists is
responsible to implement the Protocol. According to Ferrero
(2008), the endorsement of common
ethical principles has strengthened commitment for ethical behavior in the psychology community
and helped Mercosur members and associated countries to develop
their own ethics codes.
International Development
The interest of international
psychology organizations to guide the ethical conduct of
psychologists is not new. For example, in 1976, the General
Assembly of the International Union of Psychological Science
adopted a statement that requested each national member to enact a
code of ethics to enable action against any member guilty of abuses
against the rights of human beings (International Union of
Psychological Science, 1976).
However, the development of ethics documents by international
psychology organizations is quite recent.
Four international psychology
organizations have developed an ethics code or ethical standards
explicitly for their own members. The International School
Psychology Association (ISPA) was among the
first, when it adopted a code of ethics for its members in 1990
(Oakland, Goldman, & Bischoff, 1997). In 2009, the ISAP undertook a revision of
its code. The revised version was approved by the ISPA General
Assembly in 2011 (ISPA, 2011). The
ISPA code has an introduction followed by two separate sections:
one on ethical principles and the other on professional standards . The ISAP expects school
psychologists to exemplify the following six ethical principles
articulated in the code: (a) beneficence and nonmalefience, (b)
competence, (c) fidelity and responsibility, (d) integrity, (e)
respect for people’s rights and dignity, and (f) social justice. It
is acknowledged in the introduction of the code that “the
translation
and manifestation of ethical principles
and standards important to this code may vary somewhat between
countries as a reflection of each country’s norms, values,
traditions, and laws.”
The International Society of Sport
Psychology (ISSP) developed
standards to ensure respect for the dignity and welfare of
individuals, athletes, professionals, volunteers, administrators,
teams, and the public in the provision of services by its members
during the first half of the 1990s (ISSP, n.d.). These standards are grouped according to
seven “general principles”: (a) competence, (b) consent and
confidentiality, (c) integrity, (d) personal conduct, (e)
professional and scientific responsibility, (f) research ethics,
and (g) social responsibility. The standards are expressed so that
they can be applied to sport psychologists engaged in varied roles
(Henschen, Ripoll, Hackfort, & Mohan, 1995). The code states clearly that the
application of the ethical standards may vary depending upon the
context (e.g., country and organization).
The International Association of
Marriage and Family Counselors (IAMFC) adopted ethical
standards for practice by its members in 2002. Since then, those
standards have been revised twice. The latest revision was approved
by the IAMFC Board in 2010 (Hendricks, Bradley, Southern, Oliver,
& Birdsall, 2011). The 2010
ethical code is divided into nine sections: (a) the counseling
relationship and client well-being, (b) confidentiality and
privacy, (c) competence and professional responsibilities, (d)
collaboration and professional relationships, (e) assessment and
evaluation, (f) counselor education and supervision, (g) research
and publications, and (h) ethical decision making and resolution,
and (i) diversity. Each of the nine sections includes aspirations
and principles
. Members are required not to impose
personal values on the families with whom they work, to become
multiculturally competent, and to use indigenous healing practices
when appropriate.
The International Society for Coaching
Psychology (ISCP) adopted its
first code of ethics in 2011 (ISCP, 2011). This code sets out the core values and
guiding principles to inform the professional practice of coaching
psychologists. It is based on six ethical principles called the “6
R’s”: (a) rights of individuals (rights to confidentiality,
privacy, freedom of self-determination), (b) respect for the rights
and dignity of all human beings, (c) recognition of standards and
limits of competence, (d) relationships with others (good and based
on trust), (e) representation (accurate and honest), and (f)
responsibility (i.e., professional responsibilities to the coaches,
the stakeholders, the society, general public, and to the
profession of coaching psychology). These principles are said to be
“interrelated”.
