Legitimating the legitimate: A grounded theory study of legitimacy work among Ethics and Compliance Officers

Organizations have responded to ethical scandals in part by creating the Ethics and Compliance Officer (ECO) role to help insure employee ethical and legal behavior. Because ECO work is so fundamental to behavioral ethics in organizations and we know very little about it, we conducted a grounded theory study to learn more. We learned that, although most ECOs were hired to help their organizations respond to external legitimacy challenges, ECOs face major legitimacy challenges inside their organizations. Facilitating conditions may reduce these challenges and help ECOs reach internal legitimacy. But, we also found that ECOs engage in what we term legitimacy work that relies on a number of tactics to help them gain legitimacy in the eyes of their constituents. We tie our findings to the broader legitimacy literature and draw implications for the behavioral ethics literature.     

Working with religious and spiritual athletes: Ethical considerations for sport psychologists

With a growing number of sport performers revealing their religious and spiritual beliefs, it is becoming increasingly important for sport psychologists to recognize and appreciate the values (and value systems) to which such beliefs are attached. Using the RRICC model (Plante, 2007) as a framework for discussion, and through the lens of cultural praxis, the purpose of this article is to highlight ethical issues for sport psychologists when working with religious and spiritual athletes. The RRICC model addresses the ethical principles of respect, responsibility, integrity, competence, and concern. It is hoped that a discussion of these guidelines will help sport psychologists better navigate the often challenging landscape of working with athletes whose everyday lives and identities are grounded in religious and spiritual association.     

Emergence and “Science of Ethos”: Toward a Tillichian Ethical Framework

Gordon Kaufman has recently interpreted emergence (“serendipitous creativity”) in religious terms as “ultimate mystery,”“the divine,” or ultimate point of reference. Using Tillich notion of ethics as “science of ethos” or “science of culture” this paper attempts to work out some of the ethical implications of this theological naming of emergence. The implications are brought to light in an ethical framework that not only traces and clarifies the lure of the mystery at work in the culturally-creative functions of persons and social groups, but also shows how the creative functions of human life can express the unconditional eros of serendipitous creativity.     

An Ethics for the Psychoanalyst in the Postmodern Age

Abstract

Paul Roazen, How Freud worked. First-hand accounts of patients Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1995.     

Participatory action research: The distress of (not) making a difference

Participatory action research (PAR) is alluring for researchers investigating traumatic and sensitive topics. While it is distressing for interviewees to recount these stories – and for researchers to hear them – PAR promises to make the pain worthwhile. Something good will come of it. In this paper, I reflect on a PAR project conducted with Tanzanian child domestic workers. Research vignettes are used to highlight moments of emotional complexity unique to PAR projects. First, the emotional burdens of PAR are distributed across a research team. Researchers need to think carefully about the appropriate ‘level’ of participation to pursue. Second, there is no guarantee that the impacts of PAR projects will be unambiguously positive. The risk of doing more harm than good can weigh heavily on the minds of the research team. Third, when PAR projects are conceived with the intent of producing long-lasting structural changes that benefit marginalised people, ‘failure’ can become a source of great distress. Those attempting PAR need to be prepared for the emotional pitfalls of research endeavours that seek to tangibly intervene in traumatised people's lives.     

The five connections: A human rights framework for psychologists

This article provides a brief introduction to human rights, describes why human rights are intrinsic to psychology, and introduces the “Five Connections Framework,” which was adopted by the American Psychological Association in 2021. This framework articulates five distinct relationships between human rights and psychology: (a) Psychologists possess rights by virtue of being human, as well as specific rights essential to their profession and discipline; (b) Psychologists apply their knowledge and methods to the greater realisation of human rights; (c) Psychologists respect human rights and oppose the misuse of psychological science; (d) Psychologists ensure access to the benefits of psychological science and practice; and, (e) Psychologists advocate for human rights. Each of the five connections is described, highlighting implications for psychological research, practice, training and advocacy, with suggestions for how these connections can guide and inspire individual psychologists and psychological associations worldwide.     

Misuse of Psychologist Influence

Summary

In no other area of professional ethics must psychologists rely on their own judgment than in the area of multiple relationships. Yet ironically, because of the wide variety of types and possible outcomes in dual relationships and boundary crossings, psychologists are given less guidance in this area of ethical decision-making than in any other. As a result, psychologists' emotional conflicts and personal needs are more likely to interfere with their judgment in this area. This article will review important dynamics of multiple relationships and boundary violations, while also providing a model for assisting psychologists in avoiding exploitive or harmful dual relationships.     

Ethics in Publication

Summary

This article highlights ethical issues in publication. It addresses the provenance of ideas, problems with joint authorship, plagiarism, and the practice of duplicate submission of material for publication. Confidentiality and privacy matters, and the protection of human subjects in publication of research and clinical case studies are also discussed. The article further examines biases in literature reviews, and in the biased selection of one's best results for publication, intentional misinterpretation of data and the slanting of discussion, summary, and conclusions. Finally, the article deals with ethical problems that can arise in the publication of sponsored research, and the ethical responsibilities of editors and readers.     

Autonomy and morality: A Self-Determination Theory discussion of ethics

Kantian ethics is based on a metaphysical conception of autonomy that may seem difficult to reconcile with the empirically-based science of psychology. I argue that, although not formally developed, a Self-Determination Theory (SDT) perspective of ethics can broaden the field of Kantian-based moral psychology and specify what it means, motivationally, to have autonomy in the application of a moral norm. More specifically, I argue that this is possible when a moral norm is fully endorsed by the self through a process of internalization that is energized by intrinsic motivation and is facilitated by the fulfillment of the basic needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. The conditions of the fulfillment of these needs may even implicitly reveal which norms will be integrated and treated as moral norms. I conclude that SDT offers a motivational approach that is useful in understanding the development of moral norms.     

Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility of moral judgment and decision making

Three studies test eight hypotheses about (1) how judgment differs between people who ascribe greater vs. less moral relevance to choices, (2) how moral judgment is subject to task constraints that shift evaluative focus (to moral rules vs. to consequences), and (3) how differences in the propensity to rely on intuitive reactions affect judgment. In Study 1, judgments were affected by rated agreement with moral rules proscribing harm, whether the dilemma under consideration made moral rules versus consequences of choice salient, and by thinking styles (intuitive vs. deliberative). In Studies 2 and 3, participants evaluated policy decisions to knowingly do harm to a resource to mitigate greater harm or to merely allow the greater harm to happen. When evaluated in isolation, approval for decisions to harm was affected by endorsement of moral rules and by thinking style. When both choices were evaluated simultaneously, total harm -- but not the do/allow distinction -- influenced rated approval. These studies suggest that moral rules play an important, but context-sensitive role in moral cognition, and offer an account of when emotional reactions to perceived moral violations receive less weight than consideration of costs and benefits in moral judgment and decision making.