Ethics for European Psychologists E-Book

Geoff Lindsay

• Herausgeber: Hogrefe Publishing
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 520

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024

Beschreibung

The understanding of and adherence to professional ethics is fundamental in navigating the moral encounters and dilemmas that all psychologists face in their daily work, whether in research or professional practice. Core values and principles remain stable. However, as more complex and conflicting societal contexts come into play, the individual psychologist and the professional community need support in upholding a solid moral integrity. The volume is a welcome resource for any psychologist or student wanting to foresee, prevent, and professionally manage, in an ethically responsible way, the moral challenges that arise. The framework for this timely, second edition remains the Meta-code of Ethics of the European Federation of Psychologists' Associations (EFPA), which is an important asset in addressing the challenges faced by the profession now and in the coming years. The discussions of the principles on the meta-code are further developed and the authors have extended the number and types of practical examples to vividly illustrate ethical challenges and dilemmas faced. Read, discuss, and evaluate your practice.

Leseprobe

Ethics for European Psychologists

2nd edition

Geoff Lindsay, Haldor Øvreeide, & Casper Koene

About the Authors

Geoff Lindsay practised as an educational psychologist, was director of the Centre for Educational Development and Research and the first chair of the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Ethics Committee at the University of Warwick. He is now Emeritus Professor in Warwick’s new School of Education, Learning and Communication Sciences. Geoff has been president of the British Psychological Society (BPS) and also served on its Professional Conduct Board, Ethics Committee, and as chair of the Investigatory Committee for ethics complaints. He led the BPS initiative to achieve statutory regulation of all practitioner psychologists in the UK. Geoff was an original member, initially as secretary and later as convenor, of the EFPA Task Force on Ethics, which developed the EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics. He has researched ethical dilemmas of psychologists and taught professional ethics for psychologist practitioners and researchers in the UK as well as internationally.

Haldor Øvreeide has practised as a clinical child and family therapist and in his own institute for child and family consultation. He has been teaching and consulting colleagues in the Nordic countries on therapeutic communication with children and families, and on professional ethics. Among various contributions to governmental projects on child custody and protection issues, he convened two committees on developing the psychologist’s role as an expert witness and on securing the quality of their statements. Haldor served as chair and member of the Ethical Board of the Norwegian Association of Psychologists and was, as the other two authors, a long-standing member of EFPA’s Standing Committee on Ethics.

Casper Koene is from the Netherlands but lives in Brussels. He worked as a clinical psychologist in sheltered workshops, in care for adults with intellectual disabilities, and in outpatient psychiatry. He then worked as a psychological adviser and senior policy officer at the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs. Since 1972, he has worked as a psychotherapist in his own practice. Casper was chair and board member of the Ethical Advisory Board of the national Dutch association of psychologists (NIP). He was chair of EFPA’s Task Force on Ethics and then chair and member of the Task Force’s successor, the Standing Committee on Ethics (now the Board of Ethics). Casper is currently an acting member of the Belgian statutory disciplinary board for psychologists.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication information for the print version of this book is available via the Library of Congress Marc Database under the Library of Congress Control Number 2024940767

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Title: Ethics for European psychologists / Geoff Lindsay, Haldor Øvreeide, & Casper Koene.

Names: Lindsay, Geoff, author. | Øvreeide, Haldor, author. | Koene, Casper, author.

Description: 2nd edition. | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20240406265 | Canadiana (ebook) 20240406303 | ISBN 9780889376373

(softcover) | ISBN 9781613346372 (EPUB) | ISBN 9781616766375 (PDF)

Subjects: LCSH: Psychologists—Professional ethics—Europe. | LCSH: Psychologists—Professional

ethics. | LCSH: Psychology—Moral and ethical aspects.

Classification: LCC BF76.4 .L56 2024 | DDC 174/.915—dc23

© 2025 by Hogrefe Publishing

www.hogrefe.com

The authors and publisher have made every effort to ensure that the information contained in this text is in accord with the current state of scientific knowledge, recommendations, and practice at the time of publication. In spite of this diligence, errors cannot be completely excluded. Also, due to changing regulations and continuing research, information may become outdated at any point. The authors and publisher disclaim any responsibility for any consequences which may follow from the use of information presented in this book.

Registered trademarks are not noted specifically as such in this publication. The use of descriptive names, registered names, and trademarks does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

Cover image: © iStock.com/Jerome Maurice

PUBLISHING OFFICES

USA:

Hogrefe Publishing Corporation, 44 Merrimac St., Newburyport, MA 01950

Phone [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

EUROPE:

Hogrefe Publishing GmbH, Merkelstr. 3, 37085 Göttingen, Germany

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

SALES & DISTRIBUTION

USA:

Hogrefe Publishing, Customer Services Department, 30 Amberwood Parkway, Ashland, OH 44805

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

UK:

Hogrefe Publishing, c/o Marston Book Services Ltd., 160 Eastern Ave., Milton Park, Abingdon, OX14 4SB

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

EUROPE:

Hogrefe Publishing, Merkelstr. 3, 37085 Göttingen, Germany

Phone [phone], Fax [phone]; E-mail [email protected]

OTHER OFFICES

CANADA:

Hogrefe Publishing Corporation, 82 Laird Drive, East York, Ontario, M4G 3V1

SWITZERLAND:

Hogrefe Publishing, Länggass-Strasse 76, 3012 Bern

Copyright Information

The eBook, including all its individual chapters, is protected under international copyright law. The unauthorized use or distribution of copyrighted or proprietary content is illegal and could subject the purchaser to substantial damages. The user agrees to recognize and uphold the copyright.

License Agreement

The purchaser is granted a single, nontransferable license for the personal use of the eBook and all related files.

Making copies or printouts and storing a backup copy of the eBook on another device is permitted for private, personal use only. This does not apply to any materials explicitly designated as copyable material (e.g., questionnaires and worksheets for use in practice).

