How relevant is the APA ethics code to industrial-organizational psychology? Applicability, deficiencies, and recommendations

Abstract

Opinions have been divided regarding the relevance of the APA Ethics Code to non-mental health specialties, and even whether the Code should attempt to encompass all psychology specializations. However, these opinions have crystallized without the benefit of any appreciable empirical data, until now. This study investigates the applicability of the ethical principles and standards of the Code to 398 first-person narratives of ethical incidents reported by industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists. On average, 2.8 (of the 5) principles enumerated in the Code were deemed applicable to each incident, and each principle was applicable to more than half the incidents provided. Of the Code’s 89 ethical standards, 75 (84.3%) were applicable to at least one incident. Among the 10 categories of standards, Resolving Ethical Issues and Human Relations were the most frequently applicable, while Therapy standards were virtually never applicable. However, for 42.7% of the incidents, trained judges identified a substantive deficiency or ambiguity for I-O psychologists in the Code. These deficiencies were subsequently grouped into seven higher-order categories (Assessments in Organizations; Research Practices; Data Management; Professional Interactions; Business Practices; Student Ethics; and Proactive Ethical Behavior). Recommendations are offered for improving those putative deficiencies, and implications are discussed for I-O psychologists, the APA’s Ethics Code Task Force (ECTF), and other non-clinical domains of psychology.

Full text

FOCAL ARTICLE
How relevant is the APA ethics code to
industrial-organizational psychology? Applicability,
deficiencies, and recommendations
Logan L. Watts1* , Joel Lefkowitz2, Manuel F. Gonzalez3, and Sampoorna Nandi1
1University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA, 2Baruch College and the Graduate Center, CUNY, New York, NY,
USA and 3Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, USA
*Corresponding author. Email: Logan.watts@uta.edu
(Received 2 May 2022; revised 1 August 2022; accepted 14 August 2022)
Abstract
Opinions have been divided regarding the relevance of the APA Ethics Code to non-mental health
specialties and even whether the code should attempt to encompass all psychology specializations.
However, these opinions have crystallized without the benefit of any appreciable empirical data, until
now. This study investigates the applicability of the ethical principles and standards of the code to 398
first-person narratives of ethical incidents reported by industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists. On
average, 2.8 (of the 5) principles enumerated in the code were deemed applicable to each incident, and
each principle was applicable to more than half the incidents provided. Of the code’s 89 ethical standards,
75 (84.3%) were applicable to at least one incident. Among the 10 categories of standards, resolving ethical
issues and human relations were the most frequently applicable, whereas therapy standards were virtually
never applicable. However, for 42.7% of the incidents, trained judges identified a substantive deficiency or
ambiguity for I-O psychologists in the code. These deficiencies were subsequently grouped into seven
higher order categories (assessments in organizations;research practices;data management;professional
interactions;business practices;student ethics; and proactive ethical behavior). Recommendations are
offered for improving those putative deficiencies, and implications are discussed for I-O psychologists,
the APA’s Ethics Code Task Force (ECTF), and other nonclinical domains of psychology.
Keywords: ethical principles of psychologists; APA Ethics Code; industrial-organizational psychology; ethical dilemmas;
content coding
Nearly 70 years ago, the American Psychological Association (APA) published its first Code of
Ethics (“the code”) with two goals: (a) to provide general guidance to psychologists in the form
of ethical principles, and (b) to present a set of standards that describe enforceable expectations for
professional behavior (APA, 1953). Since that time, the field of psychology has grown and
changed considerably, and the APA has revised the code on numerous occasions to maintain
its relevance. Most recently, in 2021 the APA Ethics Code Task Force (ECTF) began revising
the code again with the aim of “creating a Code that is transformational”while remaining “a lead-
ing practical resource regarding ethics for psychological science, education and practice”. Thus, it
is currently an apt time to investigate the relevance of the code, both to psychology in general and
to specific disciplines of psychology.
APA is a large and diverse organization, representing over 100,000 members and 54 divisions
(APA, 2020). APA comprises subdisciplines such as clinical psychology and topical interest
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. This is an
Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2023), 16, 143–165
doi:10.1017/iop.2022.112
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

groups often representing specific work domains (e.g., Div. 39/Society for Psychoanalysis and
Psychoanalytic Psychology; Div. 18/Psychologists in Public Service). The single code requires
compliance from APA members of all those divisions, student affiliates, licensed psychologists,
as well as members of those divisions and other organizations that have adopted the code even
if they are not members of APA.