Recognizing Fundamental Ethical Principles Through a Universal Declaration
Arguably, the single most important
international development in the history
of psychological ethics is the unanimous adoption of the
Universal Declaration of Ethical
Principles for Psychologists (herein referred to as the
Universal Declaration) by the General Assembly of the International
Union of Psychological Science and the Board of Directors of the
International Association of Applied Psychology in 2008 (Ferrero
& Gauthier, 2009; Gauthier,
2008a, 2008b, 2009).
This adoption resulted from 6 years of extensive research, broad
international consultation, and numerous revisions in response to
feedback and suggestions from the international psychology
community. The development of the Universal Declaration is
noteworthy as it reflects a successful process that attained
maximum generalizability and acceptance. The most important
components of that strategy involved inclusiveness, careful
research, broad consultation, and respect for cultural
diversity.
The Universal Declaration was
developed by an international Ad Hoc Joint
Committee working under the auspices of the International
Union of Psychological Science and the International Association of
Applied Psychology, chaired by Janel Gauthier (Canada). The
Committee included distinguished scientists and practitioners in
psychology from China, Colombia, Finland, Germany, Iran, New
Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, United States, Yemen, and
Zimbabwe. While many regions and cultures of the world were
represented on the Committee, no attempt was made to have
representation from all countries because a smaller group appeared
more effective than a larger group for drafting a document.
However, national organizations from over 80 different countries
having membership in the International Union of Psychological
Science had the opportunity to review and discuss reports and
drafts of the Universal Declaration.
Research results helped to identify
the principles and values that would be considered for the
framework to be used to draft the Universal Declaration. First,
comparisons were made among existing codes of ethics for
psychologists from around the world to identify commonalities in
ethical principles and values (Gauthier, 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005). Second, comparisons across disciplines,
domains and throughout history were made to assess the
“universality” of the ethical principles used most often to develop
codes of ethics in psychology. For example, codes of ethics in
other disciplines (e.g., sports, martial arts) were examined to
identify the ethical principles and values espoused by other
disciplines and communities (Gauthier, 2005); internationally accepted documents such
as the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (United Nations, 1948) were reviewed to delineate their
underlying moral imperatives (Gauthier, 2003, 2004);
ancient historical documents from Babylon, China, Egypt, India,
Japan, Persia, and so on were explored to identify the roots of
modern-day ethical principles and values (Gauthier, 2006; Sinclair, 2005a, 2005b,
2005c).
The research-based
framework and drafts of the document were presented for review and
discussion at many international conferences and in many
parts of the world, and formed the basis of both focus groups and
symposia at international conferences. Further information
regarding its development (e.g., background papers, progress
reports and discussions on important issues) is available from the
International Union of Psychological Science website
(http://www.iupsys.org/ethics/univdecl2008.html).
While the methodology used to
establish the Universal Declaration was unique and had many
strengths, the discipline must be alert to the possibility of
unintentional cultural bias. For example, the leadership for
developing the document came largely from Western societies.
Furthermore, many non-Western countries have used North American
models to develop their own codes of ethics. Finally, English is
the language for international discourse. However, it is not a
universal language and the meaning of words varies across cultures.
Actually, one of the biggest lessons learned in developing the
Universal Declaration was that words, or the translation of English
words used in some cultures, can have unanticipated meanings in
other cultures (Gauthier et al., 2010; Gauthier & Pettifor, 2011, 2012).
For example, the word “others” may have negative connotations
rather than being neutral. Differences in meaning across cultures
are not always immediately visible and resolutions to differences
is not always obvious. Hopefully,
dialogue, research, and practice will continue to help to refine
universal ethical principles.
Structure and Objectives of the Universal Declaration
The Universal Declaration (2008) includes
a preamble followed by four sections, each relating to a different
ethical principle: (a) respect for the dignity of persons and
peoples, (b) competent caring for the well-being of persons and
peoples, (c) integrity, and (d) professional and scientific
responsibilities to society. Each section includes a statement
defining the ethical principle and a list of the fundamental values
that embody that principle. By accepting the principle, one also
accepts the values that are inherent to that principle.
