Journal of HumaNisTic cOuNsELiNG ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55 99

Journal of HumaNisTic cOuNsELiNG ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume
55 99
© 2016 by the American Counseling Association. All rights
reserved.
Received 06/22/15
Revised 11/18/15
Accepted 11/23/15
DOI: 10.1002/johc.12027
Authenticity in
Ethical Decision Making:
Reflections for Professional Counselors
Christin M. Jungers and Jocelyn Gregoire
◆ ◆ ◆
Ethical competence, maturity, and autonomy are foundations of
good counseling; however,
ethical autonomy can be eroded by a risk-management approach
to ethics that tends to con-
strict counselors’ creative responses to dilemmas. This article
offers reflections on the notion
of authenticity as described by existentialist philosophers Søren
Kierkegaard and Martin
Heidegger, as a means by which to balance risk-management
and reductionist perspectives
on ethics and to foster ethical autonomy. Applications of

authenticity to counselors’ ap-
proach to ethics are suggested, as are limitations of this concept
as a stand-alone framework
for decision making.
Keywords: ethics, decision making, authenticity, autonomy
◆ ◆ ◆
Ethical maturity, ethical autonomy, and ethical competence are
bedrocks of
good counseling and enable professional helpers to act
benevolently toward
clients (Ivey, Ivey, & Zalaquett, 2014). The counseling
profession offers
clinicians a number of means by which to shape their
professional ethical
selves. Primary among these is the ACA Code of Ethics
(American Counseling
Association [ACA], 2014) and the codes of the parent
association’s divisions
and sister organizations, such as the American School
Counselor Association
and the American Association of Marriage and Family
Therapists. These
codes are an invaluable and foundational tool for ethical
decision making,
because they represent current thought about evolving issues
(Kaplan et al.,
2009). In addition to the codes, ethical principles such as
nonmaleficence,
beneficence, autonomy, fidelity, and justice are often a point of
reflection
when clinicians are trying to reason through a clinical dilemma
(Beauchamp
& Childress, 1979; Kitchener, 1984; Urofsky, Engles, &

Engebretson, 2008).
Pragmatism and experience likewise have inspired counselors to
generate
decision-making models that can be applied to ethical issues
(e.g., Corey,
Christin M. Jungers, Clinical Mental Health Counseling
Department, Franciscan University of Steu-
benville; Jocelyn Gregoire, Department of Counseling,
Psychology, and Special Education, Duquesne
University. Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Christin M. Jungers, Clini-
cal Mental Health Counseling Department, Franciscan
University of Steubenville, 1235 University
Boulevard, Steubenville, OH 43952 (e-mail: [email protected]).
100 Journal of HumaNisTic cOuNsELiNG ◆July 2016 ◆
Volume 55
Corey, & Callanan, 2011; M. Hill, Glaser, & Harden, 1995;
Rest, 1984; Sileo
& Kopala, 1993; Steinman, Richardson, & McEnroe, 1998;
Tarvydas, 1998;
Tymchuk, 1986; Welfel, 2010). Decision-making models
provide clinicians
with steps for reflection and suggestions for consultative
actions before
they settle on a decision about an ethical dilemma. Finally,
professional
wisdom from those who have researched or resolved problems
in the field
is accessible in the counseling literature and can be reviewed
when one
is in need of counsel. For example, Pope and Keith-Spiegel

(2008) recom-
mended a set of helpful tips for addressing boundary dilemmas,
although
their insights easily can be applied to other ethical issues.
While acknowledging the value and necessity of the
aforementioned
resources for building ethical competence, we believe there is
room for
further conversation about how to foster ethical maturity and
autonomy in
the counseling field. The study of ethics in counselor education
programs
and the practice of working through ethical dilemmas,
especially early in
one’s career, sometimes can be experienced as an exercise in
learning one’s
ethical obligations and making sure one knows what not to do to
protect
one’s license or avoid a lawsuit. It is our opinion that the
understanding
and implementation of ethics in counseling has the distinct
possibility of
being limited by a reductive, risk-management approach to
decision making.
This is evidenced, in part, by literature that highlights the
liability aspect
of ethical decision making across the helping professions (e.g.,
Hermann
& Herlihy, 2006; Hoffman & Kress, 2010; Magnuson, Norem, &
Wilcoxon,
2000; Nolan & Moncure, 2012; Reamer, 2013; Sanders, 2006).
There are
problems with this approach to learning and practicing ethics.
First, it
tends neither to expand perspectives on what is good and right

or bad and
wrong, nor to fully appreciate the complexity of the human
condition and
the therapeutic relationship. Second, it does not encourage
professionals to
examine a range of possible behaviors that can be enacted with
the good
of the client in mind (Lazarus, 1994). Third, it can foster habits
by which
counselors relinquish their interested and passionate
involvement in the
process of making ethical decisions.
In an article that set out to define a humanities vision for the
counseling
field, Hansen (2012) proposed that the profession has been so
influenced by
a reductive, scientific ideology that counselors are trained to
oversimplify
the human experience and disregard a variety of perspectives on
clini-
cal issues in favor of the scientific view. Referring to the role
of scientific
ideology in the counseling profession, Lemberger (2012)
similarly noted
that, “[m]any counseling researchers and practitioners have
embraced a
system that compels these professionals to take a reductionistic
stance in
their scholarly and therapeutic work” (p. 166). The danger of
this trend is
that creativity, innovation, and the ability to be critical as a
professional
counselor can be lost (Hansen, 2012). We believe that what
Hansen (2006,
2012) observed generally about counseling’s emphasis toward

simplification
and quest for a single truth (as exemplified in evidence-based
treatment
55 101
and best practice movements) is also at least partially true for
the approach
to and application of ethics. Notably, Cottone (2014) recently
questioned
whether counselors are even permitted to act autonomously in
light of an
ever more prescriptive ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). He
stated,
On the issue of constraint, the counseling profession has limited
the rights of counselors
to morally object to certain actions defined within the
counseling scope of practice,
thereby nullifying the autonomy of practicing professionals. For
example, if an ethics
code prevents a counselor from conscientious objection
regarding judgments about
which clients may be served, it challenges the counselor ’s right
to make decisions
free of the shackles of professional imposition. (p. 243)
The sword of Damocles metaphorically hangs over counselors’
heads
when they are faced with ethical quandaries, and the safest,
surest way
out from under this perilous spot is to consult and ultimately
abide by a

single truth: the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). Our purpose
in critiquing
the reductive, risk-management approach to ethics and the
“single truth”
as embodied by the ACA Code of Ethics is not to suggest that
either this
approach to decision making or the ACA Code of Ethics itself
are not useful;
both, in fact, are necessary, as they represent and refer to the
social, profes-
sional, and even political worlds in which counselors operate.
Rather, we
are pondering what is lost when counselors abide.
In this article, we take to heart Hansen’s (2012) suggestion that
from a hu-
manities view of things, good counselors are akin to professors
of literature
or philosophy who explore important huma n questions,
appreciate meaning,
value subjectivity, and engage in dialogue and debate with
colleagues for the
purpose of expanding perspectives rather than constricting or
simplifying
them. Like other counselors in the humanistic tradition (e.g.,
Dollarhide &
Oliver, 2014; Scholl, McGowan, & Hansen, 2012), we are
invested in helping
professionals engage in their work, and ethical reasoning in a
way that is
not reductive or taken for granted, but rather that supports and
advances
human and professional potentials. To that end, we also hope
that this article
helps counselors think about the self-development or
intrapersonal aspects

of counselor ethics. The relevance of self-development to
counselor ethics is
confirmed by virtue ethicists who point out that qualities of an
individual’s
personhood, such as sensitivity to others’ needs, reflectivity,
openness, and
awareness of personal biases, are useful to ethical decision
making, as are
developed habits of ethical behavior (A. L. Hill, 2004; Punzo &
Meara, 1993;
Stewart-Sicking, 2008). Our goal, therefore, is to consider the
process and
outcomes of ethical decision making from a philosophical —
especially an
existentialist—perspective, with an emphasis on the concept of
authenticity.
By considering this particular philosophical notion, counselors
might think
about not just what they are required to do ethically, but how
they can (a)
imagine a variety of ethical responses to clinical quandaries, (b)
act in a way
that is professionally upstanding, and (c) strive toward an
autonomous ethical
self that makes use of the wisdom of the professional
counseling community
Volume 55
but also does not surrender free and informed thinking to keep
in lockstep
with the majority view.

