ETHICS PSYCH MIDTERMS MOD 1-3

Kohlberg's Stages

Moral reasoning develops in stages; it's not innate. Builds on Piaget.

Pre-conventional (Kohlberg)

Obedience, avoiding punishment

Conventional (Kohlberg)

Social approval, rules, maintaining order

Post-conventional (Kohlberg)

Internalized principles — justice, dignity, rights

Why Kohlberg's stages matter for professional ethics

Personal moral intuition alone isn't reliable enough for professional practice — this is the argument for having codified, explicit ethical standards.

Rest's Four-Component Model

Knowing right from wrong isn't enough to act ethically. Four things must all be present: 1. Moral Sensitivity 2. Moral Judgment 3. Moral Motivation 4. Moral Character

Moral Sensitivity

recognizing a situation has ethical dimensions

Moral Judgment

reasoning through options to find the most justifiable action

Moral Motivation

prioritizing ethical values over competing personal/professional interests

Moral Character

having the courage/follow-through to actually do it

"The psychologist knew it was wrong but did it anyway for convenience"

testing Moral Motivation, not Moral Judgment.

Deontology

Duty-based — actions right/wrong in themselves

Consequentialism

Outcome-based — greatest good for greatest number

Virtue Ethics (Module 1 tradition)

Character-based — focus on practitioner's integrity

Example logic: "Always get informed consent, regardless of outcome"

Deontology

Example logic: "What would a person of good character do?"

Virtue Ethics

How most professional codes (including APA's) use the three ethical traditions

Most professional codes (including APA's) blend all three — they don't pick just one.

Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists

international, values-based (via IUPsyS)

APA Ethical Principles & Code of Conduct (2017)

most widely used, enforceable

PAP Code of Ethics

local standard for Filipino psychologists

What a code of ethics does

Sets shared, enforceable standards; Protects clients, research participants, the public; Guides decisions in ambiguous situations; Protects the profession's credibility/trust; Provides grounds for accountability & discipline

Why study ethics empirically

1. Identifying common dilemmas 2. Testing decision-making models 3. Tracking emerging issues

Research purpose: surveys/case studies reveal recurring issues (e.g., confidentiality, dual relationships)

Identifying common dilemmas

Research purpose: does the framework actually change behavior?

Testing decision-making models

Research purpose: teletherapy, social media, AI-assisted practice

Tracking emerging issues

Effects of unethical practice ripple outward in four directions

The Client; The Practitioner; The Profession; Society

Ripple of unethical practice: The Client

psychological harm, broken trust, retraumatization

Ripple of unethical practice: The Practitioner

loss of license, legal liability, reputational damage

Ripple of unethical practice: The Profession

erosion of public trust in psychology

Ripple of unethical practice: Society

vulnerable populations lose access to credible mental health support

Key takeaway of Module 1

Ethics is built on development + philosophy + research — not just a list of rules.

The Logic Chain (Module 2)

Code of Ethics (states the value) → Ethical Reasoning (interprets the value) → Decision-Making Model (structures the process) → Sound, Defensible Decision

Why a code alone isn't enough

A code can name a value (e.g., confidentiality) without resolving a conflict between two valid values. A structured model gives a repeatable, defensible process — and creates a paper trail if the decision is ever questioned.

Principle Ethics: central question

"What should I do?"

Principle Ethics: basis

Autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, fidelity

Principle Ethics: focus

Rules, duties, obligations

Principle Ethics: strength

Consistent, defensible, teachable

Principle Ethics: limitation

Principles can conflict; rules can't anticipate everything

Virtue Ethics (Module 2 lens): central question

"What kind of practitioner should I be?"

Virtue Ethics (Module 2 lens): basis

Prudence, respectfulness, integrity, benevolence

Virtue Ethics (Module 2 lens): focus

Character, motive, integrity

Virtue Ethics (Module 2 lens): strength

Flexible in ambiguous/gray-area situations

Virtue Ethics (Module 2 lens): limitation

Less concrete — two virtuous people may still disagree

Relationship between Principle Ethics and Virtue Ethics

These aren't competitors — most practitioners draw on both.