Other than as stated in this License Agreement, you may not copy, print, modify, remove, delete, augment, add to, publish, transmit, sell, resell, create derivative works from, or in any way exploit any of the eBook’s content, in whole or in part, and you may not aid or permit others to do so. You shall not: (1) rent, assign, timeshare, distribute, or transfer all or part of the eBook or any rights granted by this License Agreement to any other person; (2) duplicate the eBook, except for reasonable backup copies; (3) remove any proprietary or copyright notices, digital watermarks, labels, or other marks from the eBook or its contents; (4) transfer or sublicense title to the eBook to any other party.

These conditions are also applicable to any files accompanying the eBook that are made available for download.

Should the print edition of this book include electronic supplementary material then all this material (e.g., audio, video, pdf files) is also available with the eBook edition.

Format: EPUB

ISBN 978-0-88937-637-3 (print) • ISBN 978-1-61676-637-5 (PDF) • ISBN 978-1-61334-637-2 (EPUB)

https://doi.org/10.1027/00637-000

Citability: This EPUB includes page numbering between two vertical lines (Example: |1|) that corresponds to the page numbering of the print and PDF ebook versions of the title.

Contents

Preface

Chapter 1  Professional Ethics and Psychology

Chapter 2  Ethical Perspectives and Concepts

Chapter 3  Introduction to the Ethical Principles: Content of the EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics

Chapter 4  The Principle of Respect

Chapter 5  The Principle of Competence

Chapter 6  The Principle of Responsibility

Chapter 7  The Principle of Integrity

Chapter 8  Ethical Problem Solving

Chapter 9  When Things Go Wrong: What to Do if a Client Is Dissatisfied

Chapter 10  Ethical Challenges in a Changing World

References

Appendix

|vii|Preface

This book focuses on the ethical basis for gaining and practising psychological knowledge, and on assisting psychologists to practise ethically. We intend this to be a practical book that will help individual psychologists at different stages of their careers. Ranging from the undergraduate starting out on a scientific subject at university, to the trainee professional psychologist or new researcher, to the experienced psychologist confronted by complicated ethical decision making. In short, we consider that ethical practice is not something that is only learned at the start of a professional career. Rather, it develops as experience grows and new challenges arise.

Although primarily aimed at individual psychologists, this book is also intended to provide support to those engaged in the development of the profession. Psychology has become an influential scientific discipline at universities, integrated in many other academic disciplines and professions. As psychological science develops, this also changes and expands professional practice. Psychological knowledge is thus an integrated element in varied public and private services across the world, and powerful associations of psychologists have developed. Over the years the status of the profession has risen, and so has its societal responsibility. This development requires continued elaboration of thinking about ethics at the national psychological association level, which, in the end, is proven by the quality of the individual psychologist’s work.

The Project

The basis and framework for the book is the Meta-Code of Ethics of the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA; see Appendix; European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Board of Ethics, 2005). This code is primarily aimed at European psychologists and is intended to support colleagues in maintaining a morally sustainable professional standing. It is also relevant to psychologists in countries outside Europe. As authors, our commitment to this project is born out of having worked together over several years in the EFPA’s Standing Committee on Ethics. This committee was instituted to develop the Meta-Code, which was accepted by the EFPA General Assembly in 1995, with a minor revision in 2005 (see Lindsay, 2011, for a history of the development of the EFPA’s Meta-Code). One |viii|of us, Casper, was, for the most part of this time, the convenor and Geoff was the secretary of the EFPA’s Task Force on Ethics, which brought forward the proposal for the Meta-Code to be accepted by the General Assembly. When accepted, our group was established as the EFPA’s Standing Committee on Ethics with the intention to promote the importance of ethical awareness for professional conduct. In the aftermath, the use of the Meta-Code was stimulated by discussions at conferences, and through the delivery of invited workshops in various countries. This was the background for the book – to condense the many stimulating discussions from developing and disseminating the Meta-Code.

The code and its core values abide, but psychology and the contexts develop and change. Therefore, this second and timely updated edition addresses challenges for the profession not clearly visible 2 decades ago.

The Meta-Code was designed to advise psychological associations within Europe. It should serve as a template to develop and revise existing national ethical codes. There are now 37 national EFPA member associations, including all 27 members of the European Union. The EFPA thereby has a network of about 350,000 psychologists through its member associations of professional practitioner psychologists and researchers, and many stakeholders including associate member organisations. It was expected that national codes should comply with the principles and text outlined in the Meta-Code. However, our experience has been that psychologists have found the Meta-Code directly helpful as guidance to their own practice and discussions. And the explications of the Meta-Code and examples provided in the first edition of this book have proved useful for teaching, training, and problem solving in professional psychology and research. Furthermore, the first edition has been translated into several different languages. Thus, in 2022, the publisher asked for a second, updated version.

The Meta-Code, and the book, emphasise the necessity of having an ethical basis for those gaining and practising psychological knowledge. We intend this to be a practical book that will help individual psychologists at different stages of their training and careers. Not to advise what is right/best to do but to stimulate thinking about what the best/right way would be to act. Ethics should be an integrated mindset in professional practice.

For further information about EFPA, and in particular its documents on ethics and national associations, visit efpa.eu. A new comprehensive document on evaluation and corrective actions for complaints about alleged unethical conduct by psychologists was published by EFPA in 2022 (European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations, 2022).

|ix|The Authors

The text in the following chapters will be coloured by the authors’ work experience and national contexts. Besides being members of the mentioned EFPA groups, all three of us have had extensive experience as practitioner psychologists and as long-standing members and convenors of national ethical boards: Casper with his main practice in clinical psychology in the Netherlands and Belgium; Geoff with practice, research, and education in the field of educational psychology in England; and Haldor in clinical, family, and developmental psychology in Norway. Haldor, having published a book on professional ethics in the Scandinavian languages (Øvreeide & Backe-Hansen, 2013), initiated the book project. For more detail see About the Authors.

Outline of the Book

The first two chapters provide an extended framework for understanding the relevance of ethical codes. Chapter 1 presents a perspective on the development of psychology as a science and the rise of psychology as a professional area of practice. This provides a discussion relevant for understanding the value and the changing views on the importance of ethics as an integrated quality in a respectable practice. In this chapter, Geoff also considers some issues that have recently started to have new impacts on psychologists’ practice. The danger of an ethics code is that a psychologist uses it simply as a “cookbook” and expects to find an answer to every question simply by looking up the appropriate recipe. That is not our view and was not the basis of the Meta-Code. Rather, the Meta-Code provides a framework or stimulus for thinking. To underline the need for a wider scope, in Chapter 2, Haldor presents a consideration of central ethical discussion and dimensions, providing a basis for understanding how the text of the Meta-Code may connect to the always ongoing discourses on values in the current context of professional practice.