HistoriCaL and PHiLosoPHiCaL sketCH
of autHentiCity
The notion of authenticity in the Western world developed in
the 17th and
18th centuries when society began viewing the person as a
unique and
valuable individual rather than as a cog in the system whose
worth and
purpose was related to the ability to fulfill one’s social role and
responsibili-
ties (Varga & Guignon, 2014). A sharp attention to the
individual during
these early and subsequent centuries opened the door for
philosophers to
challenge conformist social behavior, as well as critique some
long-held
virtues, such as honesty and sincerity, both of which esteemed
behavior that
aligned with the expectations of a person’s place in society.
According to
Varga and Guignon (2014), the virtue of sincerity eventually
was traded for
the virtue of authenticity, which generally holds that being true
to oneself
for its own sake is preferable to being sincere as a means to
uphold social
norms or act as a placeholder in society.
The popularization of authenticity as a virtue is attributable
largely to
existentialists such as Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855), Martin
Heidegger
(1889–1976), and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980). The meaning
of authenticity to
each of these philosophers is related to his broader work and

thought; how-
ever, the concept as they deal with it nevertheless tends to
involve a critique
of conformist attitudes and behavior and, simultaneously, an
encouragement
toward ownership of one’s own self and one’s place in the
world. These
qualities are what interest us insofar as they challenge
counselors not to see
ethics primarily in a risk-management light and not to come to
ethical deci-
sions in a fashion that focuses on the outcome (i.e., enacting the
code) to the
detriment of reflection, engagement, and personal commitment
and respon-
sibility to the decision. In addition, the notion of authenticity is
connected to
that of autonomy, which also is of interest to us here. Both
concepts suggest
that it is worthwhile for people to foster self-directed and self-
governing
qualities so that ethical decisions are made through one’s own
reasoning
and reflections about how to live life rather than necessarily in
accord with
an external set of standards or guidelines (Varga & Guignon,
2014). In the
rest of this section, we examine aspects of Kierkegaard’s and
Heidegger’s
philosophies as two means through which to expand our
understanding of
authenticity. We also consider how these philosophers’ sense of
this notion
might advance the development of counselors’ ethical
professional selves.

Kierkegaard on Authenticity
The beginning of the quest for authenticity is tied tightly by
many writers
to Kierkegaard’s (1996) yearning to find a truth that made sense
to him and
55 103
for which he personally could commit both his life and death. A
central
concern in Kierkegaard’s philosophy was how one goes about
becoming a
Christian. A fierce critic of his age and especially of his own
Christian com-
munity, Kierkegaard believed that being a Christian had nothing
to do with
being born or raised in that faith community or even with
holding the tenets
of Christianity. In themselves, these features did not lead to an
authentic
Christian existence. Indeed, he accused his contemporaries of
being lulled
into a passionless complacency—a sort of spiritual sickness—
that led them
into living inauthentic existences and espousing nonidentities
(Welstead,
2014). The inauthentic existence was strongly associated for
Kierkegaard
with the crowd, which he saw not only as a source of untruth
but also as a
way of undermining people’s sense of responsibility, purpose,
and invest-

ment in their lives. Kierkegaard contended it was too easy to get
lost in a
crowd mentality and thereby relinquish one’s own self, never
committing
to an idea in which one truly believes.
As a way out of the complacent attitude toward life and faith he
observed
around him, Kierkegaard turned to subjectivity. Specifically, he
suggested
that being authentic involves cultivating inner passion to be
who one truly
is, such that one’s being becomes an issue for an individual —
not abstractly
but personally (Pattison, 2005). Moreover, the authentic person
is one who
fervently believes in and commits to something or someone and
then takes
a leap of faith into the unknown to participate fully in the
commitment. An
example of this kind of dedication and leap of faith can be seen
in marriage
insofar as it requires a person to jump into the unknown future
to live in the
relationship to which one has pledged himself or herself. In
Kierkegaard’s
case, the authentic existence ultimately was related to a strong
personal
dedication and leap of faith to God and Christianity.
Although Kierkegaard’s religious worldview and his conclusion
about
the normative human existence culminating in Christian
dedication might
not fit for all counselors, his philosophical reflections on
authenticity still

have much to offer clinicians who appreciate a humanities view
of their
profession and who are seeking to become ethically mature and
autonomous.
First, Kierkegaard reminds us that the way in which one
approaches and
participates in a moral framework, such as a code of ethics, is
meaning-
ful. Commenting on Kierkegaard’s work, Golomb (2013)
highlighted this
point, saying, “authentic life has less to do with a specific
content, a what,
and more to do with some particular existential walk of life,
with a how”
(p. 2). In other words, accepting a professional counseling
worldview,
including its moral framework as embodied in the code of
ethics, because
it is handed down from the community of helpers to which one
belongs
is not sufficient, nor does it make one a de facto authentic
helper. On the
other hand, if counselors take Kierkegaard’s understanding of
authenticity
to heart, they will ask themselves not only what the code of
ethics recom-
mends them to do in particular situations but also, more
importantly, how
they personally will become ethical and dedicated counselors.
Moving to
Volume 55

this subjective level entails deep, individual engagement with
the mission
of the counseling profession and the principles upon which it is
grounded.
The ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014) outlines the profession’s
mission to
include such things as sensitivity to human development
processes, re-
spect for diversity, appreciation of clients’ autonomy and
human dignity,
engagement in social justice advocacy, and skillful and ethical
practice—all
in support of a client’s inalienable personal worth. This mission
is the foun-
dation from which ethical decisions are intended to flow.
Counselors act
with authenticity when they reflect on the mission to support
human worth
and dignity, personally choose to support that mission, and are
cautious
not to use professional group membership unthinkingly as a
justification
for their ethical decisions.
Second, Kierkegaard’s appeal to passion is a challenge to the
compla-
cency for the profession that can overcome counselors when
they fall into
using a risk-management approach to ethics. Risk management,
with its
emphasis on legal culpability, extinguishes passion and replaces
it with
self-serving fear. In a sense, risk management turns counselors
inward,
but it is an inwardness not directed at identifying that which
one can live

and die for, as Kierkegaard sought. Instead, it is an inwardness
aimed at
self-preservation. Operating from this mindset, counselors in
the process
of making an ethical decision might ponder a question such as
“What must
I do to be safe rather than sorry?” It is easy to imagine that
when counsel-
ors rely on risk management as a way of resolving ethical
conflicts, they
have the potential to become part of the crowd that accepts the
ACA Code
of Ethics (ACA, 2014) as a statement of truth without fervently
engaging it
or the mission of the profession on which it is grounded. When
counselors
are interested in being authentic in a Kierkegaardian sense,
however, they
cultivate an inward passion that extends outward to the
profession and the
people they serve. Likewise, they are willing to take a leap of
faith into the
mission of the profession and its investment in honoring clients’
dignity
and worth (ACA, 2014), even if making that leap might not be
fully aligned,
at times, to best practice recommendations.
Heidegger on Authenticity
Turning now to Martin Heidegger, we see that the concept of
authenticity,
primarily as described in his work Being and Time (1927/1996),
is grounded
in his understanding of human existence and in the
responsibility that he

believed each person has to his or her own being. He used the
term Dasein,
or being-there (Macquarrie, 1968), to characterize the central
nature of that
existence, which is distinguished “by the fact that in its being,
this being
is concerned about its very being” (Heidegger, 1927/1996, p.
10). It is not
some set of objectively determined qualities or properties of
human persons
that characterize their nature; rather, human beings are
characterized by
the reality that their existence is an issue for them, and they
must decide
55 105
about their being. Describing Dasein, Heidegger (1927/1996, p.
10) says,
“the essential essence of this being cannot be accomplished by
ascribing to
it a ‘what’ that specifies a material content, because its essence
lies rather in
the fact that it in each instance has to be its being as its own.”
This concern
for its own existence is a primary reason why human persons
stand out
from all other objects or creatures in the world (Macquarrie,
1968).
Looking more carefully at the meaning of human existence, we
see that
Heidegger conceptualized three main attributes of Dasein. First,