The four enumerated ethical principles
and values contained in the Universal Declaration are presented in
Table 1. This
ordering of the principles from I to IV is meant to facilitate
reference to various parts of the content of the Universal
Declaration. Although there is no hierarchy involved in the
numbering of the Principles, there is a relationship among them
(Gauthier & Pettifor, 2012).
For example, out of respect, psychologists treat others fairly and
with compassion, provide competent care, practice with integrity
and seek the collective good of society. Therefore, in the
structure chosen for the Universal
Declaration, no principle has priority over another, since all are
manifestations of respect.
This is why Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples
(Principle I) is described as “the most fundamental and universally
found ethical principle across geographical and cultural
boundaries, and across professional disciplines.”
Table
1
Ethical principles and related values
contained in the universal declaration of ethical principles for
psychologists.
|
Principle I
Respect
for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples
|
Principle II
Competent
Caring for the Well-Being of Persons and Peoples
|
Principle III
Integrity
|
Principle IV
Professional and Scientific Responsibility to
Society
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Values
• Respect for dignity and worthiness of all
human beings
• Non-discrimination
• Informed consent
• Freedom of consent
• Privacy
• Protection of confidentiality
• Fair treatment/due process
|
Values
• Caring for health and well-being
• Maximize benefits
• Minimize harm
• Offset/correct harm
• Competence
• Self-knowledge
|
Values
• Accuracy/honesty
• Maximizing impartiality
• Minimizing biases
• Straightforwardness/openness
• Avoidance of incomplete disclosure
• Avoidance of conflict of interest
|
Values
• Development of knowledge
• Use of knowledge for benefits of
society
• Avoid misuse of knowledge
• Promotion of ethical awareness and
sensitivity
• Promotion of highest ethical ideals
• Ethical responsibilities to society
|
The Universal Declaration provides a
universal moral framework and generic set of ethical principles to
guide psychologists worldwide in meeting the ethical challenges of
rapid globalization, a set of principles that encompasses all their
scientific and professional activities as psychologists in a manner
that also recognizes and may be used to address culture specific
interpretations (Gauthier & Pettifor, 2012). The objectives of the Universal
Declaration are defined in the second paragraph of the Preamble,
which states:
“The objectives of the Universal Declaration are to provide a moral framework and generic set of ethical principles for psychology organizations worldwide: (a) to evaluate the ethical and moral relevance of their codes of ethics; (b) to use as a template to guide the development or evolution of their codes of ethics; (c) to encourage global thinking about ethics, while also encouraging action that is sensitive and responsive to local needs and values; and (d) to speak with a collective voice on matters of ethical concern.”
The Universal Declaration
(2008) is not a global code of
ethics or code of conduct, and that it is not intended to act as a
code (Gauthier & Pettifor,
2011, 2012). However, it was designed to provide a
moral framework of universally acceptable ethical principles based
on human values across cultures and, accordingly, the values
ensconced in the Universal Declaration are expected to be included
in any psychological code of ethics or code of conduct (Gauthier et
al., 2010).
It is also important to note that the
Universal Declaration does not promulgate that certain behaviors
are proscribed or compulsory for the ethical practice of
psychology, as specific behaviors or rules that are indicative of
ethical practice are frequently value-laden and culturally
specific. Any guide to ethical behaviors contending to be
“universal” could potentially defy some cultures’ norms, customs,
beliefs, laws and policies. Indeed, it is clearly stated that the
“Application of the principles and values to the development of
specific standards of conduct will vary across cultures, and must
occur locally or regionally in order to ensure their relevance to
local or regional cultures, customs, beliefs, and laws.” (Universal
Declaration, 2008, page 1,
paragraph 4). This is why the Universal Declaration articulates
principles and related values that are general and aspirational
rather than specific and prescriptive.
