Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(4), pp.1-7 www.ejop.org Etic and emic in contemporary psychological ethics

Globalization can be characterized as a process of worldwide integration through the movement of goods and capital, expansion of democratic institutions and human rights, access to information, and migration of large numbers of people. Psychology, too, has become more globalized in form and scope and in its standards for competent and ethical practice, as psychologists operate in ever more diverse and rapidly changing environments (Stevens & Gielen, 2007). Differences in countries’ ecological systems and cultural worldviews pose challenges for globalization and the globalizing of psychology, with increasing interconnectedness opposed by a movement favoring localization. How might the seemingly contradictory forces of globalization and localization (universalism vs. particularism) manifest with regard to implementation of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (Ad Hoc Joint Committee, 2008)?

Etic and emic in contemporary psychological ethics By Michael J. Stevens I llinois State Univ ersity Globalization can be characterized as a process of w orldw ide integration through the mov ement of goods and capital, expansion of democratic institutions and human rights, access to information, and migration of large numbers of people.
Psychology, too, has become more globalized in form and scope and in its standards for competent and ethical practice, as psychologists operate in ev er more div erse and rapidly changing env ironments (Stev ens & Gielen, 2007).
Differences in countries' ecological systems and cultural w orldv iew s pose challenges for globalization and the globalizing of psychology, w ith increasing interconnectedness opposed by a mov ement fav oring localization.How might the seemingly contradictory forces of globalization and localization (univ ersalism v s. particularism) manifest w ith regard to implementation of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (Ad Hoc Joint Committee, 2008)?
The Univ ersal Declaration w as conceiv ed in 2002 as common moral framew ork that w ould inspire and guide psychologists w orldw ide tow ard the highest ethical ideals in their professional activ ities.The objectiv es of the Univ ersal Declaration are to prov ide general principles that function as a template in the dev elopment and rev ision of national ethics codes, as a standard that the global psychology community can use in ev aluating the moral relev ance of ethics codes, and as a basis for psychologists to resolv e allegations of ethical impropriety.
The I nternational Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) and I nternational Association of Applied Psychology (I AAP) established and charged an ad hoc committee w ith the responsibility of dev eloping a set of univ ersal ethical principles for psychologists.The committee included authorities on psychological ethics from Canada, China, Colombia, Finland, Germany, I ran, New Zealand, Singapore, United States, and Zimbabw e.I n constructing he Univ ersal Declaration, the committee Etic and emic in contemporary psychological ethics 2 plumbed historical documents from Eastern and Western civ ilizations in order to identify the moral foundation of ethical principles, rev iew ed w idely accepted protections of human rights (e.g., the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights) to ascertain their underlying moral imperativ es, examined ethics codes in div erse disciplines to deduce their shared principles, compared national ethics codes in psychology, and consulted, discussed, and moderated focus groups to refine the content and w ording of multiple drafts.
The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists w as approv ed by the IUPsyS andI AAP in 2008 (Ad Hoc Joint Committee, 2008).The four principles that comprise the Univ ersal Declaration are grounded in shared human v alues, w ritten in generic language, and av oid the prescription of specific standards of conduct as these are to be established by each country's code of psych ological ethics.The principles of the Univ ersal Declaration include: Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples

II.
Competent Caring for the Well-being of Persons and Peoples III .I ntegrity

IV. Professional and Scientific Responsibilities to Society
There is broad consensus that the discipline of psychology is situated in culture, history, philosophy, politics, and religion, and hence must be understood from an ecological perspectiv e (Stev ens & Gielen, 2007).Likew ise, ethics codes in psychology emerge from a co mplex interaction of micro and macro ev ents and forces, ultimately reflecting the v alues and traditions of the normativ e systems in w hich they are constituted (Stev ens, 2008).And yet, psychologists hav e painstakingly crafted and recently adopted a set of univ ersal guidelines for the ethical practice of scientific and applied psychology.The juxtaposition of the Univ ersal Declaration w ith a perspectiv al framew ork for understanding psychology as a situated discipline raises at least tw o important issues regarding national ethics codes in psychology and the professional conduct of psychologists in their local milieu: 1. Is it possible for a country's psychological ethics code to mirror univ ersal principles w hile at the same time embracing local norms; conv ersely, to w hat extent are univ ersal principles and local norms irreconcilable?