Step 1 of the 8-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model

Identify the problem — clarify who's involved, what happened, why it's ethically concerning

Step 2 of the 8-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model

Identify the potential issues — separate ethical/legal/clinical/cultural dimensions

Step 3 of the 8-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model

Review relevant codes of ethics — check what the code says, and where it's silent/conflicting

Step 4 of the 8-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model

Know applicable laws & regulations — legal ≠ ethical obligations always

Step 5 of the 8-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model

Consult with colleagues or a supervisor — catches blind spots; a sign of competence, not weakness

Step 6 of the 8-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model

Consider possible courses of action — brainstorm broadly before narrowing

Step 7 of the 8-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model

Weigh the consequences of each option — impact on client, others, and yourself

Step 8 of the 8-Step Ethical Decision-Making Model

Decide on — and document — the best action — transparent, defensible reasoning

Exam tip for memorizing the 8 steps

Memorize this in two groups of 4 (identify problem/issues → codes/laws | consult/consider → weigh/decide) — matches how the slides present it.

Resources That Strengthen Judgment (feed into Step 5)

1. Professional codes of ethics (APA, PAP) 2. Colleagues & supervisors (peer/clinical supervision) 3. Legal counsel (for legal exposure/ambiguity) 4. Relevant law & regulation (Data Privacy Act, licensure law) 5. Case law & precedent (how similar dilemmas were resolved before) 6. Professional literature (journals, texts, case studies)

Key takeaway of Module 2: the goal of the model

The goal isn't a perfect answer — it's a well-reasoned, well-documented decision

"Do good, and above all, do no harm." is translated into safe practice by

Competence is how beneficence and nonmaleficence actually get translated into safe practice.

Why competence is an ethical issue

Practicing beyond one's training is one of the most common ways psychologists unintentionally cause harm.

Four Components of Professional Competence

Intellectual; Technical/Skill; Emotional; Interpersonal & Cultural

Intellectual competence

Up-to-date knowledge of theory, research, assessment, intervention

Technical/Skill competence

Practiced ability to deliver a method — knowing ≠ doing it well

Emotional competence

Self-awareness/regulation — recognizing when your own reactions/biases/distress compromise judgment

Interpersonal & Cultural competence

Sensitivity to client's context/culture/worldview; building trust across difference

Exam tip on the four components of competence

A gap in any one of these can compromise care — this is a frequently tested point.

Capacity (competence)

What training/credentials/experience make possible in principle

Performance (competence)

What is actually delivered in a specific session, with a specific client, on a specific day

What a license/diploma certifies

capacity at one point in time.

The harder, ongoing question ethics asks about competence

"Am I actually competent to do this, with this client, right now?"

Factors that erode performance even in a well-trained practitioner

Unresolved personal distress; Fatigue or burnout; An unfamiliar population/presenting problem; Overconfidence from past success

Professional Standard 1

Boundaries of Competence — practice only within areas defined by education/training/supervised experience/credentialing

Professional Standard 2

Licensure & Credentialing — the minimum floor for safe, accountable practice

Professional Standard 3

New Areas & Techniques — extending into unfamiliar specialties requires prior study/training/consultation/supervision, not just good intentions

Professional Standard 4

Continuing Professional Development — competence is maintained, not permanent

Professional Standard 5

Consultation & Supervision — a mark of competence, not failure

Professional Standard 6

Self-Monitoring for Personal Problems — recognizing when personal conflicts/distress interfere with judgment

Case: psychologist with 10 years' experience in adult anxiety/depression accepts a custody evaluation without forensic training. Missing competence components?

Intellectual (no forensic knowledge) and Technical (no practiced skill in the method)

Case: custody evaluation — capacity vs. performance?

This is a capacity problem — she never had the specialized training to begin with, not a case of adequate training undermined by fatigue/distress

Case: custody evaluation — standards violated?

Boundaries of Competence + New Areas & Techniques (should have sought training/consultation first)

Key takeaway of Module 3: what competence is

_____ is a standard met in every act of service, not a one-time credential

Tool to apply to a Module 3-style competence dilemma (like the custody evaluation case)

Module 2's decision-making model