Significance of the Universal Declaration
Psychologists in the twenty-first
century are faced with expansion of their scope of practice and
competency in order to work multi-culturally within their own
country and culture, as well as to work internationally or
globally. The Universal Declaration (2008) provides a common moral
framework to guide and inspire psychologists toward the
highest ethical ideals, as it states:
“Psychologists recognize that they carry out their activities within a larger social context. They recognize that the lives and identities of human beings both individually and collectively are connected across generations, and that there is a reciprocal relationship between human beings and their natural and social environments. Psychologists are committed to placing the welfare of society and its members above the self-interest of the discipline and its members. They recognize that adherence to ethical principles in the context of their work contributes to a stable society that enhances the quality of life for all human beings.”
While the Universal Declaration cannot
be enforced, it has the potential to influence the development of
local and global ethics. The mechanism whereby it can exercise this
influence is described in the last paragraph of the Universal
Declaration’s Preamble, which reads:
“The significance of the Universal Declaration depends on its recognition and promotion by psychology organizations at national, regional and international levels. Every psychology organization is encouraged to keep this Declaration in mind and, through teaching, education, and other measures to promote respect for, and observance of, the Declaration’s principles and related values in the various activities of its members.”
This mechanism is the same as the one
whereby the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) has influenced the worldwide development
of laws, rules and regulations since it was adopted by the United
Nations in 1948. Strictly speaking, the UDHR is not a legally
binding document and, therefore, cannot be enforced. That said, the
UDHR has acquired the status of “customary international law”
because most states have come to treat it over the years as though
it were. It has been a powerful instrument for the promotion and
implementation of inalienable rights for all people, and it has
left an abiding legacy for humankind.
Since the adoption of the Universal
Declaration, there have been several developments, some of which
are highlighted here. A major development has been the endorsement,
ratification or adoption of the Universal Declaration by several
psychology organizations. In 2008, for example, it was adopted by
the Psychological Society of South Africa, and ratified by the
Canadian Psychological Association. It was also adopted in 2008 by
the Interamerican Society of Psychology, which took the extra step
in 2009 to amend its Constitution to require from its membership
compliance with the Universal Declaration. The International
Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology adopted the Universal
Declaration in 2010.
A “culture-sensitive” model has been developed to
assist psychologists to apply the Universal Declaration to creating
or reviewing a code of ethics (Gauthier, Pettifor, & Ferrero,
2010). The first step that is
recommended is to consider the reasons to create a code of ethics
(e.g., for whom is it intended, why is it needed, how will it be
used, are unique or cultural aspects to be addressed?). The second
step is to consider what each of the four ethical principles means
within the given culture and context. The third step is to define
culture-specific standards or behaviors that are relevant to local
objectives and also reflect proposed universal ethical principles.
Throughout the process, it is strongly encouraged to consult those
individuals whose work will be most affected by the code of ethics,
as their input is invaluable to create a relevant document, and
their support is invaluable in accepting the ultimate code of
ethics.
National psychology
organizations use the Universal Declaration (2008) to develop or revise codes of ethics. For
example, the College of Psychologists of Guatemala used it to
develop its very first code of ethics in 2008–2010 (Colegio de
Psicológos de Guatemala, 2011).
Actually, Guatemala was the first country in the world to use the
Universal Declaration as a template to create an ethical code and
the model proposed by Gauthier et al. (2010) as a guide to do so. The Australian Psychological Society used it to revise
its code of ethics from 2005 to 2007 when the document was still in
development. The International School Psychology
Association consulted the Universal Declaration as part of
revising its existing code in 2009–2011, and used it to inform the
revision process (ISPA, 2011). It
is presently used by the Canadian Psychological Association to
review the Canadian Code of Ethics for
Psychologists . An example of the influence of the
Universal Declaration on the revised version of the Canadian Code can be found in the inclusion of the
concept of “peoples” in the wording of one the first ethical
principle presented in the Code which was changed from “Respect for
the Dignity of Persons” to “Respect for the Dignity of Persons and
Peoples” to reflect the importance of balancing respect for the
individual versus the communal or collective.