Dasein is
always in the process of becoming and is never complete in
itself. One can-
not say that there are fixed or determined properties of the
human person
because the person is constituted fundamentally by his or her
possibilities
(Macquarrie, 1968). This is in contrast to the way one might
describe the
properties of other objects in the world and trust that those
properties will
remain true and the same from day to day. Second, Dasein is
characterized
by a “unique mineness” (Macquarrie, 1968, p. 13). Heidegger
(1927/1996)
put it this way: “The being which this being is concerned about
in its be-
ing is always my own” (p. 40). He is conveying that the human
person
is unique unto himself or herself and is not to be replaced by
any other
person. Although one might exchange one object for another
similar object
and never notice the difference, the same is not true of the
human person,
who in her or his uniqueness cannot be replaced by any other
individual.
Finally, Heidegger (1927/1996) says that Dasein is possibility.
Possibility
is much more than a characteristic or property of the human
being; rather,
as Heidegger expresses, it is what is essential to its being.
In describing Dasein as possibility, Heidegger talked about
authenticity
and inauthenticity. Authentic existence involves the self-

possession of one’s
possibilities for being, whereas inauthenticity is characterized
by a turning
away from or relinquishing of one’s potential for becoming by
living a sort
of everyday mode of existence (Macquarrie, 1968). Heidegger
(1927/1996)
noted that it was fairly common for people to exist
inauthentically. The
everydayness or averageness of the world entices people to
blindly follow
mainstream views, rules, or ideas; to get subsumed in routines
and tasks
of life; and to live as part of the collective mass rather than as a
unique
individual. Additionally, in an everyday way of being in the
world, people
relate to their environment and the objects within it as
instruments; that is,
objects within the environment are “ready-to-hand” or
significant primar-
ily to the extent that they are tools available to address people’s
practical
concerns (Macquarrie, 1968).
Without denying that people exist in—and are always in
relationship to—a
world constituted by certain environmental realities that set
parameters
for how one lives and works, Heidegger (1927/1996) prompted
people to
pursue possibility within their social structures. To do this
involves a degree
of resoluteness, or an engagement in the world that fully
acknowledges
the structures of everyday life and situations and, concurrently,

does not
yield to them or the collective mass (Carman, 2003). From
Heidegger’s
Volume 55
perspective, people who act with authenticity do not use their
consciences
to rubber-stamp decisions that fit established moral frameworks
or cultural
ideals, but they resolutely make decisions that allow them to
become their
“own-most persons.” Perhaps the most powerful means by
which a person
embraces his or her own-most possibility and acts with
authenticity is in
recognizing the limited nature of existence. Heidegger
contended that the
process of living is best worked out when people strive to take
hold of their
potentials for being that always are out in front them; death puts
the life
project into perspective. Heidegger pointed out that death places
a limit
on life, sets a boundary around it in such a way that one cannot
help but
realize that being and existence belong completely to oneself,
and thus one
bears responsibility to the decisions to be made in this life.
Counselors who aim to develop their autonomous ethical selves,
and
who also value a humanities view of counseling, can garner a

number of
lessons from Heidegger’s (1927/1996) insights into authenticity.
First, in a
counseling profession that currently emphasizes scientific
ideology and
tends to constrict perspectives on good and helpful approaches
to counselor
education, research, and intervention (Hansen, 2012;
Lemberger, 2012),
Heidegger’s work presents the value of possibility in and of
itself. His
philosophy, which is rooted in an understanding of the human
person as
possibility and a conceptualization of authenticity that calls for
participation
in one’s possibilities, challenges the reductive movement in the
counseling
field. Hansen (2012) pointed to things such as symptom
checklists, identi-
fied learning competencies for students, diagnostic approaches
to care, and
specialized skills training to exemplify how the profession has
simplified
and technicalized counseling and education; we add to this list a
risk-
management, reductive approach to ethics in which the right
response to
ethical dilemmas is treated as if it is contained within and
mandated by the
code. This type of approach to ethics does not tend to encourage
counselors
to expand their imaginations about how best to respond to
ethical issues;
it simplifies the range of responses to those that will minimize
or prevent
liability. Some options for how to serve clients caringly and

with dignity
are likely left off the table. Heideggerian authenticity invites
counselors
to recognize and engage their personal and professional
possibilities as a
means to expand their own and the profession’s potentialities
through the
choices they make with regard to ethical dilemmas.
Second, the notion of authenticity challenges counselors to take
full own-
ership of their personal and professional possibilities, even
while operating
within the given structures of the counseling world. There is
perhaps no other
document that so specifically describes the parameters of the
counselor’s
role and world as the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). It puts
boundar-
ies around such things as the roles and responsibilities of
counselors and
clients, treatment of information revealed in the therapeutic
environment,
use of technology, record keeping, appropriate and
inappropriate referral
practices, and so on. Heidegger (1927/1996) fully acknowledged
that people
55 107
are thrown into a world constituted by a large number of givens
and social
or professional conventions, such as those outlined for

counselors in the
ACA Code of Ethics. Yet, his philosophy challenges people to
be resolute
while they are living in relationship to the world. Heidegger’s
concern was
that people too readily can become subsumed into the
everydayness of the
environment in which they exist. This happens when people
surrender to
conformist mentalities and routines to the extent that they lose
their distinc-
tive existence. Becoming an authentic and autonomous ethical
counselor,
therefore, involves guarding against a collectivistic mentality in
which one
unreflectively participates in the counseling world and accepts
enacting
ethical mandates as if disconnected from them. Furthermore, it
requires
counselors to be aware of, but also resolutely go beyond, the
parameters
of convention. In a sense, the ACA Code of Ethics both creates
structure in
the counseling world and is an instrument of that world that
counselors
use to address their practical concerns (i.e., ethical di lemmas).
As a tool
ready-to-hand, the ACA Code of Ethics can guide counselors
toward deci-
sions that indicate care for clients; conversely, it also can be
absorbed by
clinicians as a thing of convention that fails to inspire, and
instead becomes
a taken-for-granted backdrop of our professional engagements.
This tool
might even become a source of social pressure that dictates

what counsel-
ors can or cannot do in the name of “being ethical.” Authentic
existence is
meant to involve us in a dimension of the world that transcends
the mere
instrumental. Going beyond starts by acknowledging one’s
limitedness
(i.e., the reality of death) such that one’s being comes into
focus and one
cannot help but take responsibility for one’s own-most
possibilities and,
to a degree, for the world in which one lives. As counselors
contemplate
their own possibilities and those of the profession in an
authentic way,
they take pains not to consider ethical practices or actions only
outlined
in the ACA Code of Ethics. They seek to at least consider the
possibility that
caring for clients during ethical quandaries might entail creative
and in-
novative actions, similar to what is encouraged by a humanities
vision of
counseling. They ponder—and possibly enact—resolutions that
can shape
the counseling world in new ways. Ultimately, being authentic
means that
counseling professionals stand out in their professional world
by taking
full responsibility and ownership over their ethical decisions
even—and
especially—if they are not fully in compliance with current
practices.
LiMitations and ConCLusions about
usinG autHentiCity in etHiCaL reasoninG

The purpose of focusing on the notion of authenticity is to
challenge the
somewhat complacent or even disinterested attitude that can
settle in
when risk management becomes the usual means through which
to resolve
both weighty ethical dilemmas and more ordinary ethical
decisions. We
acknowledge that there are limits to using authenticity alone as
a moral
Volume 55
compass. Numerous writers (e.g., Golomb, 2013; Lodge, 2007;
Varga &
Guignon, 2014) have noted that overemphasizing one’s own
self-created
and self-imposed guidelines or one’s passions when resolving
moral issues
can lead to (a) a distorted sense of morality and (b) a failure to
apply com-
monly agreed upon ethical standards in decision making.
Golomb (2013)
asked, “if an authentic mode of living requires an individual’s
total and
passionate commitment and uncompromising rejection of
anything that is
alien or contradictory to it—could it be that a passionate Nazi
or religious
fanatic is to be regarded as an authentic subject deserving of our
highest
esteem?” (p. 4). His question cannot be ignored. Varga and