Chapters 3 to 7 are direct commentaries on the text of the Meta-Code, sentence by sentence, illustrated by examples where the emphasised issue may apply. In Chapter 3, Haldor and Geoff introduce the Meta-Code by focusing on the general issues that cut across specific content. These include the definition of the client and the nature of the relationship between the psychologist and client or others. While Chapter 3 explains the introductory text of the Meta-Code, the following four chapters examine the principles |x|of respect, competence, responsibility, and integrity respectively. These five middle chapters comprise texts directly related to the code but coloured by the authors’ perspectives and areas of practice. These illustrate that the reader must take their own experience, context, and professional perspective into account for understanding the text of the Meta-Code – and similarly the code of ethics of the national association and its relevance for their own practice.

Chapters 8 and 9 consider practical issues. In Chapter 8, Geoff considers the nature of decision making and ethical dilemmas. In Chapter 9, Casper explores approaches to deal with complaints and corrective actions, and the relationship between the roles of national associations of psychologists and legal regulatory bodies that consider complaints about psychologists. The message here, as presented throughout the book, is that for psychologists the fundamental issue is not following an ethical code, perhaps trying to just keep within the appropriate actions and behaviours, but rather that the psychologist should develop an intrinsic commitment to ethical behaviour. Here, the ethical code serves as an aid and there is a focus on education and support, including discussion with colleagues.

Although the basis for ethical practice should be firmly embedded in the four ethical principles discussed, a changing world challenges all of us to continue reflecting on ethics and to learn from developments, those within psychology as a science, as an applied practice, or within society. In Chapter 10, Geoff considers how the emergent ethical challenges we discussed in the original edition have developed and considers emerging challenges likely to be important in the future. These include: new foci and even styles of ethical codes of psychologists’ national associations, particularly those within EFPA; possible changes in the EFPA Meta-Code and implications for the national associations’ codes; national security; displaced persons, asylum seekers, and refugees; artificial intelligence; and the effects of new pandemics. By the time this book has been published, new issues may have arisen, not foreseen by the authors, that call for fresh ethical consideration in the light of the Meta-Code.

Geoff Lindsay, Haldor Øvreeide, and Casper Koene,

London, Bergen, and Brussels June 2024

|1|Chapter 1Professional Ethics and Psychology

Geoff Lindsay

The practice of psychology, whether as a scientific discipline or as a service to the public, is based upon two main foundations. The first comprises a body of knowledge and skills that have been built up from research, theory, and from the practice of psychology. The second comprises the ethics of developing that knowledge and the skills and actions taken when applying it to meet demands for services to the public. All respectable professions have these elements in common. Psychology is firmly grounded in scientific enquiry, with a strong basis in certain approaches such as experimentation, and in attempts to enhance objectivity and replicability of findings. Also, meticulous observation, description, and reflection of unique and naturally occurring events are important for scientific development in psychology.

This book focuses on the ethical basis for gaining and practising psychological knowledge. The basis or the organising principle is the Meta-Code of Ethics developed for the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (EFPA). The development of the Meta-Code was undertaken by the EFPA Standing Committee on Ethics (SCE) and its predecessor, the EFPA Task Force on Ethics (Lindsay, 2011). We intend this to be a practical book that will help individual psychologists, at different stages of their careers, ranging from the undergraduate starting out on a scientific subject at university, to the trainee professional psychologist or new researcher, to the experienced psychologist confronted by complicated ethical decision making. In short, we consider that ethical practice is not something that is only learned at the start of a professional career. Rather, it develops as experience grows, new research is produced, and new challenges arise.

In this chapter we set the scene through four topics: (1) psychology as a science, (2) psychology as a profession, (3) why have an ethical code? and (4) the development of the EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics for psychologists.

|2|Psychology as a Science

Psychology has much in common with other sciences. Research in psychology may include either human or other living species as objects for study. This raises questions about the generalisability of models of species and their location in an ethical hierarchy. Put simply, should our ethical concerns for researching humans differ from those when researching earthworms or rats? If so, on what basis will this be justified? Is there a scale from lower to higher animals (including humans)?

This issue has led to differing positions, which highlight two aspects. First, ethics, and hence the determination of appropriate ethical behaviour by psychologist researchers, is grounded in values. Second, values are themselves linked to and determined by factors including religion, beliefs, and culturally influenced expectations. This being so, it is necessary to undertake research within a framework that has acceptability within the host society. Such acceptability may change over time and differ between cultures.

As a scientific discipline, psychology cannot be viewed as “value free” (Lindsay, 1995). While some research may raise relatively few and minor ethical issues, other research may concern substantial and contentious ethical questions. An example of the former might be studying reading abilities of 11-year-old students, while the latter might comprise the investigation of religious beliefs, sexual behaviours, or patterns of voting in elections: These are all essentially personal and private matters. With respect to research, the ethical issues concern the topic, the arrangements for conducting the research, publication and dissemination of results, and interaction effects. In addition, there are important ethical issues regarding the outcomes and impact of the research on individuals or society. Again, these may vary in importance, from limited or minimal concern through to highly contested or negative and harmful outcomes, even if the research has also produced valuable positive outcomes.

