Ethical standards and divided loyalties.

Abstract

T HE revision of "Ethical Standards of Psychologists" (APA, 1959) has appeared within the past year. In format, it is surprisingly unlike the original edition (APA, 19S3), being greatly condensed in length and somewhat so in content. This seems to reflect the increased experience of the Committee on Ethical Standards for Psychology that certain of the formerly spelled out rules were attached to problems of little difficulty for psychologists.Since the original Code was accepted, there has been continuing confusion regarding interpretation of some of the less clearly defined principles, because the ultimate decision as to ethical behavior remained for the practitioner. Primary among these principles are those that may be subsumed under the general heading of defining divided loyalty situations, that is, where on the one hand a psychologist feels obligated to protect his client, on the other hand to protect society, but finds it difficult to serve the best interest of both. 3 The past IS years have witnessed attempts by psychologists to devise all inclusive codes of ethics, while less attention has been directed to the divided loyalty question. In this latter context are the efforts of Sutich (1944), the Minnesota Society for Applied Psychology (1947), andSeashore (1949).

Institutional ethical conflicts with illustrations from police and military psychology.

“…Following the second revision of the "Ethical Standards of Psychologists" (American Psychological Association [APA], 1959) Wiskoff (1960) presented 501 psychologists with 26 vignettes that described a situation in which the psychologist was presented with a divided loyalty (hereinafter referred to also as dual loyalty, dual agency, or mixed agency) confl ict.…”

Nine unique features of the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists.

“…were in conflict (Sinclair et al, 1987). Members of various disciplines, in reviewing their own codes, often commented on these problems (e.g., Baldick, 1980; de Vries, 1976; Freedman, 1978; Jagim, Wittman, & Noll, 1978; Wiskoff, 1960). In response to this type of criticism, it was decided that the new CPA code needed to offer psychologists more explicit guidelines for action when ethical values or principles are in conflict and to reflect more explicitly the most ethical decision rules for ethical decision making.…”

Conflicting Loyalties: A Literature Review

“…Research efforts to determine how counselors define their obligation to the client and the employing institution in situations where there is a conflict of interest have been few. Wiskoff (1960) surveyed a sample of American Psychological Association members and discovered that work setting and level of professional training were significant factors in determining how psychologists defined their obligations to clients and employers. Results of a study by Smith (1958) indicate that public school counselors emphasize civic responsibilities more than does any other occupational group within a National Vocational Guidance Assocation sample, and that the greater the amount of public school teaching experience, the lesser the degree of loyalty to the counselee.…”