Search

Background. It is crucial for psychology students and graduates to study ethics. However, neither teaching nor learning ethics is always an easy process. Course syllabi ofen include philosophical texts, specialized concepts, and numerous ethics or procedural codes. Could we consider all of this as a cognitive process? Te students should be aware of all the vulnerabilities that can impact ethical decision-making, such as cognitive errors, emotional factors, social and organizational pressures, and situational factors. Tere is a great deal of new research on the advantages of including emotional dimensions in the decision-making process (Decety & Cacioppo, 2012; Decety & Cowell, 2015); this research even claims that emotions strengthen the contribution of the cognitive process, and as a result enrich the fnal ethical judgments. Additionally, there is also a kind of hidden curriculum that we provide to students (Goold & Stern, 2006; Haferty & Franks, 1994). It is exactly this area (internships, the way we relate to the students) to which we need to pay attention during their undergraduate and graduate years. Conclusion. Expecting students to learn and internalize knowledge in a meaningful way necessitates new modes of instruction. Specifcally, teaching and learning ethics in an interactive way, while paying attention to both good decision-making skills and emotional cues, would provide exactly what students would enjoy and learn from the most. In this article, we will suggest that, if the question is how to sensitize students to ethical issues in psychology, and in the profession, it is important to give them an active role and responsibility for disseminating ethical principles. We will also introduce diferent techniques that help combine knowledge with emotionality while teaching ethics in psychology.

The American Psychological Association's multicultural guidelines encourage psychologists to use language sensitive to the lived experiences of the individuals they serve. In organized care settings, psychologists have important decisions to make about the language they use in the electronic health record (EHR), which may be accessible to both the patient and other health care providers. Language about patient identities (including but not limited to race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation) is especially important, but little guidance exists for psychologists on how and when to document these identities in the EHR. Moreover, organizational mandates, patient preferences, fluid identities, and shifting language may suggest different documentation approaches, posing ethical dilemmas for psychologists to navigate. In this article, we review the purposes of documentation in organized care settings, review how each of the five American Psychological Association Code of Ethics' General Principles relates to identity language in EHR documentation, and propose a set of questions for psychologists to ask themselves and their patients when making choices about documenting identity variables in the EHR. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