Since at least the 1980s when the Association for Psychological Science split with APA, clini-
cally oriented psychologists have dominated the membership statistics of APA. The APA’s most
recent membership statistics from 2019 also show that the three largest divisions by membership
are Div. 40 (Clinical Neuropsychology), Div. 12 (Clinical Psychology), and Div. 42 (Psychologists
in Independent Practice)—all divisions comprising mental health researchers and practitioners. It
is thus not surprising that the code mostly envisions psychologists as engaged in psychotherapeu-
tic research and/or practice with individuals, despite nonclinicians also being involved in its initial
development—for example, two former SIOP presidents (Bray and Seashore) served on the ethics
committee that shaped the early formation of the code.1
However, over the years psychologists from a diverse range of nonclinically oriented APA
divisions—who represent a growing proportion of APA’s membership (APA, 2020)—have argued
that the code should better represent the ethical situations faced by psychologists operating out-
side the bounds of healthcare. For example, critiques of the Code’s relevance can be heard
from industrial-organizational (Lowman, 1993), teaching (Keith-Spiegel, 1994), forensic (Lees-
Haley et al., 2005), quantitative (Wasserman, 2013), consulting (Gebhardt, 2016), community
(Campbell & Morris, 2017), and school psychologists (Firmin et al., 2018). Some divisions and
practice areas (e.g., National Association of School Psychologists) have even supplemented the
APA’s Code by developing their own ethics codes. To date, researchers have not systematically
examined the code’s applicability to actual ethical incidents in nonclinical domains of psychology,
rendering the code’s applicability to those areas unknown.
This paper presents just such an empirical investigation of the most recent version of the code
(APA, 2017) with respect to ethical incidents from industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology
(APA Div. 14) as an exemplar. This investigation offers several potential contributions for the
field. First, the resulting recommendations may immediately inform upcoming revision efforts
and serve as a model for systematically improving the usefulness of the code for I-O psychologists
as well as psychology more broadly over time. Second, our findings may aid in training aspiring I-
Os to better navigate ethical dilemmas, thus advancing the pedagogy of I-O psychology. Third, our
findings may advance both the practice and science of I-O psychology, both of which often involve
working in close partnership with organizations and employees. Thus, despite their different
career paths, practitioners and academics alike may similarly require guidance from the code
to navigate the same types of ethical dilemmas (Watts & Nandi, 2021). Last, and more broadly,
we believe that our methodology will generalize to other APA divisions who may be interested in
investigating the issue. The following research questions guided our investigation:
RQ1: How applicable is the code to ethical situations reported by I-O psychologists?
RQ2: What are the potential deficiencies in the code (i.e., substantive gaps or ambiguities), if
any, and how might the code be improved to address those deficiencies?
Historical development of the code
There have been roughly a dozen revisions to the original 1953 Ethics Code, starting just 6 years
after its publication (APA, 1959)—some revisions being major overhauls (in 1977, 1981, and most
1Notwithstanding some categories of generically applicable standards (e.g., maintaining confidentiality). The APA Ethics
Code is accessible at https://www.apa.org/ethics/code, and the APA membership statistics dashboard is available at https://
www.apa.org/about/division/officers/services/profiles.
144 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

recently in 1992 and 2002), and some limited to editing portions of the code or adding sections.
According to the APA Ethics Committee (1997), “An interim revision will be undertaken if the
Ethics Committee, Board of Directors, or Council of Representatives determines 1) that there is an
urgent concern about the Ethics Code that should not be delayed until the major revision and
2) that there should be an interim revision”(p. 898). Indeed, such interim revisions were made
most recently in 2009 (effective June 1, 2010), clarifying that Standard 1.02 (Conflicts Between
Ethics and Law) and Standard 1.03 (Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands) pro-
vide no defense to torture; and in 2016 (effective January 1, 2017), similarly amending Standard
3.04 (Avoiding Harm) to prohibit participation, facilitation, assisting, or otherwise engaging in
torture.
