CONTEXT IN ETHICAL DECISION MAKING 499 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 vande Creek, 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- pment 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 lik ely m寸○ to encounter. To identify those skills, it might be useful to consider the influences that affect ethi cal decision makin INFLUENCES IN ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES One of the first studies that highlighted the role of contextual factors in ethical decision makin 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 onl 37%o 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- ially when they are not aware of those factors. For this reason, any ethical model used in trainingmodel 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 Downloaded by [Shanghai Jiaotong University] at 07:04 23 May 2012