Guignon (2014)
noted that the concept of authenticity suggests a false
dichotomy between
the person and the community. With its extensive focus on the
individual
and the individual’s inner life and passions, the notion of
authenticity can
seem to suggest that the person fundamentally exists apart from
the com-
munity. These critiques of authenticity both are concerned that,
in striving
to be authentic, a person will become encapsulated in his or her
own world
and misperceive or devalue core principles and standards of
care worth
considering when making ethical decisions.
is one to abandon the notion of authenticity as useful to
counselors’
decision-making process in light of these limitations? We would
say no. at
the beginning of this article, we noted that a foundation of good
counseling
includes competence, maturity, and autonomy in the area of
ethical deci-
sion making. Competence refers to a counselor ’s minimum
knowledge base
and skill level to be able to do the work that a counselor does.
included
in this knowledge base and skill set are comprehension of and
ability to
enact professional ethical standards and an appreciation for
counselors’
positive view of the human person, such as is outlined in a
humanities
vision of the person as holistic and possessing inherent dignity,

worth,
and yearnings toward growth (scholl et al., 2012). Ethical
competence is
shaped when counselors maintain a connection with their
professional
world and use that world to inform ethical decision making
insofar as it
is grounded in an appreciation for the respect and dignity of all
persons
(aca, 2014). The counseling world can provide a “what”—that
is, a moral
framework necessary for ethical decision making. The ACA
Code of Ethics
(aca, 2014), in particular, acts as a balance to a counselor ’s
own self-
created guidelines and subjective sense of right and wrong. it
cannot and
should not be discarded in the pursuit of authenticity. However,
insofar as
counselors desire to develop ethical autonomy and not to accept
risk man-
agement and reductionism in their approach to doing ethics,
authenticity
is useful. The benefits of cultivating authenticity are that this
virtue can
help counselors (a) reorient their reflections on how to become
personally
invested and ethical professionals; (b) passionately and
personally engage
the mission of the profession upon which its moral framework
rests; (c)
fully acknowledge the variety of possibilities at hand for
resolving ethical
issues, not just those described in the ACA Code of Ethics; and
(d) resolutely

55 109
own the ethical decisions they make. ultimately, being authentic
means
forging a professional self that is fully conscious, informed by
the profes-
sion’s mission, and freely able to engage one’s own and the
profession’s
possibilities for growth and development.
referenCes
american counseling association (2014). ACA code of ethics.
alexandria, Va: author.
Beauchamp, T. L., & childress, J. F. (1979). Principles of bio-
medical ethics. Oxford, uK: Oxford
university Press.
carman, T. (2003). Heidegger’s analytic: Interpretation,
discourse, and authenticity in being and
time. cambridge, uK: cambridge university Press.
corey, G., corey, m. s., & callanan, P. (2011). Issues and ethics
in the helping professions. Pacific
Grove, ca: Brooks/cole.
cottone, R. R. (2014). On replacing the ethical principle of
autonomy with an ethical principle
of accordance. Counseling and Values, 59, 238–248.
doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2014.00054
Dollarhide, c. T., & Oliver, K. (2014). Humanist professional
identity: The transtheoretical tie that

binds. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 53, 203–217.
doi:10.1002/j.2161-1939.2014.00057
Golomb, J. (2013). Was Kierkegaard an authentic believer? in J.
stewart & T. aylat Yaguri
(Eds.), The authenticity of faith in Kierkegaards’s philosophy
(pp. 1–11). Newcastle upon Tyne,
uK: cambridge scholars Publishing.
Hansen, J. T. (2006). is the best practices movement consistent
with the values of the counseling
profession? a critical analysis of best practices ideology.
Counseling and Values, 50, 154–160.
Hansen, J. T. (2012). Extending the humanistic vision: Toward
a humanities foundation for
the counseling profession. The Journal of Humanistic
Counseling, 51, 133–144.
Heidegger, m. (1996). Being and time: A translation of sein und
Zeit. (J. stambaugh, Trans.).
albany: state university of New York Press. (Original work
published 1927)
Hermann, m. a., & Herlihy, B. R. (2006). Legal and ethical
implications of refusing to counsel
homosexual clients. Journal of Counseling & Development, 84,
414–418.
Hill, a. L. (2004). Ethical analysis in counseling: a case for
narrative ethics, moral visions,
and virtue ethics. Counseling and Values, 48, 131–147.
Hill, m., Glaser, K., & Harden, J. (1995). a feminist model for
ethical decision making. in E.

J. Rave & c. c. Larsen (Eds.), Ethical decision making in
therapy: Feminist perspectives (pp.
18–37). New York, NY: Guilford.
Hoffman, R. m., & Kress, V. E. (2010). adolescent non-suicidal
self-injury: minimizing client and
counselor risk and enhancing client care. Journal of Mental
Health Counseling, 32, 342–347.
ivey, a. E., ivey, m. B., & Zalaquett, c. P. (2014). Intentional
interviewing and counseling: Facili-
tating client development in a multicultural society. Belmont,
ca: Brooks/cole.
Kaplan, D. m., Kocet, m. m., cottone, R. R., Glosoff, H. L.,
miranti, J. G., moll, E. c., . . .
Tarvydas, V. m. (2009). New mandates and imperatives in the
revised ACA Code of Ethics.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 241–256.
Kierkegaard, s. (1996). Papers and journals: A selection. (a.
Hannay, Trans.). London, uK:
Penguin Books.
Kitchener, K. (1984). intuition, critical evaluation and ethical
principles: The foundation for
ethical decisions in counseling psychology. The Counseling
Psychologist, 12, 43–55.
Lazarus, a. a. (1994). How certain boundaries and ethics
diminish therapeutic effectiveness.
Ethics & Behavior, 4, 255–261.
Lemberger, m. E. (2012). a return to the human in humanism: a
response to Hansen’s hu-
manistic vision. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 51,

164–175.
Lodge, R. (2007). The idea for which i can live or die: another
look at Kierkegaard’s leap of
faith. Existential Analysis, 18, 212–219.
macquarrie, J. (1968). Martin Heidegger. Richmond, Va: John
Knox Press.
Volume 55
magnuson, s., Norem, K., & Wilcoxon, a. (2000). clinical
supervision of pre-licensed counsel-
ors: Recommendations for consideration and practice. Journal of
Mental Health Counseling,
22, 176–188.
Nolan, J. J., & moncure, T. m. (2012). The legal side of campus
threat assessment and man-
agement: What student counselors need to know. Journal of
College Student Psychotherapy,
26, 322–340.
Pattison, G. (2005). The philosophy of Kierkegaard. montreal,
Québec, canada: mcGill-Queen’s
university Press.
Pope, K. s., & Keith-spiegel, P. (2008). a practical approach to
boundaries in psychotherapy:
making decisions, bypassing blunders, and mending fences.
Journal of Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 54, 638–652.

Punzo, V. a., & meara, N. m. (1993). The virtues of a
psychology of personal morality. Theo-
retical and Philosophical Psychology, 13, 25–39.
Reamer, F. G. (2013). social work in a digital age: Ethical and
risk management challenges.
Social Work, 58, 163–172.
Rest, J. R. (1984). Research on moral development: implications
for training counseling psy-
chologists. Counseling Psychologist, 12, 19–29.
sanders, R. K. (2006). serving with care: Ethical issues to
consider when faced with high risk
situations. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 25, 63–67.
scholl, m. B., mcGowan, a. s., & Hansen, J. T. (2012).
Humanistic perspectives on contemporary
counseling issues. New York, NY: Routledge.
sileo, F. J., & Kopala, m. (1993). an a-B-c-D-E worksheet for
promoting beneficence when
considering ethical issues. Counseling and Values, 37, 89–95.
steinman, s. O., Richardson, N. F., & mcEnroe, T. (1998). The
ethical decision-making manual for
helping professionals. Pacific Grove, ca: Brooks/cole.
stewart-sicking, J. a. (2008). Virtues, values, and the good life:
alasdair macintyre’s virtue
ethics and its implications for counseling. Counseling and
Values, 52, 156–171.
Tarvydas, V. m. (1998). Ethical decision making processes. in
R. R. cottone & V. m. Tarvydas
(Eds.), Ethical and professional issues in counseling (pp. 144–

155). upper saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Tymchuk, a. J. (1986). Guidelines for ethical decision making.
Canadian Psychology, 27, 36–43.
urofsky, R. i., Engels, D. W., & Engebretson, K. (2008).
Kitchener ’s principle ethics: implica-
tions for counseling practice and research. Counseling and
Values, 53, 67–78.
Varga, s., & Guignon, c. (2014). authenticity. in E. Zalta (Ed.),
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi-
losophy. Retrieved from
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/authenticity
Welfel, E. R. (2010). Ethic in counseling and psychotherapy:
Standards, research, and emerging issues
(4th ed.). Pacific Grove, ca: Brooks/cole.
Welstead, a. (2014). Kierkegaard’s movement inward:
subjectivity as the remedy for the
malaise of the contemporary age. The Heythorp Journal, 55,
809–816.
◆ ◆ ◆
Copyright of Journal of Humanistic Counseling is the property
of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