From the beginning, the APA worked to incorporate members’initial input or feedback to draft
documents (cf., Golann, 1970; Joyce & Rankin, 2010; Pope & Vetter, 1992, for summaries). The
initial code was the first to be based on actual “critical incidents”solicited from those to whom it
would pertain, based on more than 2,000 contributions (APA, 1953,Preamble). The major 2002
revision received over 1,300 comments (APA, 2002), and the limited 2009 and 2016 revisions
received 81 and approximately 275 comments, respectively (APA Ethics Committee, 2009;
APA, 2016). But, as lamented by Pope and Vetter (1992), since 1953—aside from a focused survey
in 1982 concerning research with human participants—“APA never again conducted a mail sur-
vey of a representative sample of the membership as the basis for revising the general Code”
(p. 398). The present effort revives elements of this earlier critical incident technique to examine
the code’s relevance to I-O psychology.
Applicability of the code to I-O psychology
The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP/APA Div. 14) is one of the APA’s
54 divisions. The nature of professional practice in I-O psychology entails working with various
types of clients, executives, team members, business consultants, human resource managers, and
other organizational representatives or stakeholders in a wide range of activities, in individual,
team, and organization-level contexts. Currently, only 19 of the 89 standards (21.3%) make an
explicit reference to psychologists working in, with, or for organizations in some capacity.
More than 15 years ago it became apparent at a panel symposium conducted at an annual SIOP
conference that some I-O psychologists believed the code was inadequate for I-O psychology and
that the field needed its own version; others held the opposite opinion (Lefkowitz et al., 2006).
(SIOP long ago adopted the APA Ethics Code as its own.) In subsequently informing the
APA membership about that discussion, the APA’s ethics officer, who had been one of the par-
ticipants, reframed the issue as having to do with articulating the gap between the abstract ethical
principles and day-to-day practices reflected in the standards. “We can narrow the gap by writing
more elaborate and specific ethical standards, which will provide more guidance but leave less
room for our professional judgment and discussion”(Behnke, 2006, p. 66). In fact, for many years
the code’s revision process has consistently aimed:
toward keeping the Ethics Code standards, to the extent possible, as simple statements,
behaviorally focused, and expressed as unitary concepts, in order to facilitate their applica-
tion. To have done otherwise could have resulted in a Code of such length and complexity as
to diminish its usefulness.”(Canter et al. 1994, p. xi)
Behnke (2006) also acknowledged: “Drawn largely from the biomedical ethics literature, the
principles may not adequately speak to I-O psychology and so may need to be re-examined in
the next Ethics Code revision.”Complicating matters further, other applied psychologists have
more recently voiced the opinion:
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 145
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

that the revisions of the APA ethical standards [should] give serious consideration to the
elimination of all statements regarding specialty areas of practice :::. We strongly suggest
that the next revision of the standards only include those that are applicable to everyone
who belongs to APA.”(Society of Consulting Psychology, 2021)
However, an important takeaway from this discussion is that none of the opinions—pro, con,
or otherwise—have been shaped by the consideration of systematically evaluated empirical data.
Determining applicability
Issues of interpretation
Campbell et al. (2010) observed that “the Ethics Code has 89 ethical standards, all of which have
potential applications in a variety of complex and nuanced situations and settings”(p. 7). It is not
surprising therefore, that various knowledgeable authorities have felt the need to publish substan-
tial explanatory commentaries on the code (Bersoff, 2008; Campbell et al., 2010; Canter et al.,
1994; Fisher, 2017). The situation is especially noteworthy when one realizes that—despite the
involvement of nonclinicians in its initial development—both the code and the commentaries
were written largely from the unitary perspective of clinical psychology and psychotherapy.
How much more challenging must the requisite interpretive inferences be to apply the code use-
fully to other specialty areas?
This challenge is recognized by the current ECTF, who realize that it is important to achieve “a
broader breadth and application of the code across disciplines”and to establish a “Code that
addresses the complexities of interactions between psychologists and their clients, including clients
that are organizations, companies, etc.”(APA, 2021, emphasis added). We anticipate that doing so
will not be easy. In sum, the applicability of the principles and standards of the code to situations
comprising particular domains of interest (professional specialties; problem areas; work settings)
is a function first, perhaps foremost, of their interpretability in each context. And in our experi-
ence, the principles and standards seem clearer when simply reading them than when trying to
apply them to actual situations, such as those represented by the incidents investigated here.
Moreover, one can anticipate that the written incident descriptions are probably more limited
in content and complexity than the actual ethical situations they represent, which likely include
a multitude of additional real-life details. Therefore, in order to conduct a reasonably meaningful
and fair assessment of the code’s real-life applicability, we considered it is necessary and appro-
priate to employ what might be described as expansive or “lenient”standards of interpretation, as
described next.2
Who is the ethics violator?
