Welcome to the Student and Instructor Site
Important message from the author to instructors and students using this book:
American Psychological Association Amends Ethics Code Standards 1.02 and 1.03 to Address Potential Conflicts among Professional Ethics, Legal Authority and Organizational Demands
Decoding the Ethics Code: A Practical Guide for Psychologists is now being updated to include reference to and discussion of the June 2010 amendments to the Ethics Code described below.
Since September 11, 2001, national debate on the morality of harsh interrogation techniques has become urgent. Within the discipline of psychology, the debate has centered on how involved psychologists should be in interrogation and information-gathering processes related to national security. What is not in dispute is that psychologists should always treat those with whom they work, including detainees, humanely .
The APA has taken a strong historical stance against psychologists’ involvement in torture (American Psychiatric Association & APA, 1985; APA Council of Representatives, 1986; APA Presidential Task Force, 2005; APA Council of Representatives, 2006). However some APA members questioned whether Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, permitted psychologists to participate in torture if legal counsel for the military or executive branch interprets such actions as falling within government regulations and psychologists are unsuccessful in their attempts to resolve the situation in a way that is consistent with the Ethics Code. During the five years of the Ethics Code revision process and in August 2002, when the Ethics Code was adopted unanimously by the APA Council of Representatives, neither the public nor APA members envisioned there would soon be national debate on the “legality” of torture as a means of interrogation by the U.S. military. Thus, at the time, there was no discussion on the relevance of Standard 1.02 to psychologists’ involvement in inhumane interrogations.
The controversy was resolved in 2010 when the American Psychological Association amended the Ethics Code to make clear that its standards can never be interpreted to justify or defend violating human rights.
The change in language to Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, effective June 1, 2010, explicitly prohibits psychologists from engaging in activities that might be used to justify or defend violating human rights (APA, 2010a, 2010b). Language in Standard 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands. The amended standards now read as follows:
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 make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict. Consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.
1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands
If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated or for whom they are working 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.
For the complete APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct go to:
www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Any questions regarding this information may be directed to webmaster@sagepub.com.