The Topic

Psychology as the study of behaviour and the mind covers a vast range. Consequently, the context of each particular research study will raise different ethical questions. It is not easy to categorise which topics are likely to pose fewer or more ethical problems, and these judgements might change over time. For example, research has been conducted that has examined basic cognitive processes, how these relate to each other, and how they are |3|applied in natural settings. While laboratory studies of reasoning may pose little ethical concern, the results of studies collectively may pose serious challenges. This is exemplified by findings that indicate mean differences between racial or ethnic groups in cognitive abilities. The scientific issues concern the rigour of the studies, and validity and usefulness of the findings (Phinney, 1996; Richeson & Sommers, 2016). In this example, the concept of race is now seen as contentious, affecting the scientific validity of findings. This in turn raises ethical questions regarding dissemination of findings from such studies. But there is a further ethical concern: Should such research be undertaken at all? The work of Jensen and Eysenck, for example, was attacked not so much for the pure science but for the implications that might be drawn and consequent impact on, in this case, relations between different groups (e.g., Eysenck, 1971). This raises the sensitive issue: Are certain topics for research to be avoided not on scientific grounds but because they are socially sensitive? At this time, particularly sensitive topics might continue to include race, but also the broad field of equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Conducting the Research

Research methods in psychology cover a very broad field. At one end of the continuum there are invasive surgical procedures; at the other end of the continuum may be placed interpersonal experimental techniques. One with a low degree of invasiveness is the completion of questionnaires, particularly in a large group. Compare this with a study by individual interview where the researcher asks probing and challenging questions about the participant’s personal behaviour and views.

These examples imply at least two dimensions: physical–interpersonal and low–high intrusiveness. Hence, intrusion may be conceptualised as either physical, for example, surgery, or by, for example, questioning. Each of these has implications for the well-being of the participant, which may also be considered with respect to physical and psychological health. That is, not only does physical intrusion pose potential ethical questions, so also does questioning.

An example, which also suggests how attitudes to what is permissible in experiments change, concerns an experiment by Landis in 1924 in the US (described in Crafts et al., 1938). Twenty-five “subjects” (a term which has been replaced by research “participants”), mainly adults but including a 13-year-old boy, and a hospital patient with high blood pressure, were exposed to various conditions to produce emotional responses, the purpose |4|being to assess facial expression of emotions. The 17 situations included the playing of jazz and reading from the Bible – probably regarded as benign depending on one’s views of jazz or the Bible in a predominantly Christian country. However, other conditions included deception by the researcher, for example, asking the participant to sniff ammonia rather than the “syrup of lemons” as indicated by the experimenter. Other tasks involved asking the person to cut off a rat’s head; and requesting the participant to put their hand into a covered bucket, without looking, and feel around. The bucket contained several inches of water and live frogs, and a strong electric shock was delivered.

A third dimension implicit here is the vulnerability of the participant, with respect to their developmental status, both age and intellectual ability, and their physical and psychological health and resilience – in this case a boy and a hospital patient. Other examples from the past, include the research by Milgram on obedience (see Interaction, below) and the studies on children and adults who were substantially disadvantaged. For example, research on children with significant learning difficulties at the Willowbrook State School for Children with Mental Retardation over the period 1956–1971 were deliberately infected with different strands of hepatitis in order to test a vaccine (Robinson & Unruh, 2008; for a useful summary see https://bioethicsresearch.org/resources/case-studies/hepatitis-studies-​at-the-willowbrook-state-school-for-children/).

An example with adults is the Tuskegee syphilis study in Alabama, which was carried out by the United States Public Health Service over the period 1932–1972 to study the natural history of untreated syphilis. There was deception, a lack of informed consent, and the male participants were not offered treatment for their syphilis, so that the effects of the disease could be investigated (Jones, 2008; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022).

These might be regarded, correctly, as completely unacceptable and indeed the Willowcreek and Tuskegee studies would not be allowed now – at least in most countries. However, the researchers had positive aims and indeed were supported, including by the government through its Public Health Service, and the studies were in process for many years before they were stopped.

When psychologists undertake research now, there are many safeguards. Researchers are often part of a formal body such as a university and there are professional associations that provide guidance and regulation. Ethical consideration of the conduct of research requires attention to several different dimensions concerning the aims and safety of research studies, primarily for the participants but also the researchers and, ultimately, society. |5|In addition, there are ethical concerns regarding the practicability of research, including consent, verification of the participant, and the validity and reliability of measures. While these may often be seen as technical matters, they have an ethical dimension: Invalid data or analyses pose potential problems for the competence and integrity of the research findings and reputation of the researcher.

Publication and Dissemination

Dissemination of research findings takes various forms, for example, reports to sponsors, journal articles for other researchers or professionals, and presentations in the media. The following issues are generally not limited to psychology but are relevant to all research. There are ethical considerations that apply to all of these, but there are also variations.

In each case there is a requirement of integrity. That means accurate, truthful, and comprehensible presentation. At its most basic, data are not fabricated or ignored if they confound the researcher’s expected or preferred outcomes. An example where this was open to question concerned Sir Cyril Burt, an eminent British psychologist. The country’s first educational psychologist. After his death it was alleged that his influential work on IQ, using data from twins, was suspect: It was suggested that he had fabricated findings, and even made up at least one research worker, in order to bolster his views on the heritability of intelligence (Kamin, 1974; for a fuller discussion of this cause célèbre, see Mackintosh, 1995).

While blatant fabrication may be unequivocally unethical, other examples may be less straightforward. Psychologists may legitimately report the findings of a study that lends support to their theories; however, not to consider opposing findings, or not to conduct studies that might challenge the findings would be an act of deception. Consequently, in reporting one study, not to contextualise its worth with reference to the findings of other studies would represent a lack of integrity.

The nature of the medium represents a further ethical challenge. Different expectations are required if the recipient is a researcher or member of the public. These relate both to the medium of publication, and also the style of representation. Whereas papers published in reputable journals are expected to be carefully written and peer reviewed in measured prose, a television programme or tabloid newspaper may accentuate, possibly distort, meanings. The responsibility ultimately is always with the psychologist, even if the (mis)representation is by another person or agency. This applies not only to deliberately questionable representation, but also to |6|ensuring the avoidance of misunderstanding by the audience. Hence, ethical consideration includes both honesty and clarity. The issues raised here apply also to the other main method of dissemination: teaching. There is the dimension of audience, for example, the expert postgraduate seminar through to the invited presentation to a community group. In each case there is an ethical requirement to seek to communicate effectively not only on grounds of good science but also on the ethical basis of seeking to avoid misunderstanding.

