Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
14 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Ethical Dilemma |
When a psychologist is faced with a situation in which he or she are being pulled in one direction by one ethical principal/standard and another direction by another ethical principal/standard A clash between two or more ethical principals that creates a complex situation that requires careful thought and decision-making |
|
|
Mixed dilemma |
A clash between an ethical principal and another non-ethical protagonist In this situation, it is usually clear what the ethical thing to do is, but there is a block by a non-ethical consideration (e.g., the law) (Knapp et al., 2007) |
|
|
Situations that are difficult to judge/more ambiguous (Sullivan, 2002) |
- Recruiting private clients through an agency contact - Providing personal advice in the media - Collecting fees through legal action - Inviting clients to an office open house - Contingency fees for forensic work - Earning a salary based on the percentage of a client's fee |
|
|
Consequentialism |
A philosophical approach to ethics based on the notion that whether an action is ethical or not depends on the nature of the outcome, such as how much harm was caused by the act. Utilitarianism - aim to is help as much people as possible |
|
|
Deontology |
An approach to ethics based on duties and principals - Universalism - these principals should be applied no matter what the specific situation - Consequences are less relevant |
|
|
Ethical decision-making model (combines consequentialism and deontology) Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2008) |
1. Decided whether the dilemma is ethical 2. Consult relevant codes and guidelines 3. Identify value traps and personal biases that may influence the decision 4. Consult with an experienced colleague 5. Identify the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved 6. Generate a list of possible actions 7. Identify the possible consequences that correspond with each outcome 8. Make the decision 9. Implement the decision |
|
|
Factors that define the 'moral intensity' of an ethical issue (Jones, 1991) |
1. Magnitude of the consequences 2. Social consensus - degree of social agreement about whether the act was good or bad 3. Probability of effect 4. Temporal immediacy 5. Proximity - level of nearness/closeness to the person affected 6. Concentration of effect - depends on (a) magnitude of the effect and (b) number of people affected |
|
|
Factors to consider when identifying rationale behind an ethical decision * relevant to step 8 of the decision-making model |
- Are the reasons clearly defined, coherent and relevant to the conclusion? - Are there any flaws linking the reasons to the conclusions? - Is the proposed action reasonable? - Has all the relevant information been considered? - Are the ethical assumptions well understood and applied to the situation? |
|
|
Common ethical traps |
1. The values trap 2. The common-sense/objectivity trap 3. The 'who will benefit' trap 4. The circumstantiality trap |
|
|
The values trap |
When personal values are in conflict with the ethical code |
|
|
The circumstantiality trap |
Belief that what is "right" or "wrong" behaviour depends on the circumstance |
|
|
Who will benefit trap |
When resolution of an ethical dilemma means taking sides among two or more conflicting interests |
|
|
Commonsense/objectivity trap |
The misconception that "common-sense objective solutions" are easy to come by |
|
|
Preventing the values trap |
- Self-awareness - Self-reflection - Introspection - Second opinion (consultation) - Respecting the client's values (general principle A) |