VERGÉSCONTEXT IN ETHICAL DECISION MAKING
Integrating Contextual Issues
in Ethical Decision Making
Alvaro Vergés
Department of Psychological Sciences
University of Missouri-Columbia
Many issues in ethics arise in relation to the contexts in which
psychologists work. However, most
ethical decision-making models reproduce the way in which
psychologists tend to approach ethics by
focusing on ethical dilemmas and proposing a step-by-step
response to deal with them. Although
these models might be useful, their emphasis on reactive
approaches and their lack of contextualiza-
tion constitute significant limitations on their applicability. In
this article, an approach to ethical deci-
sion making that highlights the importance of the context in
developing proactive strategies to solve
ethical issues is proposed. This approach is further explained
through its application to medical and
rural settings. The implications of these suggestions to the
training in ethics are finally discussed.
Keywords: ethics, ethical decision making, ethical dilemmas,
training
Many conflicts in ethics arise in direct relation to the contexts
in which psychologists work. For

example, problems with boundaries in rural settings where
overlapping relations are common or
with confidentiality in medical settings where records of
patients are shared by different profes-
sionals, emerge before the psychologist has even started to
work. Clinical psychologists, as well
as other mental health professionals, tend to think about ethics
as a circumscribed problem related
to their specific work in the treatment room. However, their
responsibility goes beyond the time
and space of the therapeutic process, and their ethical concerns
should begin in the moment they
start to know the contexts in which they will work.
Most ethical decision-making models reproduce the way in
which psychologists tend to ap-
proach ethics. The major concerns of these models are the
ethical dilemmas and the sequence of
steps necessary to deal with them. Although these models are
useful, they emphasize reactive ap-
proaches to ethical issues and overlook preventive measures
that might help solving ethical prob-
lems before they arise. Moreover, ethical decision-making
models tend to be abstract statements
about how psychologist should behave and do not take into
account the different contexts in which
they might be applied.
Attempts have been made to modify existing ethical decision-
making models in a way that in-
corporates these issues. For example, ethical decision-making
models to be used in contexts as di-
verse as military operations (Stephenson & Staal, 2007) or the
work with AIDS patients
(Erickson, 1990) have been proposed. In this article, the
limitations of these kinds of models are

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 20(6), 497–507
Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2010.521451
Correspondence should be addressed to Alvaro Vergés, 200
South Seventh Street, Department of Psychological Sci-
ences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211.
E-mail: [email protected]
addressed, together with the suggestion that a different
approach should be implemented to inte-
grate the context into ethical decision making. Examples of the
application of this approach to
medical and rural settings are provided. Finally, the
implications of these suggestions to training
in ethics are discussed.
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING MODELS
Ethical decision-making models originally emerged as a
response to the limitations of mandatory
ethics, centered in the creation of universal principles and
standards that guide the ethical behav-
ior of psychologists in the most diverse situations (Tymchuk,
1982). As stated by Stephen Behnke
(Barnett, Behnke, Rosenthal, & Koocher, 2007), the idea that
the correct answer to an ethical di-
lemma comes from external prescriptions was considered both
impossible and undesirable. It was
impossible because the complexity of situations in which
psychologists are involved make it im-
practicable to create a standard for every single ethical problem.

It was also undesirable because it
implied the idea of psychologists as passive appliers of ethical
prescriptions. In contrast, ethical
decision-making models promoted an active processing of
ethical principles and standards in or-
der to generate a creative response to a particular ethical
problem (Seitz & O’Neill, 1996). More-
over, ethical decision-making models analyze ethical behavior
in the light of the process through
which a course of action is selected, instead of just considering
the final action. This implies that a
“right action” is discerned not only by its consequences but also
by reviewing the steps that led to
it (Garfat & Ricks, 1995).
In a review of the ethical decision-making models proposed
between 1984 and 1998, Cottone
and Claus (2000) analyzed theoretically and empirically based
models. Among the models in-
cluded in their review, there are some that consider contextual
issues in the process. For example,
the feminist model of Hill, Glaser, and Harden (1998) considers
the social context in which the
ethical dilemma arises. Similarly, Betan (1997) developed a
model based on hermeneutics, incor-
porating the context in which the therapeutic relationship occurs
into the narrating process that
characterizes ethical decision making according this author.
Furthermore, Cottone’s (2001) social
constructivist approach states that the process of solving an
ethical dilemma takes place in the in-
teraction among people and not in the individual mind of the
psychotherapist. However, none of
these models provide explicit guidelines on how the context
should be incorporated in the process.
Moreover, with the exception of Welfel’s (2006) model, which

includes a first step of developing
ethical sensitivity, most models reviewed by Cottone and Claus
start with the identification of rel-
evant aspects of the problem, that is, they consider the ethical
dilemma as the starting point for
ethical deliberation and do not mention preventive steps to
impede the occurrence of the ethical
dilemma.
One of the models reviewed by Cottone and Claus is the one
proposed by Garfat and Ricks
(1995) for clinical work in child and youth care, which deserves
special attention here. In this
model, the activity of the self is the core of ethical behavior.
The self processes the influences of
contextual values, codes of ethics, and standards through a
critical and reflective analysis that gen-
erates a decision given a context of ethical practice. Once the
action is taken, its consequences are
evaluated and integrated as feedback to the process and the self.
Thus, the whole process is said to
be driven by the self, implying a more personalized
interpretation and application of general stan-
dards that takes into account the context in which the decision
must be made. However, in this
498 VERGÉS
model the context is still considered after the dilemma has
arisen, so that contextual issues are not
incorporated in a proactive analysis. Like other models of
ethical decision making, Garfat and
Ricks’s model seems to describe the self as being activated by
the ethical problem, rather than be-

ing active before the problem.
In recent years, new models of ethical decision making have
emerged, most of them focusing
in one area, setting, or ethical dilemma, so that the new
tendency seems to be the development of
an ethical decision model for every specialty in clinical
psychology (e.g., Gottlieb, 1993; Knapp
& VandeCreek, 2007; Stephenson & Staal, 2007). However, this
line of work, although useful in
guiding the application of general principles to specific
contexts, does not teach how to do the ap-
plication by oneself. Do we have to wait until a new ethical
decision-making model for a specific
setting is published before we start to work in that setting? With
the rapid changes that we witness
every day in psychology and the reasonable expectation for the
emergence of new areas of devel-
opment in the near future, it seems more wise to develop skills
in the thoughtful examination of
new settings to identify as soon as possible the ethical
challenges and dilemmas that we are likely
to encounter. To identify those skills, it might be useful to
consider the influences that affect ethi-
cal decision making.
INFLUENCES IN ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING
PROCESSES
One of the first studies that highlighted the role of contextual
factors in ethical decision making
was conducted by Kurtines (1986). Sixty-four undergraduate
students were asked to report their
course of action in six different scenarios, categorized as
behavioral (involve the analysis of possi-
ble consequences) and distributive (don’t involve analysis of

consequences) decision-making sit-
uations. Individual differences in the use of justice,
benevolence, and pragmatism as moral princi-
ples and situational factors were included as predictors in
regression equations in which the
ethical decision was the dependent variable. The results indicate
that, although both individual
and situational factors significantly predicted ethical decision
making, the situational factors
tended to be better predictors (i.e., accounted for more
variance).
In a study involving 258 students of 59 clinical psychology
programs, Betan and Stanton
(1999) examined the discrepancy between the ability to identify
a proper response to an ethical di-
lemma and the willingness to act in accordance to that
identification. Their results show that only
37% of participants who identified the appropriate response
according to the American Psycho-
logical Association (APA) Ethics Code (APA, 2002), said that
they would actually do what they
believed they should do. Furthermore, Betan and Stanton
identified emotional and contextual pre-
dictors of this discrepancy. They found that participants who
stated their willingness to act as they
should reported less anxiety and more compassion in relation to
the ethical dilemma. Also, these
participants reported that their decision was more influenced by
ethical and professional concerns,
ethics code and education, and clinic-related concerns and less
influenced by personal and
friend-related concerns. The authors concluded that
“psychologists are making inadequate deci-
sions about ethical dilemmas in part because they are not well
attuned to the influential role of

emotions, values, and contextual concerns in ethical discourse”
(p. 299). That is, although psy-
chologists may know the principles and standards that regulate
the profession, their implementa-
tion of those principles and standards can be interfered by
emotional and contextual issues, espe-
cially when they are not aware of those factors. For this reason,
“any ethical model used in training
CONTEXT IN ETHICAL DECISION MAKING 499
must incorporate these contextual factors in order to awaken
therapists’ sensibilities” (p. 299).
However, Betan and Stanton’s proposal focuses mainly in the
interpersonal context and doesn’t
take into account the specific features of the setting in which
the ethical problem arises.
In a review of the literature on ethical decision making in
business environments, O’Fallon and
Butterfield (2005) found good empirical support for individual
and contextual factors affecting
the process of ethical decision making. Among the contextual
factors, O’Fallon and Butterfield
reported that the existence of a code of ethics tends to be
associated with positive measures of ethi-
cal decision making. Also, the creation of an ethical climate or
culture in an organization fosters
the ethical decisions of individuals. Finally, the existence of
rewards and sanctions that are consis-
tent with ethical behaviors is positively related to ethical
decision making. Another contextual
factor that according to O’Fallon and Butterfield requires more
investigation is the influence of