Researchers and practitioners have
used the Universal Declaration as a framework to discuss ethical
issues from an international perspective and to offer
recommendations of global value. In a recent article by Fitzgerald,
Hunter, Hadjistavropoulos, and Koocher (2010), the authors examine ethical issues
relating to the growing practice of internet-based psychotherapy
through the lens of the Universal Declaration. On the basis of
their review and discussion, they make recommendations intended to
guide mental health practitioners who are considering involvement
in the provision of internet-based services. Further, Psychologists
around the world are faced daily with ethical questions and
dilemmas. Sinclair (2012) has
demonstrated how the Universal Declaration can be used as a
resource in ethical decision making .
Finally, the Universal Declaration has been the focus of book
chapters in international handbooks (e.g., Gauthier & Pettifor,
2011, 2012) and a book chapter on internationalizing
the professional ethics curriculum in the United States has
dedicated several pages to the Universal Declaration (Leach &
Gauthier, 2012). In summary,
although the Universal Declaration (2008) is still new, it holds promise for
extending psychological practice globally in ways that maintain the
highest level of ethical practice, and that incorporates advocacy
to eliminate misuse and abuse.
Future Global Directions of Ethics
This overview of ethics from a global
perspective indicates that ethics documents have evolved
considerably since the publication of the first code of ethics in
psychology in 1953. They are becoming more international and more
global. The Universal Declaration represents the latest expression
of this movement and the largest international effort of
psychologists to establish an explicit moral framework of ethical
principles that are based on shared human values across
cultures.
Another major development in ethics is
the shifting emphasis from defining specific behaviors or standards
as acceptable or not, to linking behaviors to an explicit moral
framework. These changes were first observed in national codes of ethics in the late 1980s
(Gauthier & Pettifor, 2011).
While the value of combining statements of aspirational principles
with general guidelines and enforceable standards for ethical
behavior was being questioned in the United States (American
Psychological Association, 1992,
2002a, 2002b), it was embraced in countries such as
Canada (Canadian Psychological Association, 1986, 1991,
2000), Ireland (Psychological
Society of Ireland, 1999), New
Zealand (New Zealand Psychological Society, 2002), and Mexico (Sociedad Mexicana de
Psicología, 2002, 2007). Universal principles and shared values
are a prerequisite to link behavior to ethical principles
internationally and globally. The Universal Declaration has built
on the growing practice of defining a moral or philosophical
foundation of universally shared principles, and has also been
embraced in regional ethics documents (e.g., EFPA, 1995, 2005).
Language, meanings and themes evolve.
For example, the definitions provided by the Canadian Code of Ethics
for Psychologists on Respect for the Dignity of
Persons since 1986 (CPA, 2000) and
by the APA Ethics Code on Respect for
People’s Rights and Dignity since 1992 (APA, 2002a, 2002b) are
similar in content, as they emphasize moral rights. Both codes also
emphasize individual rights and well-being more than the collective
good, which is common in Western societies. In the Universal
Declaration, respect is described as “the
most fundamental and universally found ethical principle” and is
inclusive of non-Western and aboriginal beliefs:
All human beings, as well as being individuals, are interdependent social beings that are born into, live in, and are a part of the history and ongoing evolution of their peoples. The different cultures, ethnicities, religions, histories, social structures and other such characteristics of peoples are integral to the identity of their members and give meaning to their lives. The continuity of peoples and cultures over time connects the peoples of today with the peoples of past generations and the need to nurture future generations. As such, respect for the dignity of persons includes moral consideration of and respect for the dignity of peoples.
The meaning of language will continue
to be a challenge to the global acceptance and implementation of
ethical principles shared across cultures. One of the lessons
learned in working on the Universal Declaration was the meaning of
language: differences in meaning across cultures are not always
immediately visible and how to cope with those differences is not
always obvious (Gauthier et al., 2010). The importance of the meaning of language
in a global society that lacks a global language cannot be
overemphasized.