To meet the diverse needs of school-aged children, school psychologists often must collaborate with other professionals within and outside the school setting. Despite potential benefits, challenges exist related to interprofessional collaboration, including ethical challenges. This article explores some of the most salient ethical dilemmas that school psychologists are likely to face when collaborating with other professionals. Specifically, ethical issues related to competence, multiple relationships, informed consent/assent, privacy/confidentiality, assessment, and therapy are examined. Using vignettes, recommendations for navigating common ethical issues that may arise when engaging in interprofessional collaboration are offered. Suggestions are contextualized within the ethical principles and standards outlined in the American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2017) and the National Association of School Psychologists Professional Standards (2020), which includes the Principles for Professional Ethics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Social welfare workers in the protective services field—among them social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists—are expected to follow the laws of the state in which they practice, but are also bound by their professional code of ethics. Often this does not present a problem, but at times ethical and legal expectations differ. This is particularly problematic where the professionals may be seen as agents of control, reporting possible child abuse, conducting child abuse investigations, inspecting homes, monitoring families, removing children from their homes and the like, often working with or reporting to law enforcement agents where expectations are different and codes of ethics absent. This paper explores the relationship between law and professional ethics, and, in particular, situations in which actions and decisions can be legal yet unethical or ethical but yet illegal. It then analyzes some critical child protective service activities where Child Protective Services (CPS) workers exert significant control over parents and children, and where the legal and ethical requirements may differ. Finally, the paper discusses the problems that CPS professionals face when law and ethics collide, and suggests various steps to resolve some of these conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluated the integration of psychology ethics into an introductory psychology course. Students in two general psychology sections were exposed to an infusion of psychology ethics in teaching, research, and clinical practice, whereas students in two sections were exposed to traditional course content. Students completed a pre and post-test assessment including a psychology ethics questionnaire and open-ended responses to three ethics case studies. Students in the ethics group displayed a statistically significant increase in scores on both measures from pre to post-test. However, students in the traditional group showed no improvement in scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychologists are in a position to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic through research, practice, education, and advocacy. However, concerns exist about the ethical implications associated with transitioning from face-to-face to online or virtual formats as necessitated by stay-at-home orders designed to enforce the social distancing required to flatten the curve of new COVID-19 cases. The purpose of this article is to review potential ethical issues and to provide guidance to psychologists for ethical conduct in the midst of the current crisis and its aftermath. In addition to contextualizing relevant ethical considerations according to the principles and standards of the current American Psychological Association's ethics code, vignettes are presented to exemplify the ethical dilemmas psychologists in various roles may face when responding to COVID-19 and to offer suggestions and resources for resolving potential conflicts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Introduction: The long-standing debate on medical complicity in torture has overlooked the complicity of cognitive scientists-psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists-in the practice of torture as a distinct phenomenon. In this paper, we identify the risk of the re-emergence of torture as a practice in the USA, and the complicity of cognitive scientists in these practices., Methods: We review arguments for physician complicity in torture. We argue that these defences fail to defend the complicity of cognitive scientists. We address objections to our account, and then provide recommendations for professional associations in resisting complicity in torture., Results: Arguments for cognitive scientist complicity in torture fail when those actions stem from the same reasons as physician complicity. Cognitive scientist involvement in the torture programme has, from the outset, been focused on the outcomes of interrogation rather than supportive care. Any possibility of a therapeutic relationship between cognitive therapists and detainees is fatally undermined by therapists' complicity with torture., Conclusion: Professional associations ought to strengthen their commitment to refraining from engaging in any aspect of torture. They should also move to protect whistle-blowers against torture programmes who are members of their association. If the political institutions that are supposed to prevent the practice of torture are not strengthened, cognitive scientists should take collective action to compel intelligence agencies to refrain from torture., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Research in embodied artificial intelligence (AI) has increasing clinical relevance for therapeutic applications in mental health services. With innovations ranging from 'virtual psychotherapists' to social robots in dementia care and autism disorder, to robots for sexual disorders, artificially intelligent virtual and robotic agents are increasingly taking on high-level therapeutic interventions that used to be offered exclusively by highly trained, skilled health professionals. In order to enable responsible clinical implementation, ethical and social implications of the increasing use of embodied AI in mental health need to be identified and addressed., Objective: This paper assesses the ethical and social implications of translating embodied AI applications into mental health care across the fields of Psychiatry, Psychology and Psychotherapy. Building on this analysis, it develops a set of preliminary recommendations on how to address ethical and social challenges in current and future applications of embodied AI., Methods: Based on a thematic literature search and established principles of medical ethics, an analysis of the ethical and social aspects of currently embodied AI applications was conducted across the fields of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Psychotherapy. To enable a comprehensive evaluation, the analysis was structured around the following three steps: assessment of potential benefits; analysis of overarching ethical issues and concerns; discussion of specific ethical and social issues of the interventions., Results: From an ethical perspective, important benefits of embodied AI applications in mental health include new modes of treatment, opportunities to engage hard-to-reach populations, better patient response, and freeing up time for physicians. Overarching ethical issues and concerns include: harm prevention and various questions of data ethics; a lack of guidance on development of AI applications, their clinical integration and training of health professionals; 'gaps' in ethical and regulatory frameworks; the potential for misuse including using the technologies to replace established services, thereby potentially exacerbating existing health inequalities. Specific challenges identified and discussed in the application of embodied AI include: matters of risk-assessment, referrals, and supervision; the need to respect and protect patient autonomy; the role of non-human therapy; transparency in the use of algorithms; and specific concerns regarding long-term effects of these applications on understandings of illness and the human condition., Conclusions: We argue that embodied AI is a promising approach across the field of mental health; however, further research is needed to address the broader ethical and societal concerns of these technologies to negotiate best research and medical practices in innovative mental health care. We conclude by indicating areas of future research and developing recommendations for high-priority areas in need of concrete ethical guidance., (©Amelia Fiske, Peter Henningsen, Alena Buyx. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 09.05.2019.)

One thousand four-hundred thirty Portuguese psychologists answered a questionnaire that had been designed in order to ascertain the level of acceptability of a set of proposed ethical principles, which subsequently served as a basis for the Portuguese Psychologists' Ethics Code. On the one hand, the results show that, as expected, the ethical principles rated high on the evaluation scale. On the other hand, the results also highlighted the need for a formal regulation of the practice of psychology in Portugal, especially in view of participants' noticeable failure to recognize the importance of the principle of professional integrity. The responsibility of psychologists in modern societies is huge. As such, the large number of different training programs in Portugal, and the implied lack of a strong professional identity, is a cause of concern. The creation of a professional association allows an external identification of the profession in terms of aims and methods. The main goal of such an association is to promote public trust and enhance public demand. The results also indicate that training and experience lead to a higher valorization of ethical principles, and this is an insight that will be of great importance to the professional practice of psychology.