peers.
Although these findings apply to the field of business, there is
some research suggesting their
generalizability to other situations. For example, Mumford et al.
(2007) examined the responses
of 102 graduate students in programs in biological, health, and
social sciences to different scenar-
ios reflecting conflictive ethical situations in research. Their
results show that some dimensions of
both environmental experiences and perceptions of climate in
the workplace are associated with
ethical decision making.
In summary, the accumulated evidence shows that there are
contextual factors that systemati-
cally influence the processes and results of ethical decision
making. If we take these results seri-
ously, we should consider taking these factors into account
whenever we are confronted by ethical
dilemmas and engage in a deliberative decision making process.
That implies the use of an ethical
decision-making model in combination with an awareness of all
the factors that might influence
the steps prescribed by the model. However, if this is the case,
ethical decision-making models be-
gin to appear more overwhelming than useful. A different
approach might involve trying to iden-
tify and, if possible, modify the contextual factors that
influence ethical decisions before the
model is applied, that is, applying the model when there is no
ethical dilemma to focus on. The
next section provides some ideas on how contextual issues
might be incorporated into formal ethi-
cal decision making.

INTEGRATING CONTEXT TO ETHICAL DECISION-
MAKING MODELS
Traditional ethical decision-making models are useful to avoid
impulsive responses to an ethical
dilemma. However, this statement can be slightly reframed
saying that these models are useful
only if they avoid impulsive responses, because once an
impulsive response has occurred, there is
little more to take from the model. This problem is solved in
part if psychologists take a time prior
to any ethical conflict to apply a model to their distinctive
context and think of alternative solu-
tions to problems that have not yet occurred. Thus, if the worse
scenario happened and the psy-
chologist could not avoid an impulsive response, at least that
response would more likely be one
that has been considered before, in a better state of mind.1
500 VERGÉS
1A reasonable reader could think at this point that this is what
most (or at least some) people already do. That is true.
However, the same can be said about most ethical decision-
making models. One of the most important goals of an ethical
decision-making model is to systematize the best practices in
dealing with ethical issues.
A more formal exposure of such a process is presented by
Kitchener (1984) in a very influential
article. She developed a hierarchy of justification for ethical
judgments composed of two levels:
an immediate, intuitive level and a critical, evaluative level.
The intuitive level corresponds to the

set of personal beliefs and knowledge (including knowledge
about ethics codes) that are applied in
most situations when we need to make a moral judgment that
does not involve a conflict between
different principles. However, when such a conflict arises, or
when we need to evaluate or justify
decisions made on the basis of intuitive judgment, a more
elaborated process for ethical judgment
is needed. Here is when the evaluative level is required. This
level is, in turn, composed of three
tiers of moral justification, namely, ethical rules (including
professional codes and laws), ethical
principles, and ethical theory. These tiers are also hierarchic ally
organized, so that we move to a
more abstract tier when a given situation cannot be solved
through the application of a previous
tier (Kitchener, 1984).
The importance of this model for the present discussion resides
in two aspects that appear to be
overlooked in most of the subsequent models of ethical decision
making. First is the inclusion of
an immediate, intuitive level of justification that is conformed
by personal values and general
knowledge but is also influenced by formal training in ethics
and personal reflection about every-
day practice. This level of justification is not a primitive or
secondary aspect of ethical behavior
that can be dismissed from further analysis. On the contrary, it
must be a central matter in our ethi-
cal concerns, and we should take responsibility for the
development of a good moral intuition.
This involves developing moral awareness and sensitivity,
increasing the familiarity with ethics
codes and laws and, as we insist here, being aware of the
relevant features of the contexts of work

in order to develop a set of strategies to address potential
conflicts before they emerge.
The second aspect of Kitchener’s model to be highlighted here
is that the constant application
of the critical, evaluative level of moral judgment is assumed to
improve our moral intuitions.
Moreover, this application does not need an ethical dilemma to
be exercised. As Kitchener (1984)
stated,
Hopefully, by doing the best critical thinking possible when we
are not pressed by the immediacy of a
situation, we can build up an improved set of ethical rules and
principles which will ultimately become
part of our redefined intuitive sense. (p. 45)
The suggestion made in this article is that “the best critical
thinking possible” involves the ap-
plication of ethical rules, ethical principles, and ethical theory
to the particular context in which
professionals work.
There are several reasons for including the context in this
process of critical thinking. First, the
power of the context in influencing the decision-making
process, which has been already exam-
ined, requires psychologists to pay attention to those sources of
interference. Also, although
codes, laws, and principles are stated as universally applicable,
the demands of an ethical dilemma
occur in a very specific situation that sometimes makes the
general norms inapplicable. Between
the universality of the general norms and the specificity of the
particular situation we can identify
the context as the relatively stable place where some ethical

problems are more or less likely to oc-
cur. That is, the context is the natural field where proactive
ethical judgment should be applied. If
professionals are able to identify the features of their context of
work that make the application of
general norms more difficult, and use that identification as a
starting point to think of potential sit-
uations of ethical conflicts, the moment in which those conflicts
emerge will not be a moment of
despair and improvisation. Although it is unlikely that this
proactive thinking will prevent ethical
dilemmas from occurring, the possibility of anticipating some
(or most) of the ethical dilemmas in
a given context makes the process of ethical decision making a
more straightforward and less
stressful one. Furthermore, the analysis of the context can also
be helpful to identify unethical
contexts (e.g., a context where torture is applied) in which there
is no possible ethical behavior ex-
cept for resigning and denouncing (Lira, 2008). Finally, the
integration of contextual consider-
ations to ethical decision making has the potential to change the
way we think about ethical issues.
As we learn to consider the particular aspects of our context of
work before we encounter any ethi-
cal problem, we will develop a greater awareness of ethical
issues, which in turn will help us to
make better decisions.
Because the absence of specific guidelines to analyze contexts
might still discourage some

psychologists from considering these suggestions, it may be
helpful to present concrete examples
of how contextual issues have been identified in the literature
and have been used to modify the
clinical practice.
EXAMPLES
The following examples are presented to give an idea of the
incorporation of context in ethical de-
cision making. It should be noted that these examples are still
too general, comprising very differ-
ent situations. However, they provide an idea of how the
analysis of more particular contexts
should be addressed. It should also be mentioned that the
analysis of these contexts does not imply
that there is something unethical about them, but that they are
different from the usual context of
psychological practice in relation to which most of the literature
on ethics has been developed.
Finally, although the context is understood in these examples as
the setting in which psychologists
work, there are other dimensions that could also be considered
as “contextual,” such as the activi-
ties in which clients are involved (e.g., sport psychology), the
way in which psychologist and cli-
ent communicate (e.g., Internet-based psychotherapy), the
financial context in which services are
provided (e.g., managed care), or the legal dispositions that
regulate psychological practice (i.e.,
differences in laws among states).
Ethical Issues in Medical Settings
Practicing psychology in medical settings involves several
ethical issues that emerge due to the

specific features of this context. For instance, the patients who
are most likely to receive services
in medical settings are different from patients seen in mental
health settings. Patients in medical
settings tend to have more limited knowledge about the process
of psychotherapy or the role of
psychologists, are usually referred by other professi onals
without a good explanation of the rea-
sons for the referral, might be referred as a “last option” when
more traditional treatments have
failed, and might present limitations in movement (which
implies the need for services in their
hospital room) or in their ability to make decisions (Belar &
Deardorff, 2009; Cooper-Patrick,
Crum & Ford, 1994; Pope, 1990).
Some characteristics of the organizational culture are also
particular in medical settings, where
different professionals with a diversity of theoretical
frameworks, ways to understand disease,
and ways to approach team work can be found, which can lead
to difficult situations. Also, the
502 VERGÉS
presence of differences in professional codes of ethics might be
problematic, as well as the exis-
tence of different ways to cope with emotional distress among
professionals (Belar & Deardorff,
2009). An environment that behaves in a way that is so different
from how psychologists usually
behave might affect their ethical decisions unless they
anticipate the problems that are likely to
emerge (Pope, 1990). To avoid this, psychologists working in