The issue of publication of research has recently faced more challenges. One is the growth of “predatory journals.” Scientific journals have a long and positive history. In earlier times, many were produced by scientific bodies. In the case of psychology by, for example, the British Psychological Society (BPS) and the American Psychological Association (APA). Green and Feinerer (2015) state that, “The American Journal of Psychology (AJP) was the first academic journal in the United States dedicated to the ‘new’ scientific form of the discipline.” The first issue of the British Journal of Psychology was published in 1904. Predatory journals are a much more recent phenomenon and are ethically very problematic. Elmore and Weston (2020) provide a useful definition and guidance for their recognition and avoidance:

Predatory journals – also called fraudulent, deceptive, or pseudo-journals – are publications that claim to be legitimate scholarly journals but misrepresent their publishing practices. Some common forms of predatory publishing practices include falsely claiming to provide peer review, hiding information about Article Processing Charges (APCs), misrepresenting members of the journal’s editorial board, and other violations of copyright or scholarly ethics. (p. 607)

A second increasing concern relates to plagiarism, which is becoming substantial. This is happening among students of all disciplines, where there are now “essay mills’ that facilitate cheating by helping academic writing. These have become a lucrative practice. This issue is now being explored for legal sanctions. For example, in the UK, the Skills and Post-16 Education Act became law in 2022, which includes higher education and hence professional psychology training courses in universities (see Department for Education, 2022).

A related unethical practice concerns the abuse of authorship, whereby, for example, a senior psychologist insists that their name be included as an author of a publication when their role has been minimal or even non-existent. This is particularly harmful for early career psychologists, whose actual contribution may be underplayed and so inhibit appropriate recognition. But it is, of course, an unethical practice per se.

|7|Another ethical issue related to this issue of authorship concerns self-publication, where a journal editor publishes a large percentage of their papers in the journal they edit, so raising ethical questions about the journal’s selection processes. Liu et al. (2023) report a study published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour of over 1,000 journals that found that, although most journal editors hardly ever self-publish, 12% of editors publish at least a fifth of their own academic articles in the journal that they edit – the percentage was even higher for chief editors

Furthermore, Pendlebury (2022) reported a study of highly cited researchers produced by Clarivate, the analytics company. This analysis built on existing regular analyses that identified highly cited researchers. Concerns had arisen about the possible misconduct by applicants for the “highly cited researcher” title. Pendlebury noted “Inordinate self-citation and unusual collaborative group citation” (Pendlebury, 2022, “The impact of deeper qualitative analysis on the Highly Cited Researchers list” section) and other questionable activity was identified, which could undermine the data collected. Game playing was hypothesised: Having highly citied researcher status can be highly profitable, both financially and in career terms. As a result of the analysis, the number of putative highly cited researchers excluded from the final list increased from some 300 in 2021 to about 550 in 2022.

Interaction

Finally, it is necessary to consider the interaction of these three elements, conducting research, publication, and dissemination of research with psychologists’ personal values. It may be argued that some research is unethical in itself, but its effects could be beneficial – the “end justifies the means” argument. One example is the work of Milgram on conformity (e.g., Milgram, 1963). In a classic experiment he required people to give shocks to a subject, positioned out of sight, if wrong answers were given to questions. The intensity of shocks delivered increased. Hesitation or reluctance led to a white-coated supervisor insisting the person continued. Despite increasingly apparent signs of distress, it was found that the participants did deliver these increasingly severe shocks, a finding that was interpreted as conformity in the setting and in the presence of an authority figure giving commands. It is difficult to imagine such an experiment being allowed now, yet it could also be argued that this experiment was a significant contribution to our understanding of an important social psychological phenomenon. Example 1.1 gives a fuller account of this landmark study.

|8|Example 1.1 The Milgram experiments

In 1961, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure, who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. Research subjects (participants) and the “victim” (in reality a helper of the experimenter) were told by the experimenter that they would be participating in an experiment helping his study of memory and learning in different situations. Research participants were asked to give electric shocks to the “victim,” up to 450-volt shocks. In reality, no shocks were given. Research participants’ demands to halt the experiment were firmly discouraged.

The research results were alarming: over 60% of the participants administered the experiment’s final 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so.

The Milgram experiments began in July 1961, 3 months after the start of the trial of the Nazi official Adolf Eichmann, in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his experiments to answer the question if it could be that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders.

In “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram, 1973), Milgram informs the general public about his experiment, then writes, inter alia:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. (p. 1)

Apart from other ethical dimensions, the controversial Milgram experiments could not simply have been done without being in conflict with the first aim of appropriate information: the benefit of the client being at stake. This is not only a reflection in hindsight of half a century. Soon after Milgram’s first publication (Milgram, 1963) a thorough discussion on research ethics was launched by Diana Baumrind’s brief, but influential, article commenting on Milgram’s study of obedience (Baumrind, 1964) and Milgram’s reply to it (Milgram, 1964). Baumrind’s criticisms of the treatment of the participants in Milgram’s studies stimulated a thorough revision of the APA’s ethical standards of psychological research.

All in all, the Milgram research is not only to be seen as of great importance because of its contribution to a better understanding of obedience, |9|but also because of the major impetus it gave to the debate on the position of clients’ welfare in research ethics. It is noticeable that, a good half century after the Milgram experiments, it is to some extent a standard for ethical codes to have included one or more paragraphs on avoidance of harm. The Meta-Code addresses this subject in Chapter 6, on responsibility.

A similar example is the famous Stanford Prison experiment carried out in 1971, which was reported in detail for the first time in The Lucifer Effect (Zimbardo, 2007). In this case, the study did not concern deception but was also focused on conformity to perceived powerful persons. Unlike the Milgram study, there was no actual direct harm as there was no electric shock – although participants were subject to degrees of upset and trauma by the deception. In the prison experiment, the volunteer “guards” enacted their roles in an increasingly real abusive manner to the prisoners. Hence in each study participants were subject to real negative experiences.

A different issue concerns the potential biases that may impact on any or all three of the elements above and consequently lead to a cumulative disposition to bias of the discipline. For example, it has been argued that psychology lacks socio-political diversity and that most psychologists are politically liberal, with conservatives being underrepresented in the discipline and profession. Research topics are chosen which, it is argued, are salient to the values of psychologists: These may be interpreted with a liberal bias; the findings may be reported within the values domains of the researcher. In such a case, there is a potential bias from start to end of the research process. This may not be intentional but be a subtle manifestation of the psychologists’ individual value systems. The problem is confounded if, as is argued for psychology, the members of the profession have a high level of homogeneity of values.