Psychologists in academic health centers (AHC) face important ethical issues including confidentiality when working with a multidisciplinary team, sharing of information through the electronic health record, obtaining informed consent in a fast-paced healthcare environment, cultural competency in the medical setting, and issues related to supervision and training. The goal of this paper is to describe ethical issues for psychologists in AHCs in the context of case examples, and to consider ethical decision-making tools to enhance clinical care. Considerations for best practices in integrated care settings will be discussed, and the APA Ethical Standards will be referenced throughout.

Research focusing on disciplined health practitioners is growing though exploring lower level decisions is also important. This study examines the outcomes and characteristics of psychologists subject to formal notifications between 2004 and 2015. Data were extracted from archived notification files (N = 396) held by the New Zealand Psychologists Board alongside publically available decisions of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (N = 13). Annually, <2% of practising psychologists were subject of a notification. Outcomes varied by type of notification but the vast majority resulted in no further action either at initial triage or after further investigation. Notifications involving psychologist scope practitioners and those with overseas qualifications prior to New Zealand registration were significantly more likely to result in further investigation. All 13 prosecutions resulted in a finding of guilt. Further research is needed to explore risk factors and why female practitioners may be over-represented in cases of sexual boundary transgressions.

Open access is fast becoming the norm across science. Sharing research data broadly has the potential to accelerate scientific progress, optimize the value of data, and promote scientific integrity. However, data sharing also poses new practical and ethical challenges to the conduct of research with human participants. This article provides an overview of how open access to research data has impacted the core principles of research ethics-respect for persons, beneficence, and justice-and, in turn, how a reinterpretation of these principles translates to procedures for the protection of the rights and wellbeing of human research participants. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

Research transparency, reproducibility, and data sharing uphold core principles of science at a time when the integrity of scientific research is being questioned. This article discusses how research data in psychology can be made accessible for reproducibility and reanalysis by describing practical ways to overcome barriers to data sharing. We examine key issues surrounding the sharing of data such as who owns research data, how to protect the confidentiality of the research participant, how to give appropriate credit to the data creator, how to deal with metadata and codebooks, how to address provenance, and other specifics such as versioning and file formats. The protection of research subjects is a fundamental obligation, and we explain frameworks and procedures designed to protect against the harms that may result from disclosure of confidential information. We also advocate greater recognition for data creators and the authors of program code used in the management and analysis of data. We argue that research data and program code are important scientific contributions that should be cited in the same way as publications. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

Objective: To compare the coping patterns of physicians and clinical psychologists when confronted with clinical ethical dilemmas and to explore consistency across different dilemmas., Population: 88 clinical psychologists and 149 family physicians in Israel., Method: Six dilemmas representing different ethical domains were selected from the literature. Vignettes were composed for each dilemma, and seven possible behavioural responses for each were proposed, scaled from most to least ethical. The vignettes were presented to both family physicians and clinical psychologists., Results: Psychologists' aggregated mean ethical intention score, as compared with the physicians, was found to be significantly higher (F(6, 232)=22.44, p<0.001, η 2 =0.37). Psychologists showed higher ethical intent for two dilemmas: issues of payment (they would continue treating a non-paying patient while physicians would not) and dual relationships (they would avoid treating the son of a colleague). In the other four vignettes, psychologists and physicians responded in much the same way. The highest ethical intent scores for both psychologists and physicians were for confidentiality and a colleague's inappropriate practice due to personal problems., Conclusions: Responses to the dilemmas by physicians and psychologists can be categorised into two groups: (1) similar behaviours on the part of both professions when confronting dilemmas concerning confidentiality, inappropriate practice due to personal problems, improper professional conduct and academic issues and (2) different behaviours when confronting either payment issues or dual relationships., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Research in moral psychology has recently raised questions about the impact of context and the environment on the way the human mind works. In a 2012 call to action, Paley wrote: "If some of the conclusions arrived at by moral psychologists are true, they are directly relevant to the way nurses think about moral problems, and present serious challenges to favoured concepts in nursing ethics, such as the ethics of care, virtue, and the unity of the person" (p. 80). He urges nurse ethicists and scholars to evaluate the impact these findings may have for moral theory. In this paper, I review some of Paley's (Nursing Philosophy, 13, 2012, 80) critique, focusing on the argument that theories of nursing ethics have failed to account for the role of context; both in terms of its impact on the way nurses make moral judgements and in terms of the environment's influence on the way the mind works. I then examine nursing literature on moral agency, and focus on the role of the environment and context play within existing theory. I argue that theories of moral agency have often accounted for the role of context on the way nurses make decisions; however, less attention has been paid to its impact on the mind. With this background, I use insights from the fields of moral philosophy and moral psychology to refine the conceptualization of nurse moral agency in a way that is reflective of current cognitive, philosophical and nursing practice-based science., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Rigorous research and program evaluation are needed to understand the experience of dating and sexual violence among youth and the impact of prevention and intervention efforts. Our dilemma in doing this work occurred when youth disclosed dating and sexual violence on a research survey. What responsibility do researchers have to protect survivors' confidentiality as a research participant versus taking steps to ensure the student has the opportunity to access help? In our evaluation of a pilot dating violence prevention program, our protocols employed widely used procedures for providing resources to participants upon their completion of the survey and de-identifying survey data. Upon reviewing preliminary survey results, we became concerned that these established procedures were not sufficient to support research participants who were adolescent survivors of dating and sexual violence. We followed a structured ethical decision-making process to examine legal and ethical considerations, consult with colleagues, consider impacts and alternative solutions, and ultimately find a solution. Through this process, we developed procedures that balance participant confidentiality and the desire to support the welfare of survivors, which other researchers may want to employ when conducting youth sexual and dating violence research in school and community settings., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