medical settings should ask them-
selves, for example, What would I do if I have to meet with a
patient who cannot move and needs
to be seen in a multiple bed room? (issues with confidentiality)
or what would I do if there is a con-
flict between my patient and the treatment team with regard to
the most appropriate treatment?
(conflicts of interest).
Does this mean that an ethical decision-making model for
psychologists in medical settings is
necessary? Maybe. But the rapid changes in medical practices
and law, as well as the new devel-
opments in health psychology (Rozensky, 2006), would
probably make such a model obsolete in a
few years. A better solution would be to provide training to
psychologists who work in medical
settings to assist them to analyze their context and anticipate
possible ethical conflicts.
Ethical Issues in Rural Settings
The literature on ethical issues in rural settings constitutes an
excellent example of how the analy-
sis of contextual issues can lead to a particular and coherent set
of ethical guidelines for practice.
The features of rural contexts have been described by a number
of authors (e.g., Helbok, 2003;
Roberts, Battaglia, & Epstein, 1999; Stockman, 1990). Roberts
et al. (1999) stated than in com-
parison to urban population, rural residents have higher rates of
alcohol-related accidents, sui-
cides, chronic illnesses, and environmental hazards.
Furthermore, they are less likely to seek pro-
fessional help and tend to distrust outsiders from the community
(Stockman, 1990). On the other

hand, rural psychotherapists are more likely to provide care
without necessary support or re-
sources, address clinical issues outside their competence, and
make difficult decisions without
consultation or support from specialists. Moreover, therapeutic
relationships tend to be compli-
cated by the fact that overlapping relations are almost inevitable
in rural settings. This implies that
psychotherapists have to deal with a constant balancing between
their personal life and their duty
to their patients, or even the balancing between being accepted
in the community and avoiding
multiple relationships (Helbok, 2003). In a national survey of
447 psychologists in urban and rural
areas, Helbok, Marinelli, and Walls (2006) found that rural
psychologists encounter more issues
with multiple relationships, have more problems related to their
visibility in the community, and
are less likely to discuss their work with other professionals.
However, the existence of these problems does not mean that
psychologists should dismiss
their commitment with ethical codes. As Helbok (2003) stated,
Even though some ethical considerations may be different in
rural areas than urban areas, it does not
mean the ethical codes should be abandoned or loosely
interpreted. On the contrary, it is because of
the fact that multiple relationships are inevitable, or anonymity
impossible, that the psychologist
needs to be even more diligent in working within the ethical
codes and principles. (p. 370)
As we have noted, this is not a simple task, and several
guidelines have been proposed to help
deal with these issues. For example, Stockman (1990) applied

Kitchener’s (1988) guidelines to
multiple relationships to the context of practice in rural
settings. She made a number of useful sug-
gestions, among which we find addressing with patients their
expectations regarding their relation
with the psychotherapist, discussing in advance potential role
conflicts, meeting with other pro-
fessionals in the community to explain issues related to
confidentiality, and considering consulta-
tion with community members to learn more about the
community. Roberts et al. (1999) sug-
gested educating patients about ethical standards and involving
them in the process of identifying
potential conflicts and solutions related to boundary violations.
They also encouraged profession-
als to work together in order to translate ethical standards to the
reality in rural contexts. Coyle
(1999) proposed providing documents explaining conflictive
issues and reviewing them with the
patient to facilitate informed consent. During this process,
patient and psychotherapist could even
anticipate problematic situations that are likely to occur and
think together about possible ways to
deal with them. Turchik, Karpenko, Hammers, and McNamara
(2007) provided suggestions for
how to deal with difficulties in assessment in rural settings.
They presented some criteria to select
and apply useful assessment tools and emphasized working with
test developers, test publishing
corporations, third-party payers, the profession of psychology,
and legislators to prevent difficul-

ties derived from lack of accessibility to quality assessment in
rural areas.
It is interesting to note how these suggestions share a
preventive perspective that is more re-
lated to proactive measures than to reactive steps to follow after
a problem has been identified. Al-
though some useful models for ethical decision making in rural
contexts have been proposed (e.g.,
Gottlieb, 1993), it is clear that most efficient measures involve
working with the context to pre-
vent ethical dilemmas in a proactive way.
In summary, a psychologist taking a job in a new context (even
if the context is supposed to be
“traditional” as opposed to “emergent”) should be able to
examine the main features of that con-
text, including—but not limited to—characteristics of the
potential clients (including cultural is-
sues, developmental issues, and psychopathology),
characteristics of other professionals and ser-
vices in the context (including knowledge of psychology and
differences in ethics codes),
characteristics of the general community (broadly defined to
include professionals and public in-
stitutions), and characteristics of the job (does it—or should
it—involve assessment, coordination
with other professionals, interventions at different levels, etc.?)
to determine the potential ethical
issues that might arise. This analysis should be done with the
assistance of experts in the context
(i.e., other professionals or members of the community) in a
dialogue that involves an explanation
of psychological services and ethical issues in psychology.
Furthermore, the examination of the
context should take into account the fact that a single job might

involve different contextual di-
mensions at the same time (e.g., working with adolescents from
a rural community through the
Internet).
The ability to engage in this examination of ethical issues in a
given context certainly requires
appropriate training. The implications that the approach to
ethical decision making presented in
this article has for training in ethics are presented in the next
section.
IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING IN ETHICS
In an article titled “Beyond Ethical Decision Making,” Newman,
Gray, and Fuqua (1996) com-
pared two different models of ethical judgment. The first,
“ethical and moral judgment,” is related
to mandatory ethics in that the focus is centered on the ethical
dilemma or question, and the
step-by-step process of reaction to the dilemma. The second
model, “ethical and moral inquiry,” is
504 VERGÉS
more related to virtue ethics, so the emphasis is on a proactive
attitude that is directed toward the
achievement of the best possible ethical practice instead of the
avoidance of ethical violations.
The ethical and moral inquiry is thus a long-term process of
growth in which the professional at-
tempts to answer the question “who shall I be” as opposed to
the more reactive question “what
shall I do” that is characteristic of decision making as

understood by traditional models. The in-
corporation of this aspirational model of ethical judgment
associated with virtue ethics has been
repeatedly proposed by many authors (Jordan & Meara, 1990;
Knapp & VandeCreek, 2007). Al-
though the focus of this article is not intended to address these
issues, it should be noted that an in-
corporation of the context in the ethical decision-making
process could contribute to the integra-
tion of these two models of ethical judgment, as the ethical and
moral judgment starts to be more
proactive and involved in the search for the best practices.
However this goal might require differ-
ent models of training in ethics.
The recommendations that can be derived from the previous
sections for teaching ethics are
straightforward. Learning about models of ethical decision
making and their application to differ-
ent ethical dilemmas should still be a central part of the
training. However, the analysis of contex-
tual issues and the application of ethical decision-making
models to those issues should definitely
be encouraged to foster a proactive attitude toward the
resolution of ethical problems.
With coming changes in health care, it is likely that the whole
model of mental health service
delivery that we have learned and practiced will change
dramatically. The context in which we
learned the ethics of our profession will be different than the
context in which we will have to ap-
ply them.
These changes will require a new set of skills that allow for a
flexible but rigorous application

of the APA Ethics Code (APA, 2002) to situations that have not
been even considered by those
who wrote it. In this situation, a reactive ethical decision-
making approach is likely to be insuffi-
cient, so that students should be trained to be constantly aware
of changes in their context of work
in order to anticipate future problems. As Koocher (2003)
stated, planning is the key to effectively
address changes in professional practice. However, planning
without paying attention to the
changes in context might be as ineffective as not planning at all.
A similar approach to what is proposed here was taken by
Mumford et al. (2008) in providing
research integrity training to graduate students. Their results
showed that an application of general
principles to the particular context of research involving case
examples and practical strategies
was effective and that results were maintained after 6 months.
Although the effectiveness of a
training model for ethics in clinical practice based on contextual
analyses is still to be tested, there
are reasons to be optimistic about its potential results.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Gratitude is expressed to Jeffrey Barnett, PsyD, and Nan
Presser, PhD, for their comments on ear-
lier versions of this article.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles
of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychol -
ogist, 57, 1060–1073.