The current chapter also reveals that
ethics documents tend to reflect contemporary concerns and that
they evolve with changing world conditions. A huge concern after
World War II was the discovery of the atrocities committed in Nazi
Germany by qualified professionals, and the necessity to protect
citizens from harm. The Nuremberg War Crime
Trials led to new ethics standards to protect research
participants from inhumane treatment. The United Nations
(1948) adopted the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights outlining for nations the rights and
entitlements of all persons. In 1948, the APA began working on the
development of the first code of ethics for psychologists that was
adopted on a trial basis in 1952.
The Universal Declaration
(2008) was developed in response
to the rapid globalization of the world. We now live in a world
where isolation is impossible, traditional national borders are
rapidly fading, and many countries are increasingly becoming
multicultural. On the one hand, technology has opened the
possibilities for global peace and harmony, while on the other
hand, it has increased the potential for universal suffering and
destruction. The Universal Declaration was developed at a time
when, for the sake of the future of our world, global consensus on
what constitutes “good” was urgently needed.
The Universal Declaration
(2008) reflects a concern that
psychologists in a rapidly globalizing world need ethical guidelines that address global issues and
can encompass working cooperatively across worldviews in ways that
were not included in their professional training, their practice
standards, their codes of ethics, or their past experiences. The
larger context is the desire that the rapid globalization of life
on the planet contributes to a better life for persons and peoples
generally rather than contributes to increased suffering. While
technology makes possible “one world”, the needs of people to
maintain their cultural identities demand respect and, in addition,
negate rules and prescriptions imposed from the outside on how they
should conduct their lives. In this context, guidance from a moral
framework that approaches universality leaves room for local
initiative in defining culture-specific interpretations. In this
respect, the Universal Declaration contributes to the process of
recognizing what all peoples have in common and what is
culture-specific.
References
Aanonsen, A. (2003). EFPA
Metacode on ethics and the Nordic Code. In J. B. Overmier & J.
A. Overmier (Eds.), Psychology:
IUPsyS global resource [Computer software] (4th ed.). Hove,
UK: Psychology Press.
American Psychological
Association. (1953). Ethical
standards of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological
Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code
of conduct. American
Psychologist, 47,
1597–1611.CrossRef
American Psychological
Association. (2002a). Ethical principles of psychologists and code
of conduct. American
Psychologist, 57,
1060–1073.CrossRef
American Psychological
Association. (2002b). Guidelines
for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic, and
culturally diverse populations. Washington, DC:
Author.
Association of States and
Provincial Boards of Psychology. (2005). Code of conduct. Retrieved from
http://www.asppb.org/publications/model/conduct.aspx
Canadian Psychological
Association. (1986). Canadian code
of ethics for psychologists. Ottawa, ON: Author.
Canadian Psychological
Association. (1991). Canadian code
of ethics for psychologists (2nd ed.). Ottawa, ON:
Author.
Canadian Psychological
Association. (2000). Canadian code
of ethics for psychologists (3rd ed.). Ottawa, ON:
Author.
Conway, P., & Gawronski,
B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral
decision making: A process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 104(2),
216–235. doi:10.1037/a0031021.CrossRefPubMed
Colegio de Psicológos de
Guatemala. (2011). Código de
Ética [Code of Ethics]. Ciudad de Guatemala: Servisa
Litografía.
European Federation of
Professional Psychologists’ Associations. (1995). Meta-code of ethics. Brussels:
Author.
European Federation of
Psychologists’ Associations. (2005). Meta-code of ethics (2nd ed.).
Brussels: Author.
Etiske Prinsipper for Nordiske
Psykologer [Ethical principles for Nordic psychologists].
(1998). Retrieved from
http://www.psykologforeningen.no/medlem/etikk/etiske-prinsipper-for-nordiske-psykologer
Falicov, C. J. (2014).
Psychotherapy and supervision as cultural encounters: The MECA
framework. In C. A. Falender, E. P. Shafransky, & C. J.
Falicove (Eds.), Multiculturalism
and diversity in clinical supervision: A competency-based
approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Ferrero, A. (2008, July).