In this concluding essay, we review the case studies presented in this Special Issue and examine whether community psychology has a distinctive approach to defining and resolving the core ethical canons of the Belmont Report (1979): Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. For two of these Principles-Respect for Persons and Beneficence-community psychologists elaborate upon and extend their definitions to consider their meaning in community-based, social justice-oriented research. The field's approach to Respect for Persons is multilevel in nature; in addition to respecting individuals and their diverse identities, we also have obligations to respect our community partnerships, the communities with whom we work, and the populations and cultures represented in our work. Similarly, for community psychologists, Beneficence is a multilevel construct that considers risks and benefits at the group, community, and cultural levels of analysis. With respect to Justice, community psychologists' views of our ethical responsibilities are qualitatively different in meaning from the original Belmont Report and from disciplinary-specific interpretations of this principle in ethical guidance documents from psychology, sociology, and evaluation. Our valuing of social change demands that we contribute to individual and group empowerment and liberation, and in so doing, that we avoid collusion with oppressive systems. Thus, we define our ethical responsibilities for promoting Justice as more action-oriented than do other disciplines. The essay closes with an exploration of future directions for developing a comprehensive ethical framework for community psychology., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

Discussions of community psychology (CP) ethics often examine how we might best uphold CP values in community-based practice. However, for many community psychologists in faculty positions, our main domain of practice is the undergraduate classroom. Teaching is essential to the growth and sustainability of our field as prospective students tend to discover CP during their undergraduate studies. University-based work is also a key site of CP practice. Universities are contested spaces where interlocking forms of oppression manifest in many ways, including teaching (e.g., what is taught, how, by whom, to whom). CP values compel us to treat our classrooms as more than just information transmission spaces; just as there is no value-neutral research, there is no value-neutral course content or classroom practice. This first-person narrative explores ethical issues that arise when we put CP values, specifically social justice, respect for diversity, participation, and wellness, in conversation with pedagogical best practices and course content in higher education. It presents interrelated ethical dilemmas and the authors' conflicted responses. We conclude with a four-part call to the field for dedicated scholarly spaces and supports focused on the development and study of undergraduate CP pedagogy., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

Community-based participatory researchers increasingly incorporate photography and social media into their work. Despite its relative infancy, social media has created a powerful network that allows individuals to convey messages quickly to a widespread audience. In addition to its potential benefits, the use of social media in research also carries risk, given the fast pace of exchanges, sharing of personal images and ideas in high accessibility, low privacy contexts and continually shifting options and upgrades. This article contributes to the literature examining ethical considerations for photography and social media use in community-based participatory research. We describe three key ethical dilemmas that we encountered during our participatory photography project with Latina/o youth: (a) use and content of images and risk; (b) incentives and coercion; and (c) social media activity and confidentiality. We provide our responses to these challenges, contextualized in theory and practice, and share lessons learned. We raise the question of how to contend with cultural shifts in boundaries and privacy. We propose that evaluating participant vulnerability versus potential empowerment may be more fitting than the standard approach of assessing risks and benefits. Finally, we recommend upholding the principles of participatory research by co-producing ethical practices with one's participants., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

