A third reason ethical codes are imperfect is because they tend to be reactive. They frequently fail to address new and emerging ethical issues (Bersoff & Koeppl, 1993; Welfel, 2012). Committees within professional associations often are formed to study the ways existing codes relate to emerging issues, and codes may be revised in response to new ethical concerns. Concern about the ethics of behavior modification techniques was a focus of the 1970s; in the 1980s, psychologists scrutinized the ethics of computerized psychodiagnostic assessment. In the 1990s, changes in codes of ethics reflected concerns about sexual harassment and fair treatment of individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. In recent years, codes have emphasized the need for practitioner competence in the delivery of services to individuals from diverse experiential, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. Codes also have been scrutinized to ensure relevance to the use of digital technologies.
Ethical codes thus provide guidance for the professional in their decision making. Ethical conduct, however, involves careful choices based on knowledge of broad ethical principles and code statements, ethical reasoning, and personal values. In many situations, more than one course of action is acceptable. In some situations, no course of action is completely satisfactory. In all situations, the responsibility for ethical conduct rests with the individual practitioner (Eberlein, 1987; Jacob et al., 2021).
ETHICS TRAINING AND COMPETENCIES
Prior to the late 1970s, many applied psychology graduate programs (clinical psychology, school psychology) required little formal coursework in professional ethics (Welfel, 2012). Ethics was often taught in the context of supervised practica and internship experiences, a practice Handelsman (1986) labeled “ethics training by ‘osmosis’” (p. 371). A shortcoming of this approach is that student learning is limited by supervisor awareness and knowledge of ethical-legal issues and the types of situations encountered in the course of supervision (Handelsman, 1986). Consensus now exists that ethics, legal aspects of practice, and a problem-solving model need to be explicitly taught during graduate training (Dailor & Jacob, 2010; Haas et al., 1986; Tymchuk, 1985). Both the NASP and the APA graduate program preparation standards require coursework in professional ethics. Furthermore, in School Psychology: A Blueprint for Training and Practice (Ysseldyke et al., 2006), prepared by a task force composed of leaders in the field, knowledge of the ethical and legal aspects of professional practice was identified as a foundational competency for school psychologists, one that permeates all aspects of the provision of services (also see NASP’s Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services, 2020).1
In the 1980s, psychology trainers began to ask, “What should be the goals of ethics education in psychology?” (Haas et al., 1986; Kitchener, 1986); “What are the desired cognitive, affective, and behavioral ‘ethics competencies’ for school psychologists?” More recently, trainers have raised these questions: “How do school psychology students and practitioners gain competence, and ultimately expertise, in ethical decision making?” (Dailor & Jacob, 2010) “How do they gain a sense of themselves as ethical professionals?” (Handelsman et al., 2005, p. 59); and “How should ethics be taught?” A number of goals for ethics training have been suggested in the literature. An emerging picture of desired competencies includes these:
Competent practitioners are sensitive to “the ethical components of their work” and are aware that their actions “have real ethical consequences that can potentially harm as well as help others” (Kitchener, 1986, p. 307; also Welfel & Kitchener, 1992).
Competent psychologists have a sound working knowledge of the content of codes of ethics, professional standards, and law pertinent to the delivery of services (Fine & Ulrich, 1988; Welfel & Lipsitz, 1984).
Competent practitioners are committed to a proactive rather than a reactive stance in ethical thinking and conduct (Tymchuk, 1986). They use their broad knowledge of codes of ethics and law along with ethical reasoning skills to anticipate and prevent problems from arising.
Skilled practitioners are able to analyze the ethical dimensions of a situation and demonstrate a well-developed “ability to reason about ethical issues” (Kitchener, 1986, p. 307). They have mastered and make use of a problem-solving model (Jacob et al., 2021; de las Fuentes & Willmuth, 2005; Tymchuk, 1981, 1986).
Competent practitioners recognize that a system of ethical rules and ideals develops in the context of a specific culture, and they are sensitive to the ways their own values and standards for behavior may be similar to or different from those of individuals from other cultural groups. They “strive to understand the manner in which culture influences their own view of others and other’s view of them” (Ortiz et al., 2008, p. 1721; also APA, 2017a; K. Kelly et al., 2019).
Competent psychologists are aware of their own feelings and beliefs. They recognize that personal feelings, beliefs, and values influence professional decision making (Knapp, Gottlieb et al., 2017; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016).
Competent practitioners do their best to engage in positive ethics; that is, they strive for excellence rather than meeting minimal obligations outlined in codes of ethics and law (Knapp, VandeCreek et al., 2017).
Competent practitioners appreciate the complexity of ethical decisions and are tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty. They acknowledge and accept that there may be more than one appropriate course of action (de las Fuentes & Willmuth, 2005; Kitchener, 2000).
Competent practitioners have the personal strength to act on decisions made and accept responsibility for their actions (de las Fuentes & Willmuth, 2005; Kitchener, 1986).
Two paradigms describe how students and school psychology practitioners develop ethical competence: the acculturation model (Handelsman et al., 2005) and a stage model (Dreyfus, 1997). Handelsman et al. (2005) described ethics training of psychology graduate students as a dynamic, multiphase acculturation process.2 They suggested that psychology, as a discipline and profession, has its own culture that encompasses aspirational ethical principles, ethical rules, professional standards, and values. Students develop their own “professional ethical identity” based on a process that optimally results in an adaptive integration of personal moral values and the ethics culture of the profession. Trainees who do not yet have a well-developed personal sense of morality, and those who do not understand and accept critical aspects of the ethics culture of psychology, may have difficulty making good ethical choices as psychologists.
The stage model describes a process whereby practitioners progress through five levels (Dreyfus, 1997). Novice practitioners are rules-bound and slow to make decisions. With some experience in applying rules of practice, advanced beginners become more capable of identifying multiple aspects of a complex situation and taking context into account, but they are still focusing on technical mastery of their skills. Competent practitioners are better able to identify key elements of a situation, see relationships among elements, recognize subtle differences between similar situations, balance skills and empathy, and consider the long-term effects of their decisions. However, because they are more skilled in considering relevant elements, competent practitioners are at times overwhelmed by the complexity of real-world problems. Practitioners who are proficient recognize situational patterns and subtle differences more quickly, and they are able to prioritize elements in decision making more effortlessly. Proficient practitioners may not be conscious of the knowledge and thinking processes that provide the foundation for their choices. Finally, because of many experiences with diverse situations, experts