South American perspectives on ethical principles for
psychologists. In J. Gauthier (Chair), International perspectives on the newly
revised draft of the universal declaration of ethical principles
for psychologists. Symposium conducted at the 29th
International Congress of Psychology in Berlin, Germany.
Ferrero, A., & Gauthier,
J. (2009, March). Desarrollo y adopción de la Declaración Universal
de principios Éticos para Psicólogas y Psicólogos [The development
and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for
Psychologists]. Boletín de la SIP,
90, 8–10. Retrieved from
http://issuu.com/sipsych/docs/sip_newsletter_v90_march_2009
Fisher, C. (2003).
Decoding the ethics code: A
practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fitzgerald, T. D., Hunter,
P. V., Hadjistavropoulos, T., & Koocher, G. P. (2010). Ethical
and legal considerations for internet-based psychotherapy.
Cognitive Behavior Therapy,
34, 1–15.CrossRef
Gauthier, J. (2002, July).
Ethics and human rights: Toward a universal declaration of ethical
principles for psychologists. In J. L. Pettifor (Chair),
Professional codes of ethics
across national boundaries: Seeking common grounds.
Symposium conducted at the 25th International Congress of Applied
Psychology, Singapore.
Gauthier, J. (2003). Toward
a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. In
J. B. Overmier & J. A. Overmier (Eds.), Psychology: IUPsyS Global Resource
[Computer software] (4th ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Gauthier, J. (2004). Toward
a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists.
International Association of
Applied Psychology/Newsletter, 16(4), 10–24.
Gauthier, J. (2005). Toward
a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists: A
progress report. In M. J. Stevens & D. Wedding (Eds.),
Psychology: IUPsyS global
resource [Computer software] (6th ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology
Press.
Gauthier, J. (2006). Onward
toward a universal declaration of ethical principles for
psychologists: Draft and progress report. In M. J. Stevens & D.
Wedding (Eds.), Psychology: IUPsyS
global resource [Computer software] (7th ed.). Hove, UK:
Psychology Press.
Gauthier, J. (2008a). IAAP
adopts the universal declaration of ethical principles for
psychologists. The IAAP Bulletin:
The International Association of Applied Psychology,
20(4), 110–112.
Gauthier, J. (2008b). The
universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists
presented at the United Nations DPI/NGO conference in Paris.
Psychology International,
19(4), n.d. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/international/pi/2008/10/gauthier.aspx
Gauthier, J. (2009). Ethical
principles and human rights: Building a better world globally.
Counselling Psychology
Quarterly, 22,
25–32.CrossRef
Gauthier, J., &
Pettifor, J. (2011). The evolution of ethics in psychology: Going
international and global. In P. R. Martin, F. Cheung, M. Kyrios, L.
Littlefield, M. Knowles, B. Overmier, & J. M. Prieto (Eds.),
The IAAP handbook of applied
psychology (pp. 700–714). Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Publishing.CrossRef
Gauthier, J., &
Pettifor, J. (2012). The tale of two universal declarations: Ethics
and human rights. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Lindsay, A.
Ferrero, & Y. Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international
psychological ethics (pp. 113–133). London: Oxford
Press.
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), 1–18. doi:10.1080/10508421003798885.
Hendricks, B. E., Bradley,
L. J., Southern, S., Oliver, M., & Birdsall, B. (2011). Ethical
code for the International Association of Marriage and Family
Counselors. The Family
Journal, 19,
217–224.CrossRef
Henschen, K., Ripoll, H.,
Hackfort, D., & Mohan, J. (1995). Ethical principles of the
International Society of Sport Psychology (ISSP). International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 26,
588–591.
International School
Psychology Association. (2011). Code of ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.ispaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/The_ISPA_Code_of_Ethics_2011.pdf
International Society for
Coaching Psychology. (2011). Code
of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.isfcp.net/ethics.htm
International Society of
Sport Psychology. (n.d.). Ethical
principles of the International Society of Sport Psychology.