The program Edúcame Primero (Educate Me First) is an evidence-based practice for eradicating child labor that has been applied with positive results in Colombia, Peru, and several Central American countries. In this article, we describe the difficulties of implementing the program in two poor areas of Lima (Peru) between 2014 and 2016. Specifically, we discuss three ethical challenges faced during the implementation of the program: (a) the existence of a movement of working children that defends the right of children to work; (b) the polarization of some community-based associations and government institutions on how to deal with the problems of working children; and (c) the use of network indicators in the evaluation of the community's level of cohesion. Taking the Code of Ethics of the General Council of Associations of Psychologists in Spain as a guide, we adopted a consensus approach in planning and research design, combining different criteria of value with the participation of different stakeholders. The implementation of the program in Peru gave preference to developing skills in children over changing attitudes in relation to child protection, although the intervention openly declared its aims when engaging institutions and families. Finally, we address how social network research places special ethical demands on conventional ethical standards. Our experience with this project shows the importance of acting as a bridge between different stakeholders and assessing how all of them benefit from the intervention., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

The purpose of this paper is to write about insights and special considerations for researchers who are, to some degree, "insiders" to the communities they study by expanding on the concept of representational ethics as applied to research in community psychology with diverse and marginalized groups. Representational ethics refers to the ways that researchers, artists, or corporations represent the identities of the people they portray in their communications. As community psychologists we generate and disseminate knowledge about the communities we work with, and in that process, create narratives about the people who participate in our studies. In preparing a report on psychological issues among Evangelical Christian refugees from the former Soviet Union, Dina Birman struggled with her portrayal of this group and her own status of being both an insider and an outsider to this community. When investigating academic aspirations and psychological distress among Muslim high school students, Ashmeet Oberoi was forced to acknowledge the one-sidedness of the discourse on autonomy and cultural socialization of Muslim adolescents. In her research with Cuban-educated doctors in Miami, Florida, Wendy Moore encountered similar issues as she considered how to represent gender dynamics among her participants., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

Reflexivity is an important tool for navigating ethically important moments in fieldwork. It may be particularly useful in situations where the researcher has the potential to undermine the conduct of the study and/or the well-being-enhancing role of counterspaces. In this article, I explore my use of reflexivity to traverse ethically important moments I encountered while investigating a counterspace for African-American youth who had been incarcerated. The ethical challenge concerned whether and how to continue this study in light of realizing that I held implicit biases toward the research participants. I describe my process for arriving at a decision and propose key considerations for the use of reflexivity in supporting ethical fieldwork within counterspaces., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

This paper describes the experiences of a research team as they navigated uncertain ethical and political terrain throughout the formative stage of a public housing redevelopment project. Specifically, we discuss the challenges related to balancing multiple accountabilities and the tensions among the various roles and responsibilities that emanated from different accountabilities. Due to contractual obligations to our funding source, established relations with community partners, and an ethical imperative to align with those holding the least power, we grappled with embodying multiple and often conflicting roles. Without oversight provided by our university institutional review board or a clear ethical framework for community psychology research and action, our team was left to negotiate the challenges that emerged through critical reflection and financial considerations. Throughout the case example presented in this paper, we highlight our difficulty in ethical decision-making with respect to the principles of obligation, disclosure, consent, commitment, and professionalism. Community psychologists often straddle the realms of academia, community partnerships, and conscious engagement with little guidance in navigating often conflicting roles and value systems. We present our narrative to highlight the complexity of scholar-activism in the context of community psychology and the necessity for developing ethical standards and guidelines tailored to meet the unique needs of community psychologists., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) is one of the nation's more influential health-related non-profit organizations. It plays a large role in shaping health policy by commissioning panels to develop "white papers" describing research and recommendations on a variety of health topics. These white paper publications are often used to help make policy decisions at the legislative and executive levels. Such a prominent institution might seem like a natural ally for policy-related collaborative efforts. As community psychologists, we strongly endorse efforts to positively influence public policy at the national level. However, while serving on influential panels and commissions like the IOM might seem to be very much part of the ethos of our discipline, there are occasions when such institutions are pursuing a mission that inadvertently has the potential to instigate divisive friction among community activists and organizations. A case study is presented whereby I describe my decision not to accept an invitation to serve on a controversial IOM panel. I explore the ethical challenges regarding maintaining my independence from this institution and its attempt to redefine chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), as well as the process of searching for alternative avenues for collaborating with community activists to influence policy related to these debilitating illnesses., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

This narrative outlines our challenges in studying power and power structures within an individual-level ethical framework. Taking a social ethics perspective, we share the story of our "sticky situation" (Campbell, ) that transpired during a multi-year community partnership. We were asked, by our community partners, to help collect interview data without informed consent. As a team of community-engaged university researchers, we were faced with a seemingly easy ethical situation (no consent, no research) that had unexpectedly complicated and long-lasting consequences. This experience revealed to us how community-engaged research and action, under a traditional ethics framework, can often work to protect those in positions of power and offer little to disrupt the status quo. Reflecting on the tension between individual and social ethics, we discuss the limitations of an individual-level framework, including the definitions for respect for persons, justice, and beneficence, on our ability as a field to understand, critique, and contribute to the dismantling of oppressive power structures., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

