Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2108375052> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2108375052 endingPage "216" @default.
- W2108375052 startingPage "204" @default.
- W2108375052 abstract "The principles in the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CCEP; Canadian Psychological Association, 2000) are ranked in order of importance. Although there is some support for the ranking, it is unclear whether its utilization leads to more ethical making. We investigated whether medical residents and undergraduate students who were given information about the ranking would provide more ethical (i.e., in accordance with the CCEP) and consistent responses to dilemmas and would be more confident in their decisions than participants not provided with ranking information. Forty-seven medical residents and 45 students were taught about the CCEP principles. Half of the participants were provided with information about the ranked order. Participants responded to 6 vignettes describing ethical dilemmas with courses of action, by rating whether the course of action was ethical and providing a by rationale. Participants, who knew about the ranking, provided ratings that were more consistent with the CCEP although the pattern varied across vignettes. Moreover, participants in the ranked condition made decisions faster than participants in the unranked condition. We found no evidence that participants were more likely to agree with each other when familiar with the CCEP hierarchy. Finally, students in the ranked condition were less confident than students in the unranked condition whereas ranking did not affect the residents' confidence. Thematic analysis of participants' rationales revealed that, among those who responded inconsistently with the CCEP, some had misunderstood the ethical principles, misinterpreted the relative vulnerability of the parties depicted in the vignettes, and/or provided rationales that were consistent with the code whereas their ratings were not. Specific contextual factors that affected are discussed as are the implications of these findings for the CCEP. Keywords: code of ethics, ethical principles, making, training The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CCEP, Canadian Psychological Association [CPA], 2000) was developed to reflect the collective wisdom of Canadian psychologists (Sinclair, Poizner, Gilmour-Barrett, & Randall, 1987) and is considered to be one of the most influential and well-respected psychological codes of ethics around the world (Hadjistavropoulos, 2008). One of the objectives in the development of the CCEP was to provide rules (i.e., ethical principles) (Sinclair et al., 1987, p. 5) to aid psychologists in the process of ethical making. As such, the code is comprised of four ethical principles. These principles are I: Respect for the Dignity of Persons, II: Responsible Caring, III: Integrity in Relationships, IV: Responsibility to Society. These principles are not necessarily discrete; a degree of overlap may occur among them and it is recommended that all four principles be included and balanced in ethical making (Sinclair & Pettifor, 2001, p. 19). Moreover, to further guide psychologists, the CCEP also provided a ranked order of importance of its ethical principles wherein Principle I is weighted more heavily than Principle II (and III and IV), which is weighted more than Principle ?? and so on (Sinclair et al., 1987). The ranking was developed based on the code development committee's impression of the manner in which a sample of psychologists tended to resolve ethical dilemmas and was confirmed through consultations with psychologists' organisations (Sinclair et al., 1987). In conjunction with the principles' hierarchical organisation, the code also outlines 10 specific steps intended to facilitate ethical making. Step 1, for example, involves identification of the individuals and groups potentially affected by the decision (CPA, 2000, p. 3). Step 2 involves Identification of ethically relevant issues and practices, including the interests, rights and any relevant characteristics of the individuals and groups involved and of the system or circumstances in which the ethical problem arose (CPA, 2000, p. …" @default.
- W2108375052 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2108375052 creator A5001581796 @default.
- W2108375052 creator A5025452603 @default.
- W2108375052 creator A5039936701 @default.
- W2108375052 creator A5058506183 @default.
- W2108375052 creator A5076638767 @default.
- W2108375052 creator A5081368265 @default.
- W2108375052 date "2012-08-01" @default.
- W2108375052 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W2108375052 title "A mixed methods investigation of the effects of ranking ethical principles on decision making: Implications for the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists." @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1479959895 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1484864026 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1584545958 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1598458810 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1734706406 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1738404654 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1863049520 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1951008065 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1970605641 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1971296458 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1979634521 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1980211703 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1981717548 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W1996543965 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2002467426 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2014871801 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2015972929 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2024838601 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2046408303 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2050458120 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2057358652 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2059693616 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2063408468 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2069458117 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2071273037 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2075497070 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2082067527 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2104339063 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2106899986 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2119234749 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2119331897 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2122838852 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2126192745 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2143670077 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2156892839 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2897971917 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W2899931863 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W3143515237 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W602581384 @default.
- W2108375052 cites W616432539 @default.
- W2108375052 doi "https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027624" @default.
- W2108375052 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
- W2108375052 type Work @default.
- W2108375052 sameAs 2108375052 @default.
- W2108375052 citedByCount "4" @default.
- W2108375052 countsByYear W21083750522014 @default.
- W2108375052 countsByYear W21083750522015 @default.
- W2108375052 countsByYear W21083750522016 @default.
- W2108375052 countsByYear W21083750522017 @default.
- W2108375052 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2108375052 hasAuthorship W2108375052A5001581796 @default.
- W2108375052 hasAuthorship W2108375052A5025452603 @default.
- W2108375052 hasAuthorship W2108375052A5039936701 @default.
- W2108375052 hasAuthorship W2108375052A5058506183 @default.
- W2108375052 hasAuthorship W2108375052A5076638767 @default.
- W2108375052 hasAuthorship W2108375052A5081368265 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C128268270 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C189430467 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C2776768071 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C539667460 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C75630572 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C119857082 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C127413603 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C128268270 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C15744967 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C162324750 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C189430467 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C2776768071 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C41008148 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C539667460 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C55587333 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C75630572 @default.
- W2108375052 hasConceptScore W2108375052C77805123 @default.
- W2108375052 hasFunder F4320334617 @default.
- W2108375052 hasIssue "3" @default.
- W2108375052 hasLocation W21083750521 @default.
- W2108375052 hasOpenAccess W2108375052 @default.
- W2108375052 hasPrimaryLocation W21083750521 @default.
- W2108375052 hasRelatedWork W1963537684 @default.
- W2108375052 hasRelatedWork W1972131965 @default.