This section has focused on ethics with respect to research and dissemination of research. It may be thought initially that this is a domain where ethical issues and challenges are less common than the domain of professional practitioner psychologists, for example, as a clinical psychologist. However, as seen in this section, there are substantial ethical issues with respect to research, and a worrying level of misconduct. Furthermore, there is an overlap with the next section on practitioner psychology. In some countries the training for a practitioner psychologist will involve a substantial research component, as noted above. Some countries’ training programmes are now at doctoral level and typically require a substantial research project, often involving an empirical research study.

In the UK, for example, the qualification will be a doctorate in the applied professional programme rather than a PhD. This research component will have included high levels of scholarly work, developing competence as a |10|practitioner and having undertaken a substantial time on practical placements, and then the doctoral research and production of a thesis based on the research, typically at least half the size of a PhD. As a result, doctoral-programme-trained practitioner psychologists also become researchers, which provides training to include research, and the important understanding of research information, as part of their practice. Finally, effective comprehensive training will include the topic of ethics, both theory and practical ethics issues dealing with dilemmas throughout the training programme: practical research and scholarly components. This, in turn, provides a more comprehensive basis for practice, to the benefit of psychological services or independent practice, and to society. It is designed, therefore, to deliver trained professional, ethical scientist–practitioners. Many European universities will have general ethical norms for research and even ethical boards that may accept, require modifications, or turn down research projects.

Psychology as a Profession

What Is a Profession?

Pryzwansky and Wendt (1999) argue that a profession may be characterised by the following:

Existence of a formal professional member organisation

Systematic training

Body of knowledge “to profess”

Code of ethics

Regulation of the members who provide a service

However, these are not simple issues when it comes to psychology. For example, in many countries psychologists have practised with limited organisation. Also, until relatively recently, psychologists had no specific code of ethics. That of the APA, generally argued to be the first, was not approved until 1953, well over half a century after the APA was set up. At that time large numbers of psychologists had practised for many years. Within Europe, many countries have developed their ethical codes following the initiative of the EFPA, which set up a task force to develop an ethical code in 1990 (after the Meta-Code was approved in 1995, the Task Force became the EFPA SCE). The EFPA Task Force on Ethics, initially comprised 7 but then around 10 psychologists representing psychological associations from across Europe. This group developed the EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics, which was approved by the EFPA General Assembly in 1995. Minor amendments |11|were made in 2005 resulting in the present version. The EFPA later required all member associations to have their own association’s ethical code and that code must comply with the Meta-Code. By 2012, across the world, not all psychological associations had a formal ethical code for their members but there has been substantial development of these codes across the world (Leach et al., 2012; Parsonson, 2021).

The issue of psychology as a profession is complex. There are historical and cultural factors that challenge the generally agreed criteria. Furthermore, there are other factors to consider including:

Specificity of knowledge and skills

Level of skill application

Self and societal interest

Psychology par excellence is a discipline that has contributed to a range of professions: in health care, teaching, social work, personnel and human relations, and advertising, among others. Many, but not all, will have their own ethical code. For example, until recently there was no ethical code for school teachers in England and Wales, a limitation addressed by the General Teaching Council, instituted in 2000, and a Code of Conduct and Practice published in 2004 – but the General Teaching Council was abolished in 2012. Now, the UK government’s Department for Education (2021) has a booklet of teaching standards, but this mentions ethics only once in a short final section.

The level of skill required may distinguish between or within professions. Again, complexity is increased with overlapping sets of competencies. For example, a school teacher may train in educational measurement to a high level, but not have the breadth of experience of psycho-educational assessment of an educational/school psychologist. Hence psychology is applied by others as well as by psychologists – we must, therefore, draw lines to define the psychologist in order to specify who is competent and who is subject to an ethical code for psychologists.

The third issue concerns the nature of and need for the work undertaken in the society in which it occurs. This is also problematic with the variation in private- and state-provided practice, and this varies across countries. Some argue that a primary orientation to community interest rather than individual self-interest is a characteristic of professional behaviour, but this is difficult to unpick. Traditional commitment to society characterised by low wages and poor working conditions has been challenged by organised labour and changes in society’s views of what is appropriate. Also, those in private practice essentially have a degree of self-interest inherent in their practice – they need clients for own prosperity. But more subtle pressures may be present for others, including those who are employed by the state |12|or a voluntary agency. For example, critiques of special education have argued that professionals may maintain the system out of self-interest as their livelihoods are implicated. Interestingly, such critics tend not to apply the same allegation to themselves, whose professional careers may be based on promulgating such critiques.

In summary, the question of what is a profession is problematic and contentious. However, for present purposes the primary focus will be on the development of an ethical code, and the regulation of professionals’ behaviour, especially as related to psychologists.

The Need for Psychological Associations

Organised psychology has been around since the end of the 19th century when laboratories for the study of psychology were established, but these did not necessarily represent psychology as an independent discipline. For example, in the university where I took my bachelor’s degree it was well after the Second World War when a Department of Psychology was established. Before then there were lecturers in psychology in the Department of Philosophy. Such developments occurred at different rates within as well as between countries. Indeed, even now it is of little if any interest to some psychologists whether or not they practise within an organisation that is “psychological,” a university department, a public service, industry, commerce, or private practice. Others are most concerned to be recognised personally as psychologists, and to operate within organisations or subsections of psychology.

Of relevance to the present discussion is the development of formal organisations of psychology. The oldest are the APA and the BPS, both over 100 years old. These have always been organisations of psychologists. That is, membership is open to those who meet certain requirements with respect to training in psychology. By 2012 there were over 70 psychology associations across the world (Silbereisen, 2012).

These organisations have been central to the development of ethical codes. Discussions within these bodies, and ultimately decisions that have been made, have resulted in the nature and substance of any codes that have been developed. Also, being typically democratic bodies, such organisations have needed the support of members to approve policies and regulatory procedures including ethical codes. Consequently, the development of ethical codes is dependent upon the existence, strength, and organisation of psychological associations, as well as universities and groupings of practitioners. These factors will be influenced by various elements, not least the |13|general societal context. For example, the development of psychological associations since the fall of past communist regimes in Eastern Europe has allowed previously restricted associations to develop their practice, and to develop new ethical codes.