Restricted public budgets and increasing efforts to link the impact of community interventions to public savings have increased the use of economic evaluation. While this type of evaluation can be important for program planning, it also raises important ethical issues about how we value the time of local stakeholders who support community interventions. In particular, researchers navigate issues of scientific accuracy, institutional inequality, and research utility in their pursuit of even basic cost estimates. We provide an example of how we confronted these issues when estimating the costs of a large-scale community-based intervention. Principles for valuing community members' time and conducting economic evaluations of community programs are discussed., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

We conducted a collaborative action research project with stakeholders in Detroit, Michigan, to develop long-term policy strategies to resolve ~11,000 untested rape kits that were discovered in a police storage facility in August 2009. In our research, we uncovered overwhelming evidence of victim-blaming behaviors and fundamental disrespect of rape survivors by the police, which directly contributed to their decisions not to submit kits for forensic testing. We had an ethical responsibility to report these negative findings accurately and completely, and in doing so, we were concerned that police stakeholders might disengage from the action research project and hamper our other ethical responsibilities to promote general and public welfare. In this article, we examine the ethical challenges of balancing accountability, collaboration, and social change., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

This Special Issue examines ethical challenges in community psychology research and practice. The literature on ethics in community psychology has remained largely abstract and aspirational, with few concrete examples and case studies, so the goal of this Special Issue was to expand our written discourse about ethical dilemmas in our field. In these articles, researchers and practitioners share stories of specific ethical challenges they faced and how they sought to resolve them. These first-person narratives examine how ethical challenges come about, how community psychology values inform ethical decision making, and how lessons learned from these experiences can inform an ethical framework for community psychology., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

This article provides first-person accounts of ethical issues inherent in an evaluation of the Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio (NAICCO) Circles of Care project. Circles of Care is a three-year, infrastructure development program funded through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) which is part of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The grant program is for American Indian and Alaskan Native (AI/AN) tribes and urban Indian communities and includes a strong emphasis on community engagement and community ownership. The Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio received a Circles of Care grant in the fifth cohort of the program. The first author (Project Evaluator) presents views that typically represent a western approach to evaluation, while the second author (Project Director) presents a Native perspective. Ethical issues are defined as well as the authors' efforts to address these concerns., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

We describe our ethics-driven process of addressing missing data within a social network study about accountability for racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, ableism, and other forms of oppression among social justice union organizers. During data collection, some would-be participants did not return emails and others explicitly refused to engage in the research. All refusals came from women of color. We faced an ethical dilemma: Should we continue to seek participation from those who had not yet responded, with the hopes of recruiting more women of color from within the network so their perspectives would not be tokenized? Or, should we stop asking those who had been contacted multiple times, which would compromise the social network data and analysis? We delineate ways in which current discussions of the ethics of social network studies fell short, given our framework and our community psychology (CP) values. We outline literature that was helpful in thinking through this challenge; we looked outside of CP to the decolonization literature on refusal. Lessons learned include listening for the possible meanings of refusals and considering the level of engagement and the labor required of participants when designing research studies., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

How do you reconcile tensions between ethical research practice, personal values, and disciplinary values? This article focuses on an ethical challenge involving the engagement of rural Indigenous community members that emerged during my PhD fieldwork. The narrative illustrates the necessity to engage in critical reflexive research practice, a process which saw me respond to my own feelings of "wrong" and "right," contemplate a distinction between procedural ethics and virtue ethics in community-based research, explore colonizing research practices, and endeavor to reconcile an instance where the values of community psychology appeared in contest. The "voice" in this narrative is that of the first author; the dual authorship reflects the ongoing collaboration between both authors. When this ethical issue came about, our relationship was one of "student" and "supervisor"; we are now colleagues and friends., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

In a 2014 presentation at an academic conference featuring an American Indian community audience, I critically engaged the assumptions and commitments of Indigenous Research Methodologies. These methodologies have been described as approaches and procedures for conducting research that stem from long-subjugated Indigenous epistemologies (or "ways of knowing"). In my presentation, I described a Crow Indian religious tradition known as a skull medicine as an example of an indigenous way of knowing, referring to a historical photograph of a skull medicine bundle depicted on an accompanying slide. This occasioned consternation among many in attendance, some of whom later asserted that it was unethical for me to have presented this information because of Indigenous cultural proscriptions against publicizing sacred knowledge and photographing sacred objects. This ethical challenge depends on enduring religious sensibilities in Northern Plains Indian communities, as embedded within a postcolonial political critique concerning the accession of sacred objects by Euro-American collectors during the early 20th century. I complicate these ethical claims by considering competing goods that are valued by community psychologists, ultimately acknowledging that the associated ethical challenge resists resolution in terms that would be acceptable to diverse constituencies., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