A vast majority of the 94 principles and standards are written as guides or admonishments to
psychologists, assuming that they are the potential miscreant: (“Psychologists strive to :::”;
“Psychologists establish :::”;“Psychologists cooperate :::”;“Psychologists refrain from :::”;
“Psychologists take reasonable steps to :::”;“Psychologists do not :::”;“Psychologists
provide :::”; etc.). That is, of course, in keeping with the fact that psychologists are the focal audi-
ence of the code’s educative and enforcement functions. However, as noted earlier, many prac-
ticing I-O psychologists work closely with clients, colleagues, and other stakeholders who have
failed to “avoid harming others,”disregarded a “conflict of interest,”or engaged in inappropriate
“multiple relationships”or “exploitative relationships.”
Thus, when reviewing ethical incidents, we considered an element of the code as applicable if its
substance reflected an ethical issue presented in the incident, irrespective of who was the violator.
2Detailed coding guidelines are presented in the online supplemental material.
146 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

In other words, if the reported incident concerns an action taken, contemplated, or intended that
is proscribed in the code (or something prescribed in the code is not done), the code was deemed
“applicable”even if the actor was not our respondent or not even a psychologist.3This decision
rule was necessary to accommodate the complex, diverse, and interdependent nature of ethical
situations encountered by I-O psychologists—once one becomes aware of an ethical situation,
it becomes one’s professional duty to report or otherwise address it (as prescribed in
Standards 1.04 and 1.05), regardless of whether the alleged perpetrator is a psychologist.
Additionally, this approach was corroborated by the finding that more than 40% of the alleged
or potentially unethical persons in the situations reported were not, in fact, psychologists (an issue
we return to when discussing ambiguities in the code).
Focusing on the intent of the standards
In some cases, a literal reading of a standard would provide an overly narrow and misleading
conclusion regarding applicability. In those instances, it seemed reasonable and appropriate to
focus on the apparent purpose of the standard. For example: (a) Standard 1.01 (Misuse of
Psychologists’Work) was considered applicable even when it was someone else’s work being mis-
used; (b) Standard 1.04 (Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations) was considered to provide
appropriate advice even if the possible ethical violation was by another who was not a psycholo-
gist; (c) a standard such as 3.02 (Sexual Harassment) was considered applicable even when our
survey respondent was the victim of harassment. It seems to us that “stretching”the interpretation
of the code in this manner is not merely permissible but is requisite to a fair investigation of our
research questions—and is in keeping with the intent of the code to provide flexibility to
psychologists.
Accommodating the specialty area
Similarly, there are ethical issues associated with aspects of professional practice in I-O psychology
that are not reflected in the code but that can readily be accepted as analogous to matters that are
enumerated. For example: (a) Standard 1.05 (Reporting Ethical Violations) may in some instances
entail reporting to a corporate board or academic committee, as opposed to a body within pro-
fessional psychology; (b) Standards 7.06 and 7.07, concerning assessment of, and sexual relation-
ships with, students and supervisees, although framed in the educational context, was interpreted
as referring equally to organizations and subordinate employees; and (c) although executive
coaches do not conduct psychotherapy and generally are not trained to do so, there are enough
similarities to warrant considering some standards in category 10 (Therapy) as potentially appli-
cable to coaching (e.g., informed consent; sexual intimacies; interruptions and termination of the
psychologist–client relationship).
We believe that these expansive interpretive guidelines are commensurate with the spirit and
intent of the code. As noted in the code’sPreamble,“Most of the ethical standards are written
broadly, in order to apply to psychologists in varied roles, although the application of an ethical
standard may vary depending on the context”(p. 2). Indeed, a consideration of the code’s appli-
cability to I-O psychology (and to other specialty areas) would be a meaningless enterprise
otherwise. With these interpretational parameters in mind, we now turn to describing the meth-
odology used to investigate the relevance of the code to I-O psychology.
3The code provides no enforcement prerogatives against the nonpsychologist, and we are not suggesting that it should or
could do so.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 147
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 398 narrative descriptions of ethical incidents drawn from a publicly
available dataset of anonymous qualitative responses provided by associates, members, and fellows
of SIOP when participating in SIOP-sponsored ethics surveys conducted in 2009 and 2019
(Lefkowitz, 2021; Lefkowitz & Watts, 2022).4These incidents were provided by 339 I-O psychol-
ogists who indicated that they were “directly involved”in the reported situation in some capacity.