Retrieved from http://www.issponline.org/p_codeofethics.asp?ms=3
International Union of
Psychological Science. (1976). Statement by the International Union of
Psychological Science. Retrieved from
http://www.iupsys.net/dotAsset/4a729da4-4609-4425-987a-ddc40d75a6b6.pdf
Leach, M. M., &
Gauthier, J. (2012). Internationalizing the professional ethics
curriculum. In F. T. L. Leong, W. E. Pickren, M. M. Leach, & A.
J. Marsella (Eds.), Internationalizing the psychology curriculum
in the United States: Meeting the challenges of
globalization (pp. 29–50). New York, NY: Springer.
Lindsay, G. (1992).
Educational psychologists and Europe. In S. Wolfendale, T. Bryans,
M. Fox, A. Labram, & A. Sigston (Eds.), The profession and practice of educational
psychology (pp. 185–197). London: Cassell.
Lindsay, G., Koene, C.,
Øvreeide, H., & Lang, F. (2008). Ethics for European psychologists.
Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
New Zealand Psychological
Society. (2002). Code of ethics
for psychologists working in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
Wellington: Author.
Nuremberg Code. (1947).
Trials of war criminals before the
Nuremberg military tribunals under Control Council Law No.
10 (vol. 2, pp. 181–182). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Oakland, T., Goldman, S.,
& Bischoff, H. (1997). Code of ethics of the International
School Psychology Association. School Psychology International,
18, 291–298.CrossRef
Pettifor, J. L., Estay, I.,
& Paquet, S. (2002). Preferred strategies for learning ethics
in the practice of a discipline. Canadian Psychology, 42, 260–269.CrossRef
Protocolo de Acuerdo Marco de Principios
Éticos para el Ejercicio Profesional de los Psicólogos en el
Mercosur y Paises Asociados [Protocol of the framework
agreement of ethical principles for professional practice of
psychology in the Mercosur and associated states]. (1997).
Santiago, Chile: Author.
Psychological Society of
Ireland. (1999). Code of
professional ethics. Dublin: Author.
Sinclair, C. (2005a). A
brief history of ethical principles in professional codes of
ethics. In J. B. Overmier & J. A. Overmier (Eds.), Psychology: IUPsyS global resource
[Computer software] (6th ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Sinclair, C. (2005b). The
eastern roots of ethical principles and values. In M. J. Stevens
& D. Wedding (Eds.), Psychology: IUPsyS global resource
[Computer software] (6th ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Sinclair, C. (2005c). The
roots of ethical principles and values in codes of ethics. In J. L.
Pettifor (Chair), Cultural
implications for a universal declaration of ethical
principles. Symposium conducted at the European Congress of
Psychology, Granada, Spain.
Sinclair, C., Simon, N. P.,
& Pettifor, J. L. (1996). The history of ethical codes and
licensure. In L. J. Bass, S. T. DeMers, J. R. P. Ogloff, C.
Peterson, & J. L. Pettifor (Eds.), Professional conduct and discipline in
psychology (pp. 1–15). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.CrossRef
Sinclair, C. (2012).
Ethical principles, values, and codes for psychologists: An
historical journey. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Lindsay, A.
Ferrero, & Y. Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international
psychological ethics (pp. 3–18). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Sociedad Mexicana de
Psicología. (2002). Código ético
del psicólogo [Psychologist’s code of ethics] (3rd ed.).
Mexico City: Editorial Trillas.
Sociedad Mexicana de
Psicología. (2007). Código ético
del psicólogo [Psychologist’s code of ethics] (4th ed.).
Mexico: Editorial Trillas.
United Nations. (1948).
Universal declaration of human
rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr
Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles
for Psychologists. (2008). Retrieved from
http://www.iupsys.net/about/governance/universal-declaration-of-ethical-principles-for-psychologists.html
World Medical Association.
(1948). Declaration of
Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/g1/
World Medical Association.
(1964). Declaration of
Helsinki. Retrieved from http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/