Cicero F. R. (2021).
Behavior analysis in practice, 14(4),
1169–1178.
Abstract
Disciplines establish and enforce professional codes of ethics in order to guide ethical and safe practice. Unfortunately, ethical breaches still occur. Interestingly, it is found that breaches are often perpetrated by professionals who are aware of their codes of ethics and believe that they engage in ethical practice. The constructs of behavioral ethics, which are most often discussed in business settings, attempt to explain why ethical professionals sometimes engage in unethical behavior. Although traditionally based on theories of social psychology, the principles underlying behavioral ethics are consistent with behavior analysis. When conceptualized as operant behavior, ethical and unethical decisions are seen as being evoked and maintained by environmental variables. As with all forms of operant behavior, antecedents in the environment can trigger unethical responses, and consequences in the environment can shape future unethical responses. In order to increase ethical practice among professionals, an assessment of the environmental variables that affect behavior needs to be conducted on a situation-by-situation basis. Knowledge of discipline-specific professional codes of ethics is not enough to prevent unethical practice. In the current article, constructs used in behavioral ethics are translated into underlying behavior-analytic principles that are known to shape behavior. How these principles establish and maintain both ethical and unethical behavior is discussed.
Here are some thoughts:
This article argues that ethical practice requires more than memorizing compliance codes, as professionals aware of such codes still commit ethical breaches. Behavioral ethics suggests that environmental and situational variables often evoke and maintain unethical decisions, conceptualizing these decisions as operant behavior. Thus, knowledge of ethical codes alone is insufficient to prevent unethical practice; an assessment of environmental influences is necessary. The paper translates behavioral ethics constructs like self-serving bias, incrementalism, framing, obedience to authority, conformity bias, and overconfidence bias into behavior-analytic principles such as reinforcement, shaping, motivating operations, and stimulus control. This perspective shifts the focus from blaming individuals towards analyzing environmental factors that prompt ethical breaches, advocating for proactive assessment to support ethical behavior.
Understanding these concepts is vital for psychologists because they too are subject to environmental pressures that can lead to unethical actions, despite ethical training. The article highlights that ethical knowledge does not always translate to ethical behavior, emphasizing that situational factors often play a more significant role. Psychologists must recognize subtle influences such as the gradual normalization of unethical actions (incrementalism), the impact of how situations are described (framing), pressures from authority figures, and conformity to group norms, as these can all compromise ethical judgment. An overconfidence in one's own ethical standing can further obscure these influences. By applying a behavior-analytic lens, psychologists can better identify and mitigate these environmental risks, fostering a culture of proactive ethical assessment within their practice and institutions to safeguard clients and the profession.