Barnett, J. E., Behnke, S. H., Rosenthal, S. L., & Koocher, G. P.
(2007). In case of ethical dilemma, break glass: Commen-
tary on ethical decision making in practice. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 7–12.
Belar, C. D., & Deardorff, W. W. (2009). Ethical issues in the
practice of clinical health psychology. In Clinical health
psychology in medical settings: A practitioner’s guidebook (2nd
ed., pp. 147–190). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Betan, E. J. (1997). Toward a hermeneutic model of ethical
decision making in clinical practice. Ethics & Behavior, 7,
347–365.
Betan, E. J., & Stanton, A. L. (1999). Fostering ethical
willingness: Integrating emotional and contextual awareness
with
rational analysis. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 30, 295–301.
Cooper-Patrick, L., Crum, R. M., & Ford, D. E. (1994).
Characteristics of patients with major depression who received
care in general medical and specialty mental health settings.
Medical Care, 32, 15–24.
Cottone, R. (2001). A social constructivism model of ethical
decision making in counseling. Journal of Counseling & De-
velopment, 79, 39–45.
Cottone, R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making
models: A review of the literature. Journal of Counseling &

Development, 78, 275–283.
Coyle, B. R. (1999). Practical tools for rural psychiatric
practice. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 63, 202–222.
Erickson, S. H. (1990). Counseling the irresponsible AIDS
client: Guidelines for decision making. Journal of Counseling
& Development, 68, 454–455.
Garfat, T., & Ricks, F. (1995). Self-driven ethical decision-
making: A model for child and youth care. Child & Youth Care
Forum, 24, 393–404.
Gottlieb, M. C. (1993). Avoiding exploitive dual relationships:
A decision-making model. Psychotherapy: Theory, Re-
search, Practice, Training, 30, 41–48.
Helbok, C. M. (2003). The practice of psychology in rural
communities: Potential ethical dilemmas. Ethics & Behavior,
13, 367–384.
Helbok, C. M., Marinelli, R. P., & Walls, R. T. (2006). National
survey of ethical practices across rural and urban commu-
nities. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 36–
44.
Hill, M., Glaser, K., & Harden, J. (1998). A feminist model for
ethical decision making. Women & Therapy, 21, 101–121.
Jordan, A. E., & Meara, N. M. (1990). Ethics and the
professional practice of psychologists: The role of virtues and
princi-
ples. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 115–
129.
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and
ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in coun-

seling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 43–55.
Kitchener, K. S. (1988). Dual role relationships: What makes
them so problematic? Journal of Counseling and Develop-
ment, 67, 217–221.
Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (2007). When values of different
cultures conflict: Ethical decision making in a multicul-
tural context. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
38, 660–666.
Koocher, G. P. (2003). Ethical and legal issues in professional
practice transitions. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 34, 383–387.
Kurtines, W. M. (1986). Moral behavior as rule governed
behavior: Person and situation effects on moral decision
making.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 784–791.
Lira, E. (2008). Psicología, ética y seguridad nacional: El rol de
los psicólogos. Psykhe, 17, 5–16.
Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., Brown, R. P., Murphy, S. T.,
Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., et al. (2008). A sensemaking ap-
proach to ethics training for scientists: Preliminary evidence of
training effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 18, 315–339.
Mumford, M. D., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Hill, J. H., Antes,
A. L., Brown, R. P., et al. (2007). Environmental influ-
ences on ethical decision making: Climate and environmental
predictors of research integrity. Ethics & Behavior, 17,
337–366.
Newman, J. L., Gray, E. A., & Fuqua, D. R. (1996). Beyond
ethical decision making. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 48, 230–236.

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the
empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003.
Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375–413.
Pope, K. S. (1990). Ethical and malpractice issues in hospital
practice. American Psychologist, 45, 1066–1070.
Roberts, L. W., Battaglia, J., & Epstein, R. S. (1999). Frontier
ethics: Mental health care needs and ethical dilemmas in ru-
ral communities. Psychiatric Services, 50, 497–503.
Rozensky, R. H. (2006). Clinical psychology in medical
settings: Celebrating our past, enjoying the present, building
our
future. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 13,
343–352.
506 VERGÉS
Seitz, J., & O’Neill, P. (1996). Ethical decision-making and the
code of ethics of the Canadian Psychological Association.
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 37, 23–30.
Stephenson, J. A., & Staal, M. A. (2007). An ethical decision-
making model for operational psychology. Ethics & Behav-
ior, 17, 61–82.
Stockman, A. F. (1990). Dual relationships in rural mental
health practice: An ethical dilemma. Journal of Rural Commu-
nity Psychology, 11, 31–45.
Turchik, J. A., Karpenko, V., Hammers, D., & McNamara, J. R.
(2007). Practical and ethical assessment issues in rural,

impoverished, and managed care settings. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 158–168.
Tymchuk, A. J. (1982). Strategies for resolving value dilemmas.
The American Behavioral Scientist, 26, 159–175.
Welfel, E. R. (2006). Ethics in counseling and psychotherapy:
Standards, research, and emerging issues (3rd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Copyright of Ethics & Behavior is the property of Taylor &
Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Week 1 - Assignment
Ethical Decision-Making
Your review of the literature and professional ethics codes
addresses the importance of resolving ethical dilemmas
systematically and following established decision-making steps
to resolve dilemmas effectively. As ethical codes do not provide
specific solutions for ethical dilemmas, applying established
ethical decision-making steps along with an understanding of
established ethical codes is essential. Taking a systematic
approach to ethical decision-making contributes to effective
professional practice and ethical resolutions consistent with
clients’ best interests.

In a 1,050- to 1,400-word (or 3- to 4-page) paper (excluding
references and title page), based on the scenario below, discuss
how you would apply systematic steps toward a resolution of
the dilemma as a consultant hired by Wells Fargo. Discuss the
specific steps of the decision-making model you would take in
making an ethical decision. How might you include the client in
making your decisions? In what way or ways is accounting for
the ethics code important for decision-making? To support your
responses, in addition to the required readings, cite at least two
scholarly references.
Scenario
Wells Fargo was the darling of the banking industry, with some
of the highest returns on equity in the sector and a soaring stock
price. Top management touted the company’s lead in “cross-
selling”: the sale of additional products to existing customers.
“Eight is great,” as in eight Wells Fargo products for every
customer, was CEO John Stumpf’s mantra.
In September 2016, Wells Fargo announced that it was paying
$185 million in fines for the creation of over 2 million
unauthorized customer accounts. It soon came to light that the
pressure on employees to hit sales quotas was immense: hourly
tracking, pressure from supervisors to engage in unethical
behavior, and a compensation system based heavily on bonuses.
Wells Fargo also confirmed that it had fired over 5,300
employees over the past few years related to shady sales
practices. CEO John Stumpf claimed that the scandal was the
result of a few bad apples who did not honor the company’s
values and that there were no incentives to commit unethical
behavior. The board initially stood behind the CEO, but soon
after received his resignation and “clawed back” millions of
dollars in his compensation.
Further reporting found more troubling information. Many
employees had quit under the immense pressure to engage in
unethical sales practices, and some were even fired for
reporting misconduct through the company’s ethics hotline.
Senior leadership was aware of these aggressive sales practices

as far back as 2004, with incidents as far back as 2002
identified.
The Board of Directors commissioned an independent
investigation that identified cultural, structural, and leadership
issues as root causes of the improper sales practices. The report
cites the wayward sales culture and performance management
system; the decentralized corporate structure that gave too much
autonomy to the division’s leaders; and the unwillingness of
leadership to evaluate the sales model, given its longtime
success for the company.
Resources
Required References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles
of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Including 2010 and 2016
Amendments [Web page]. Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ (Links to an external
site.)
Jungers, C. M., & Gregoire, J. (2016, July 1). Authenticity in
ethical decision making: Reflections for professional
counselors. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 55(2), 99-
110. doi:10.1002/johc.12027
Verges, A. (2010). Integrating contextual issues in ethical
decision making. Ethics & Behavior, 20(6), 497-507.
doi:10.1080/10508422.2010.521451
JUNGERS, C. M., & GREGOIRE, J. (2016). Authenticity in
Ethical Decision Making: Reflections for Professional
Counselors. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 55(2), 99–110.
https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12027

Journal of HumaNisTic cOuNsELiNG ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55 99

Journal of HumaNisTic cOuNsELiNG ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55 99

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Journal of HumaNisTic cOuNsELiNG ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55 99

Similar to Journal of HumaNisTic cOuNsELiNG ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55 99 (16)

More from TatianaMajor22

More from TatianaMajor22 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of HumaNisTic cOuNsELiNG ◆ July 2016 ◆ Volume 55 99