The importance of psychological associations for the development of ethical codes is probably most clear in countries that have been later in instituting the professional bodies. However, their role can also be seen when tracing the development of ethical codes within well-established associations. In doing this it is necessary to consider: What is a profession? And why have an ethical code?

Why Have an Ethical Code?

Ethical codes are characterised, implicitly or explicitly, by two elements: a set of general “ethical principles”, and also a set of specific “elements of practice” that are written as advice or enforceable “standards”. Ethical codes, therefore, are means of translating beliefs regarding necessary behaviour into statements that specify how the professional may act appropriately. These principles are derived from general moral positions including values. But why have an ethical code at all?

This question may now seem absurd, but in the development of the first APA code there was an active debate in which the argument for not having a code was put forcefully by Hall (1952). This was not an argument against ethical behaviour, but Hall argued that there was no need to have a formal code. Rather, he argued, ethical behaviour should be assumed of psychologists and, he argued, the institution of a formal code was a retrograde step as “I think it plays into the hands of crooks on the one hand and because it makes those who are covered by the code feel smug and sanctimonious on the other hand” (p. 430).

This view did not prevail, but the point made is important. First, it distinguishes ethical behaviour from a formal ethical code, but implicitly it raises the issue of education and training. Hall’s position was based upon a belief in the goodness of right-thinking psychologists but was silent on how they achieved their right-thinking behaviour: “decent mature people do not need to be told how to conduct themselves” (p. 430) – experience shows this view to be naïve.

A further issue concerns the range and comprehensiveness of any code, and its impact on the members of a profession. Ethical codes are typically designed to apply to practitioners. Psychology, however, is unusual in its |14|large majority of graduates who do not become psychologists per se but use their academic psychological learning in a wide range of other professions – or not at all. Also, the majority of academics in psychology within universities do not offer services to the public but are academics as those in other disciplines undertaking education of students and research. In other professions the overwhelming majority of members will be practitioners (e.g., nurses, social workers). Ethical codes in these professions therefore are directed towards practice with clients. Psychology, however, has a substantial proportion of those who develop the discipline through research and disseminate through education (see section Conducting the Research).

One approach could be to limit ethical codes only to those members who offer services to the public. This was not the line taken by the major national societies in Europe, or the APA or the Canadian Psychological Association. While there are practical factors, separating out members into distinct groups, there is also a tradition of bringing science and practice together. This can be exemplified by the situation in the APA at the end of the 1940s, early 1950s. At that time practitioners in psychology developed from researchers in that the doctorate was seen as the key qualification. This position was debated and challenged, and the Boulder conference of 1949 was an important event that firmed up the notion that clinical psychologists should be trained with a grounding in basic research and that clinical applications should follow from and be built upon this foundation. This approach, often called the scientist–practitioner model, has been followed in other fields of applied psychology (Lindsay, 1998) but continues to be a matter of contention (Rice, 1997). These debates took place at the same time as those about the first APA code of ethics, and researchers, some of whom would have been in practice with clients, were important contributors.

This policy of inclusiveness by psychological associations may not be matched by licensing authorities, which may typically not require researchers or teachers of psychology to have a licence to practice. These psychologists will therefore fall outside the remit of licensing authorities, and hence the psychological association must provide the necessary investigatory and disciplinary procedures, as well as ethical guidance. (The APA states that a complaint is only accepted against an APA member psychologist if there is no alternative forum to hear the complaint.)

This issue of coverage is important as there are different implications for ethical codes. When considering practice (e.g., as a clinical psychologist) an ethical code must typically address the behaviour of the psychologist with a client, an individual, or smaller group. On the other hand, research requires consideration of individuals who are not clients in the same sense |15|(e.g., research participants) but also there is a need to address a more abstract concept, namely the body of knowledge of the science.

This is not to argue for a simple dichotomy, the concept of client, for example, is complex (see Chapter 3). Researchers may have clients in the form of organisations that provide finance, while those providing services may have multiple clients, or different orders of clients as with a child within a family, or workers within a company. Nevertheless, there is a legal position in many countries that acknowledges the particular relationship, and hence obligations, between a professional and an identified client. This may be considered as a special duty of care for the welfare and respect of one’s clients or patients. However, such a duty of care may also be attributed to the researcher, with respect to research participants in particular. Hence, ethical behaviour should be expected of all psychologists, and systems to ensure this occurs must address this full range, including researchers and educators. The relationship between colleagues will also need to be regulated by ethical norms, both in research and professional practice.

The Development of the EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics

The EFPA was founded in 1981 as the European Federation of Professional Psychologists’ Associations (EFPPA) and changed its name in 2001. The EFPA is a federation and hence has limited power over member associations, which comprise a single body from each member country. It is the national associations that exercise direct power over individual members. The position of psychology in Europe is highly varied and this is matched by the nature of the associations. While some bodies are fundamentally scientific and/or professional associations, others are trades unions/syndicates. Also, while some countries (e.g., the UK) have one predominant association for all psychologists, others (e.g., France) have many associations. Consequently, whereas the UK is represented by the BPS, France is represented in the EFPA by a federation of associations: Fédération Française des Psychologues et de Psychologies.

These political realities are important when considering the development of a common ethical code. This was identified as a key aim in the very early stages of the EFPA’s existence. (Note that this development was pre-Brexit.) A Task Force on Ethics was set up in 1990 with the aim of producing a common ethical code for psychologists in Europe (Lindsay, 2011; this paper sets |16|out the history of the development of the EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics). Given freedom of movement within the European Union (which covers much but not all of Europe) there are benefits in common procedures. There was concern that a psychologist disciplined in, say, Portugal could move to the UK without this being known. This is not the case in the US and Canada where the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards facilitates communication.

