Ethical Standards and Professional Conduct
Two Layers of Obligation
Alaska psychologists answer to both the APA Ethics Code (aspirational principles plus enforceable standards) and Alaska-specific ethical requirements embedded in statute and regulation. Questions often test which layer governs and how conflicts resolve: law and regulation control where they set a higher bar, and the Ethics Code fills gaps.
Core Standards
- Beneficence and nonmaleficence; fidelity and responsibility; integrity; justice; respect for rights and dignity. These principles guide reasoning when no standard is directly on point.
- Multiple relationships. Not all are unethical-only those that could reasonably impair objectivity or risk exploitation. The trap is treating every dual relationship as prohibited.
- Conflicts of interest, exploitation, and boundary crossings versus boundary violations: crossings may be benign or even therapeutic; violations harm.
- Informed consent, competence, and avoiding harm recur across domains and are tested in combination.
Alaska-Specific Overlay
State law may impose reporting, recordkeeping, and consent duties that exceed the Ethics Code. When the two diverge, follow the stricter requirement and document your reasoning. The Board may discipline for conduct that is ethical under the Code but violates regulation.
Traps
- Assuming the Ethics Code is legally binding by itself-it is enforceable through licensing boards, not directly as law.
- Confusing aspirational principles (not grounds for discipline) with enforceable standards.
- Ignoring the reasonable-person perspective: ethics questions ask what a prudent psychologist would do, not what is theoretically ideal.
Rule of Thumb
Use a three-step analysis: (1) identify the specific standard or regulation; (2) ask whether a reasonable psychologist could be impaired or the client exploited; (3) if uncertainty remains, consult and document.
Worked Example
A psychologist's client offers to sell her a car at a discount. Even if the price is fair, the transaction creates a financial entanglement that could impair objectivity-decline and explain, documenting the discussion.