This article explores the role and responsibility of the community psychologist in creating change that could potentially harm the group they are meant to be in solidarity with. Drawing upon a 2-year project with a Latinx Student Union at a public middle school in the Pacific Northwest, I examine the ethical dilemmas that arose when powerful stakeholders (school administration) changed the goals and intention of the research project without the consent of the low-power stakeholders (the students). This narrative seeks to shed light on the dilemmas that come with being an ethical community psychologist (Balcazar, Garate-Serafini, & Keys, 2004; Nelson, Prilleltensky, & MacGillivary, 2001; O'Neill, 1989), how these ethics can be compromised by one's identity, and what it means to work for/with/against one's community when deciding whether to stay with or leave a project., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

This article explores an ethical dilemma that arose from the author's involvement in a project intended to identify and address the needs of seven batey communities in the Dominican Republic. In the summer of 2014, the author conducted a large-scale needs assessment to inform strategic planning for a foundation that was invested in community development work in those communities. Through a collaborative process, the author worked with the foundation, representatives of the migrant communities, and other researchers to develop survey and focus group tools that were administered to 1,360 and 54 people, respectively. Data collection, analysis, and dissemination proceeded as planned. The conflict and resulting ethical dilemma emerged at the point of data interpretation and strategic planning, processes that revealed that the different parties held conflicting theories of poverty. The ideological conflicts related to why poverty exists, who is responsible for it, and what should be done about it made proceeding with the project ethically tenuous for the author. The author describes the values and theories of ethics on which she relied to navigate this challenge, as well as reflections on her continued participation in the community development process., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

Balancing risks and benefits is a necessary ethical task for social science researchers. Community psychologists must often consider risks and benefits not just for individual participants, but also for the group, system, or society that those individuals inhabit. Little ethical guidance currently exists for how to navigate this ethical challenge across these multiple levels. In this article, we use a case example of social network research incorporating multiple levels of analysis to identify common risks and benefits and understand their relationship to each other. We conclude by discussing distinctive ethical considerations revealed by this case example., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

The TRACK-II program is a multi-site, community-based randomized controlled trial evaluating an intervention to assist mothers living with HIV (MLH) in disclosing their HIV status to their young children. Many participants-both mothers and children-reported significant depression and/or suicidal ideation, a phenomenon that presented ethical challenges. This article focuses on participants at one site (Atlanta). Through the vignette of "Jordan," we describe ethical challenges that may arise when faced with the responsibility of maximizing participants' safety while maintaining the boundaries of the researcher role. Guided by community psychology values, our team has taken measures within our role as researchers to empower and protect children and mothers endorsing suicidal ideation. For example, we have relied on relationships with community-based organizations and AIDS service organizations to connect HIV-affected families to mental health services. Furthermore, we have expanded our system of documentation to follow-up adequately with families at risk, and we track family resources to promote a strengths-based framework. We have solicited families' feedback about their supports and needs to understand how we may best serve them by connecting them to the resources they report needing most and empowering them to care for themselves., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

Mobile technology is increasingly being used to measure individuals' moods, thoughts, and behaviors in real time. Current examples include the use of smartphones to collect ecological momentary assessments (EMAs; assessments delivered "in the moment"); wearable technology to passively collect objective measures of participants' movement, physical activity, sleep, and physiological response; and smartphones and wearable devices with global positioning system (GPS) capabilities to collect precise information about where participants spend their time. Although advances in mobile technology offer exciting opportunities for measuring and modeling individuals' experiences in their natural environments, they also introduce new ethical issues. Drawing on lessons learned while collecting GPS coordinates and EMAs measuring mood, companionship, and health-risk behavior with a sample of low-income, predominantly racial/ethnic minority youth living in Chicago, this manuscript discusses ethical challenges specific to the methodology (e.g., unanticipated access to personal information) and broader concerns related to data conceptualization and interpretation (e.g., the ethics of "monitoring" low-income youth of color). While encouraging researchers to embrace innovations offered by mobile technology, this discussion highlights some of the many ethical issues that also need to be considered., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

This is a story about learning how to navigate my social identities as a non-religious gay man attempting to conduct data-based consultation with a religious congregation. Beyond my own growth in knowing myself better, this story speaks to the larger ethical challenge of how we build trust in community relationships, and in particular how much of our personal selves we need to disclose in the process of an individual or group deciding to work with us. Individuals and groups make decisions to work with us based on who they perceive us to be; thus, what is our ethical obligation to disclose aspects of who we are to promote full informed consent? To illustrate this ethical challenge of personal disclosure, I tell the story of discussions I had with three different religious leaders and a congregational committee about potentially working together. Throughout these stories, I reflect on my own messy process of growth as a window into the more general question of how we navigate our identities and values as community psychologists in the work we do with communities., (© Society for Community Research and Action 2017.)

