What do we study when we study ethics? The question is more complex than it may initially seem. At first glance, the answer appears obvious: We study the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Yet this answer, although accurate, is descriptive rather than explanatory. A different kind of answer is found in the Canadian Psychological Association's Code of Ethics.
The Canadian Code develops the concept of a social contract between society and the discipline of psychology to identify what special duties one incurs as a psychologist — over and above what we owe to one another as ordinary citizens and people. The Canadian Ethics Code offers a way for psychologists to think about the difference between our ethical duties as a person or citizen and our ethical duties as a psychologist, a difference that merits our attention and analysis. The Canadian Code begins:
Every discipline that has relatively autonomous control over its entry requirements, training, development of knowledge, standards, methods, and practices does so only within the context of a contract with the society in which it functions. This social contract is based on attitudes of mutual respect and trust, with society granting support for the autonomy of a discipline in exchange for a commitment by the discipline to do everything it can to assure that its members act ethically in conducting the affairs of the discipline within society; in particular, a commitment to try to assure that each member will place the welfare of the society and individual members of that society above the welfare of the discipline and its own members. By virtue of this social contract, psychologists have a higher duty of care to members of society than the general duty of care that all members of society have to each other. (emphasis added)
When we study ethics, we study the content of this "higher duty of care." We owe this higher duty by virtue of being psychologists. In other words, we study what additional ethical duties we have when we step into our professional roles. A challenge for ethics educators is to explore how we conceptualize this difference, or gap, between our duties as people and citizens and our duties as psychologists. The two duties may be complementary, but there is something more, something added, when we call ourselves a "psychologist."
As someone who travels a considerable amount, I find that airline ethics helps me think about psychology ethics. When I step on a plane, I ask, what does this flight crew owe me? A good meal would be nice — but I'm probably not going to get one and I don't consider serving mediocre food on a plane an ethical lapse. I'd like a comfortable seat, but assigning me a cramped, hard seat isn't ethically problematic. What the crew does owe me is competence in flying the plane safely to the agreed-upon destination. An excellent exercise is to pose a parallel question for ourselves: What do we owe our clients? An ethics course could easily spend a productive semester examining this single question.
Among the more apparent answers — competence and confidentiality, to name two ethical duties — is a less often discussed concept, that of the psychologist's self-awareness. Self-awareness is discussed most often because of its clinical implications. There is a considerable psychoanalytic literature, for example, on countertransference. Even in this literature, however, little attention is paid to the ethical aspects of self-awareness. The Canadian Code of Ethics again offers a thoughtful reflection. In the section "Integrity in Relationships," the Canadian Code states:
Psychologists are not expected to be value-free or totally without self-interest in conducting their activities. However, they are expected to understand how their backgrounds, personal needs, and values interact with their activities, to be open and honest about the influence of such factors, and to be as objective and unbiased as possible under the circumstances.
This passage highlights the close connection between the clinical and the ethical. Knowing how one's background, personal needs, and values interact with a client's background, personal needs, and values entails a healthy measure of self-other differentiation. Self-other differentiation promotes good ethics as well as good clinical care. The ethical value of self-other differentiation becomes evident when framed in terms of standard 3.06 in the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Conflicts of Interest:
Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial or other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected to (1) impair their objectivity, competence or effectiveness in performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the person or organization with whom the professional relationship exists to harm or exploitation.
When a psychologist works in a self-aware manner and is able to distinguish the client's interest, needs and desires from her or his own, the psychologist is in a much better position vis-à-vis ethical standard 3.06 to identify when relevant interests could be ethically problematic. Put another way, the more the psychologist is able to identify potentially conflicting interests that come from the person of the psychologist, the better position the psychologist is in to manage the effects of the conflicting interests. For this reason, self-awareness has important and direct ethical implications. In the professional life of a psychologist, knowledge of self is an important if not essential adjunct to knowledge of the Ethics Code.
The Ethics Code nonetheless recognizes that there are limits to self-awareness when conflicting interests present themselves. Both research and common sense tell us that a person in the middle of a conflict-of-interest situation is in the worst position to gauge the effects of the conflict of interest. For this reason, an effective way to address a conflict of interest is to seek the opinion of a psychologist outside the situation. The process of obtaining such an opinion is an ethics consultation. The Preamble to the APA Ethics Code highlights the centrality of ethics consultation in the ethical life of a psychologist:
The development of a dynamic set of ethical standards for psychologists' work-related conduct requires a personal commitment and lifelong effort to act ethically; to encourage ethical behavior by students, supervisees, employees and colleagues; and to consult with others concerning ethical problems.
The value of an ethics consultation lies not simply in getting a second opinion, as helpful as that may be. A consultation offers the perspective of a psychologist who is not affected by the conflict of interest and who is thus situated in an ethically distinguishable and preferable position. The consultation offers not just another opinion, but rather a different kind of opinion.
The Canadian Code of Ethics provides a conceptual framework for understanding what ethical duties separate an ordinary citizen from a psychologist. The Canadian Code points to self-awareness as an aspect of the higher duty, while the APA Ethics Code elaborates and deepens the role of self-awareness through the lens of conflict of interest and ethics consultation. The integration of the two codes leads to a satisfying conclusion: Over and above what we owe each other as people and citizens, as psychologists we have a duty to know ourselves.
Dr. Stephen Behnke is director of the APA Ethics Office.