It was evident at the first meeting of the Task Force in Copenhagen 1990, however, that this aspiration was unrealistic. A number of associations had their own codes, but not all. These codes had much similarity (Lindsay, 1992) but there were also a number of significant differences, mainly with detail rather than principle (see Table 1; since this analysis there have been developments of the ethical codes of these national associations). Nevertheless, each had been devised by the association in question to meet their specific requirements, and a common code might not ensure this occurred. Furthermore, in many cases (e.g., the BPS) a vote of members was needed to change the code. Hence, it was decided that a common code for all member associations was too difficult, or arguably impossible, to achieve.

The alternative approach, taken by the Task Force, was to devise a meta-code of ethics for the national associations. This set out what the code of each member association should address but left it to each association to produce a specific code and elements within codes appropriate to their association. This approach was successful and the Meta-Code of Ethics was approved by the EFPPA’s General Assembly in 1995. It is the EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics (as revised in 2005, see www.efpa.eu and Appendix 1) that sets the framework for this book.

The development of the Meta-Code is of interest as it represents a specific inclusive strategy designed deliberately to attain maximum generalisability and acceptance. An early analysis, mentioned above, had indicated similarities but also differences between the codes of different national associations of psychologists. Furthermore, across Europe at that time (1990) it was known that some associations had no code or were in the process of developing their code. Consequently, there were variations in stage of development. Furthermore, it was also important to recognise the variations between nations (at the socio-political rather than psychologist association level) including culture, history, and politics, as well as language(s).

The success of the Meta-Code can be attested to by three main sources of evidence. First, it was approved by the 1995 EFPA General Assembly. Second, associations without codes or developing their code used the Meta-Code as their template, as intended. Third, the 2005 revision was successfully achieved with few amendments.

|17|Table 1.  Contents of ethical codes of six European countries and the US

Nordic

Germany

Spain

Hungary

Austria

UK

US

1. Responsibility, general principles

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

2. Competence

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

3. Relationships with clients

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

4. Confidentiality

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

5. Psychological methods, investigations, and statements, including research reports

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

6. Public statements, advertising

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

7. Professional relationships

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

7a. Relationships with employers

✓

8. Research, teaching

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

9. Professional designation, title, qualifications

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

10. Training

✓

11. Fees and remuneration

✓

✓

12. Working conditions

✓

✓

✓

13. Personal conduct

✓

✓

14. Obtaining consent

✓

✓

Reprinted with permission from “Educational Psychologists and Europe,” by G. Lindsay, in S. Wolfendale, T. Bryans, M. Fox, A. Labram, & A. Sigstone (Eds.), 1992, The profession and practice of educational psychology, Cassell, p. 195. © The editors and contributors 1992

|18|The process that led to this success was straightforward. Member associations had been invited to send one member each to the Task Force on Ethics. From its beginning, membership consistently comprised at least 10 countries from the full range of Europe, from the Nordic north to the Latin south, and including post-Communist Eastern Europe. The Task Force considered different models that existed in their own countries as well as those from non-European associations, particularly the APA code and the Canadian Psychological Association code. The latter was particularly attractive because of its strong educative orientation, with an accompanying extended manual with vignettes (Sinclair & Pettifor, 2001).

The Task Force drew on a range of material but from the start was committed not simply to replicate another code, however positively that was viewed. The structure of ethical principles followed by more specific standards was agreed to be appropriate, but the Task Force decided, after much debate, to structure around four principles rather than, for example, the five that characterised the then current version of the APA code. That decision was partly influenced by a wish not simply to follow the APA – a determination that this should be European – but more importantly there was disagreement with the APA’s five-principle structure (the current APA code also has five principles).

The exact specification of the principles and of the different standards took place over several years, with the Task Force meeting twice a year. An early decision by the group was crucial in simplifying the process: The code should be written in English. By this decision the Task Force was able to focus on a single version. However, this also allowed a relatively straightforward approach to deal with linguistic variations. At each point the English text would be considered by Task Force members to identify potential problems for the different national languages. The policy was for each association to translate the English version into their language(s) so a straightforward route that prevented ambiguity following translation was required. This process demanded much discussion but was productive.

There were very few major concerns about the English text. The most important was a discussion of the English word confidentiality. In South European countries the common term would be translated into the English equivalent of professional secret/secrecy and there was much discussion as to whether these terms were of equivalent power. Otherwise, the development of the Meta-Code was challenging but ultimately successful with the Task Force’s proposal being accepted by the 1995 EFPA General Assembly.

Subsequently, the Task Force on Ethics was replaced by the SCE. The SCE spent the next few years developing other guidance including the evaluation of complaints. It was then decided that a 10th anniversary of the |19|Meta-Code in 2005 would be an appropriate time for the EFPA General Assembly to receive a revision. The basis for this decision was that revisions tend to be necessary over time. Certainly, the APA code had undergone a series of revisions over its 50 years of existence, some being substantial.

The SCE initiated the review as a committee but also sought comments from national associations. Two symposia were organised in Prague in 2004 and 2005 attended by representatives of national associations as well as the SCE. A rigorous review of the content of the Meta-Code was supplemented by consideration of current ethical issues and dilemmas, such as the use of the internet (for which the SCE had also provided separate guidance). As a result of this work the revised Meta-Code (for the remainder of this book, the term Meta-Code of Ethics refers to the 2005 revision) was approved by the 2005 EFPA General Assembly. Interestingly, this intensive interrogation of its content led to very few changes being required, suggesting that the original structure and content was sound, fit for purpose, and likely to remain so for some time.

Subsequently, the EFPA SCE has changed to the EFPA Board of Ethics, which built on the Meta-Code to produce the EFPA Model Code of Ethics in 2015 (www.efpa.eu). Whereas the Meta-Code provides a framework for associations to create their own code, the Model Code provides more specific guidance to help associations to produce their own national codes.

Conclusions

In this chapter, the focus in the first two sections has been on the nature of psychology as both a science and as a profession. In each case there is a need for ethical behaviour. In the latter two sections the focus switches to explore the reasons and benefit of codes of ethics and then a focus on the development of the EFPA Meta-Code of Ethics. This chapter therefore provides a foundation for exploring the Meta-Code and wider ethical issues. Finally, Chapter 10 will review the ethical challenges identified in the first edition of this book and then look to new challenges for the future.