What makes a researcher wise? At least for the field of psychology, I argue that the two main characteristics of scholarly wisdom are a desire to understand, rather than to be right, and an orientation toward ethical values. These characteristics do not necessarily produce the highest levels of academic success. Because wisdom is partly context dependent, the actual wisdom of our scientific output could be increased by making some changes to our publication and evaluation culture-changes that might benefit our field and even the world around us.

Ethical principles are fundamental for the exercise of any profession. Portuguese psychologists have waited for 30 years for professional validation. This paper will define the Portuguese psychologists' ethical principles, with a universal view as a starting point and then an adaptation to the cultural and professional reality in Portugal. The level of acceptability of these principles will be ascertained in a later paper., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The following amendment to Ethical Standard 3.04 of the 2002 "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" as amended, 2010 (the Ethics Code; American Psychological Association, 2002, 2010) was adopted by the APA Council of Representatives at its August 2016 meeting. The amendment will become effective January 1, 2017. Following is an explanation of the change, a clean version of the revision, and a version indicating changes from the 2002 language (inserted text is in italics). (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).)

Smartphones now offer the promise of collecting behavioral data unobtrusively, in situ, as it unfolds in the course of daily life. Data can be collected from the onboard sensors and other phone logs embedded in today's off-the-shelf smartphone devices. These data permit fine-grained, continuous collection of people's social interactions (e.g., speaking rates in conversation, size of social groups, calls, and text messages), daily activities (e.g., physical activity and sleep), and mobility patterns (e.g., frequency and duration of time spent at various locations). In this article, we have drawn on the lessons from the first wave of smartphone-sensing research to highlight areas of opportunity for psychological research, present practical considerations for designing smartphone studies, and discuss the ongoing methodological and ethical challenges associated with research in this domain. It is our hope that these practical guidelines will facilitate the use of smartphones as a behavioral observation tool in psychological science., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Third-party reproduction is a growing field, and an increasing body of literature considers the ethics of embryo donation. Due to the psychosocial complexities that generally accompany the donation and/or use of donor embryos, psychologists can play a pivotal role in these specialised fertility cases. While laws in the USA are in place to regulate the medical procedures involved in embryo donation, only unenforceable guidelines exist for psychologists specialising in fertility cases. The presentation of this case study aims to: (1) clarify the ethical concerns that fertility psychologists should consider in similar situations by assessing whether American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the American Psychological Association (APA) guidelines compete or complement one another within this case of embryo donation and (2) consider the interests, obligations and rights of all parties involved. Several principles, standards and guidelines that must be considered are described. Overall, the APA Ethics Code and the ASRM Guidelines appear to complement one another for most aspects of this case. Fertility psychologists should consider the clinical implications of the interests, rights and duties of all involved parties, including themselves., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: To examine the Australian Border Force Act (BFA) and its context, its implications for asylum-seeker healthcare and professionals, and contemporary and historical parallels., Conclusions: Prolonged immigration detention and policies aiming to deter irregular migration cause maritime asylum-seekers undeniable, well-publicised harms and (notwithstanding claims about preventing drownings) show reckless indifference and calculated cruelty. Service personnel may be harmed. Such policies misuse helping professionals to underwrite state abuses and promote public numbing and indifference, resembling other state abuses in the 'war on terror' and (with qualification) historical counterparts, e.g. Nazi Germany. Human service practitioners and organisations recently denounced the BFA that forbids disclosure about these matters.Continuing asylum-seeker healthcare balances the likelihood of effective care and monitoring with lending credibility to abuses. Boycotting it might sacrifice scrutiny and care, fail to compel professionals and affect temporary overseas workers. Entirely transferring healthcare from immigration to Federal and/or State health departments, with resources augmented to adequate standard, would strengthen clinical independence and quality, minimise healthcare's being securitised and politicised, and uphold ethical codes. Such measures will not resolve detention's problems, but coupled with independent auditing, would expose and moderate detention's worst effects, promoting changes in national conversation and policy-making., (© The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 2016.)