Some respondents contributed up to two narrative incidents. Because the 2009 and 2019 samples
were similar in terms of demographics and results, we treat them here as a single (i.e., combined)
sample.5
The sample of 339 I-O psychologists consisted of approximately equal numbers of male
(50.2%) and female (46.9%) respondents (.3% other and 2.7% unreported). Most respondents
(91.2%) held doctoral degrees, and the majority (79.9%) reported their highest degree being
earned in the field of I-O psychology, followed by some other psychology specialization
(10.0%) or business (6.8%). Most respondents (79.9%) were SIOP Members, followed by
Fellows (10.6%), and Associates (4.1%). The number of years passed since obtaining one’s highest
degree, or the “career stage,”of respondents was diverse, with roughly 34.8% in early career (0 to
10 years), 26.3% in mid career (11 to 20 years), and 36.9% in late career (>20 years). Drawing on
demographic data from the 2019 ethics survey (Lefkowitz & Watts, 2022), we learned that most of
the respondents (86.8%) who provided ethical incidents were based in the United States, with the
remaining incidents (13.2%) coming from international respondents. Additionally, the ethical
incidents were distributed across all major work areas of I-O psychology, with 31.6% of incidents
coming from academe, 29.6% from internal practitioners, and 38.8% from external practitioners.
These demographics are largely representative of SIOP’s overall membership statistics (SIOP,
2020), with the exception that Associates (i.e., professionals holding a master’s degree) were
underrepresented, whereas Fellows were slightly overrepresented.
Survey respondents were asked to “describe an ethical situation with which you are personally
and directly familiar that occurred within the past few years (i.e., recently enough for you to
remember the details).”The median incident length was 130 words (mean =163.82,
SD =132.74).
Coding procedures
A thematic content analysis approach was used to explore the applicability of the principles and
standards of the code to ethical incidents reported by I-O psychologists (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Four subject matter experts trained to serve as judges, or coders, of the incidents. These judges
included one professor emeritus, one assistant professor, one postdoctoral researcher, and one
doctoral research assistant in I-O psychology. Two of the judges have served as members of
SIOP’s Committee for the Advancement of Professional Ethics. Coding took approximately
3 months, and the procedures were as follows. First, the two senior judges reviewed the principles
and standards presented in the code and coded an initial sample of 15 incidents. Through coding
and discussing these initial incidents, the senior judges established consensus around the judg-
ment of each variable and generated an initial coding protocol with guidance for all of the judges.
4The full-text incidents are publicly available via the educational resources webpage of SIOP’s Committee for the
Advancement of Professional Ethics (CAPE). The variables and relationships examined in the present article have not been
examined in any previous or current articles, or in any papers that will be under review soon.
5The 2009 and 2019 data were remarkably similar in terms of the applicability of the APA Ethics Code. That is, the
Spearman rank-order correlation for the principles between 2009 and 2019 samples was 1.00, and the rank-order correlation
for the standards between 2009 and 2019 samples was .94.
148 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Second, all four judges engaged in a 2-hour training session in which they reviewed the code
and coding protocol, and practiced coding three incidents together. Whenever disagreements or
ambiguities emerged around how to apply a particular principle or standard to an incident (see
“Issues of Interpretation”section presented earlier), the four judges discussed these issues until a
consensus was reached, and the coding protocol was updated accordingly.
Third, the remaining incidents were randomly assigned to judges to code independently. Each
of the remaining incidents were coded independently by two judges, and individual judges were
paired with one another an approximately equal number of times across the incidents so that no
single pair of judges had a disproportionate influence on the results. The judges discussed ambig-
uous incidents or coding issues with one another periodically throughout the project and updated
the coding protocol accordingly. Interrater agreement statistics were monitored throughout the
coding process. Any principle or standard falling below an absolute agreement of 70% was dis-
cussed throughout the process to facilitate convergence. The only two variables with agreement
statistics falling below the 70% threshold were the principles of Fidelity and Responsibility (69.4%)
and Integrity (65.7%).
Applicability variables
The principles and standards of the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
(2017) served as our main variables. For each of the five principles and 89 standards presented in
the code, judges coded a “1”to indicate that the principle/standard was applicable to the incident
or a “0”to indicate the principle/standard was not applicable.