2.
What v ariables predict w hether psychologists from culturally div erse countries accept, reject, or respond ambiv alently to univ ersal ethical principles as they engage in professional activ ities locally?These responsibilities include…encouraging the dev elopment of social structures and policies that benefit all persons and peoples."This statement comports w ith cultures inclined tow ard collectiv ism, high pow er distance, and a long-term perspectiv e.
The abov e informal analysis suggest that, although it may be possible for national ethics codes in psychology to be w ritten in such a w ay as to balance the ethical principles of the Univ ersal Declaration w ith local norms, such a balance w ill be a challenge to achiev e.I t is w orth noting that the exercise of placing each univ ersal ethical principle along Hofstede's (2001) dimensions of culture yields fairly consistent outcomes w hen other typologies of culture are substituted, including Alan Fiske's (1992) forms of social reality, Harry Triandis' (1994) cultural syndromes, and Fons Trompennars' dimensions of culture (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998).
Furthermore, the upshot of this informal analysis raises the prospect that psychologists operating in certain countries may encounter ethical-cultural dilemmas in carrying out their professional activ ities depending on the degree to w hich the ethical principles of the Univ ersal Declaration conform to cultural norms.How are the sources of ethical compliance in v iv o?
Etic and emic in contemporary psychological ethics 4 Ronald I ngelhart and W ayne Baker ( 2000) hav e orchestrated the World Values Surv ey, w hich measures the attitudes, beliefs, and v alues of representativ e samples from 65 countries that account for 75% of the w orld's population.Tw o bipolar dimensions w ere extracted from the surv ey, namely authority and v alues.Authority represents a continuum ranging from traditional (i.e., absolutism) to secular/rational (i.e., relativ ism), w hereas v alues runs the gamut from surv iv al (i.e., distrust) to selfexpression (i.e., trust).These dimensions can be crossed to locate countries in a fourcelled matrix that has been used to argue that cultural heritage leav es an enduring imprint that moderates the pathw ays w hich countries take in response to modernization (both Marx and Weber w ere right!).
I ngelhart and Baker's ( 2000) typology created by crossing authority w ith v alues can also serv e as a basis from w hich to generate predictions about the responses of psychologists, w ho are fulfilling professional roles at the local lev el, to exhortations to adopt univ ersal ethical principles.Specifically, acceptance of univ ersal ethics as an aspirational guideline for situated professional practice w ould seem more likely in countries that are characterized as secular/rational in aut hority and self-expressiv e in v alues (i.e., relativ istic and trusting); psychologists from the nations of Oceania and Western Europe may experience little or no ethical-cultural conflict in operating w ithin the framew ork of the Univ ersal Declaration (e.g., Germany, New Zealand).
Rejection of univ ersal ethics appears more probable in countries that are more traditional in authority and surv iv al-oriented in v alues (i.e., absolutist and distrustful); psychologists from African and South-Asian nations, may find ov erw helming normativ e contradictions in the ethical ideals adv ocated by the Univ ersal Declaration (e.g., Nigeria, Pakistan).Ambiv alence tow ard the application of univ ersal ethics in professional practice should be confined to countries located in the tw o remaining quadrants of the four-fold typology, that is, secular/rational in authority and surv iv al-oriented in v alues (i.e., relativ istic and distrustful) or traditional in authority and self-expressiv e in v alues (i.e., absolutist and trusting); psychologists from Eastern Europe and Latin America may experience uncertainty in how to reconcile the equally persuasiv e yet competing demands presented by the Univ ersal Declaration and local normativ e systems (e.g., Russia, Argentina).
I nterestingly, psychologists in China and the United States w ould be expected to feel ambiv alently, but for different reasons (China = secular/rational in authority x surv iv aloriented in v alues; USA = traditional in authority x self-expressiv e in v alues).For example, although respect for the indiv idual is more strongly w orded in the current While rapid globalization has w eakened national boundaries and div ersified populations, local normativ e systems persist, at times grow ing stronger in the face of perceived threats to cherished v alues and customs (Bond et al., 2004;I ngelhart & Baker, 2000;Moghaddam & Harré, 1996) Gielen, 2007), the Univ ersal Declaration can inspire and guide efforts to ensure that such div erse activ ities are responsiv e to the ecological conditions in w hich they occur.Notw ithstanding the inclusiv eness w ith w hich the Univ ersal Declaration w as constructed and the subsequent design of a culturally sensitiv e model for applying it to the dev elopment or modification of national ethics codes (see Gauthier, Pettifor, & Ferrero, 2010), only future research, perhaps along the lines presented in this editorial, w ill determine its broad suitability and probability of being implemented in the practice of psychology.The Univ ersal Declaration can be said to rest on a tenet of omniculturalism (Moghaddam, 2009), w herein indiv iduals ideally acquire a primary identity based on shared meanings and practices as w ell as secondary identities Etic and emic in contemporary psychological ethics 6 composed of narrow er in-group w orldv iew s, w ith clashes betw een identities resolv ed by prev ailing univ ersal v alues.History is replete w ith the short-sightedness of such thinking.
to establishing the cultural sensitiv ity and cross-cultural applicability of the Univ ersal Declaration w ould be to estimate the position of each ethical principle along the continuum of Geert Hofstede's (2001) bipolar dimensions of culture.Hofstede proposed that cultures v ary along fiv e v alue dimensions: indiv idualism-collectiv ism, pow er distance, uncertainty av oidance, masculinityfemininity, and time orientation (short-term v s. long-term).Such an informal analysis follow s.The v alues associated w ith Principle I on Respect for the Dignity and Worth of Persons and Peoples urge that, "all communities and cultures adhere to moral v alues that respect and protect their members both as indiv idual persons and as collectiv e peoples."This aspiration is more likely to be realized in cultures that are neither indiv idualistic nor collectiv istic, but rather mixed on this dimension.Principle II on the Competent Caring for the Well-being of Persons and Peoples is described thusly: "Competent caring… inv olv es maximizing benefits, minimizing potential harm, and offsetting or correcting harm."These goals seem compatible w ith cultures that are more feminine and hav e a longer time orientation.The v alues undergirding Principle III on I ntegrity hold that, "I ntegrity is based on honesty, and on truthful, open and accurate communications… Complete openness and disclosure of information must be balanced w ith other ethical considerations…" These v alues align w ith cultures that tend tow ard low er pow er distance and greater femininity.The v alue-statements linked to Principle I V on Professional and Scientific Responsibilities to Society assert that, "As a science and profession, it [psychology] has responsibilities to society.
iteration of China's Code of Ethics for Counseling and Clinical Practice (Chinese Psychological Society, 2007), it reminds psychologists of their ethical duties to adv ance social harmony and v iolate confidentiality w hen mandated by federal law .How might Chinese psychologists respond to the dissonance triggered by the balance betw een person and society promulgated by the Univ ersal Declaration versus the Confucian v irtues and communist doctrine mirrored in the Chinese code?Application of I ngelhart and Baker's (2000) typology to the task of predicting acceptance, rejection, or ambiv alence tow ard the Univ ersal Declaration by psychologists practicing in different national and cultural milieus prov ides a platform through w hich to understand how the forces of globalization and localization may facilitate or temper current trends in psychological ethics.Other approaches offer attractiv e theoretical structures w ith w hich to examine conv ergent and div ergent cross-national responses to the local implementation of univ ersal ethics.These include Fathali Moghaddam's social reducton theory(Moghaddam & Harré, 1996), w hich explains resistance to rapid institutional change in terms of entrenched normativ e systems that inform locally v alid customs, and Michael Harris Bond's social axioms, w hich represent culture-lev el beliefs and expectations that act as recipes for daily liv ing.Bond et al. (2004) hav e identified tw o social axioms, w hich like I ngelhart and Baker's dimensions can be transformed into a four-fold typology: dynamic externality, linked to collectiv ism, conserv atism, hierarchy, and low national dev elopment, and societal cynicism, representing a perv asiv e mistrust of social systems.
. Although the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists(Ad Hoc Joint Committee, 2008)is neither a w orldw ide code of ethics nor a global code of conduct, its principles reflect v alues that to v arying degrees may be impossible to incorporate into a particular country's psychological ethics code.With psychologists increasingly employed as scientists, practitioners, instructors, and consultants across cultures and countries (Stev ens &