Judges coded three additional variables to provide more information about the contents of each
incident. These variables, and their rationale, included: (a) “Was the alleged perpetrator, or poten-
tial perpetrator, a psychologist?”(The Code is “intended to provide guidance for psycholo-
gists :::that can be applied by the APA and other bodies [such as SIOP] that choose to adopt
them”APA, p. 2.); (b) “Did the protagonist attempt to informally resolve the issue with the per-
petrator?”(prescribed in Standard 1.04); and (c) “Did the protagonist formally report the situation
to a higher institutional authority?”(conditionally prescribed in Standard 1.05). These three var-
iables were coded as “1”to indicate yes,“0”to indicate no,or“9”to indicate unclear.
Given the categorical nature of the coding, it was necessary to resolve any disagreements among
judges prior to analysis. A default rule was applied to resolve disagreements, such that if any judge
marked a variable as applicable for a particular incident it was considered applicable. Although
this decision rule may be expected to slightly inflate the observed applicability of some principles
and standards (particularly those few variables where interrater agreement statistics were lower), it
was used in the spirit of giving the code the “benefit of the doubt”(as we did with the “lenient”
decision rules for judging applicability, as described earlier). Thus, our results may be interpreted
as an upper bound estimate of the applicability of the principles/standards to the cases reported by
I-O psychologists.
Agreement statistics were monitored throughout the coding process by calculating the average
observed agreement across all pairs of judges, which can range from 0% to 100%.6For the five
principles, the average agreement ranged from 65.7% to 82.3% (Mdn =76.6%, M=75.1%,
SD =7.3%). For the 89 standards, the average agreement ranged from 71.2% to 100.0%
(Mdn =97.7%, M=94.9%, SD =6.8%). Finally, the agreement statistics for the three additional
variables were also acceptable at 76.7%, 80.7%, and 88.7%, respectively.7
6We considered the observed agreement statistics preferable to Cohen’s kappa because the principles and standards varied
considerably with respect to their overall use (i.e., base rate)—an issue that can severely bias kappa estimates and that requires
various corrections (Byrt et al., 1993).
7To calculate agreement statistics for the three additional variables, which were unique because they each possessed three
categories, the “0”and “9”categories were collapsed into one.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 149
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Deficiency variables
Two qualitative variables were also coded to record judges’impressions of any substantive defi-
ciencies in the code as well as any further notes about how an incident was interpreted. Judges
indicated that a deficiency was substantive whenever they perceived that the code did not provide
adequate guidance for addressing a particular ethical incident, either due to ambiguities or the
absence of necessary information (i.e., gaps) in the code. Thus, the qualitative variables asked:
(1) “Are there any substantive gaps or ambiguities in the code?”and (2) “Other notes about
the incident?”
Judges generated a total of 371 comments in response to these two qualitative variables. These
comments were reviewed to identify themes that might reflect substantive deficiencies encoun-
tered when applying the code to ethical incidents reported by I-O psychologists. First, the four
judges independently reviewed all 371 comments and flagged any comments they perceived to
represent substantive gaps or ambiguities. Among these comments, 216 (59.2%) were flagged
as potentially substantive by at least one judge, and 155 (41.8%) were not flagged. The majority
of comments that were not flagged came from judges’“other notes about the incident,”such as
indicating that aspects of an incident were vague or otherwise difficult to code. The 216 comments
that were flagged as indicating potentially substantive deficiencies were associated with 170 of the
398 incidents. Thus, approximately 42.7% of the incidents generated at least one comment from
judges indicating a substantive deficiency or ambiguity in the code.
Next, we sorted those 216 comments based on how many judges flagged them, starting with
those flagged by all four judges. Among the 216 comments, 33 (15.3%) were flagged by all four
judges, 46 (21.3%) were flagged by three judges, 71 (32.9%) were flagged by two judges, and 66
(30.6%) were flagged by one judge. One of the senior judges then reviewed each comment and
generated themes reflecting the core content of each comment. For example, the theme “Working
with Non-Psychologists”was generated when encountering the following comment:
“Psychologists avoid working with other professionals or firms who display a pattern of unethical
behavior.”No limit was placed on the number of possible themes that could be generated, and
some comments represented more than one content theme.
Once all 216 comments were associated with at least one content theme, the same judge
reviewed the list of themes and revised them as needed. Some themes were combined, whereas others
were divided into multiple themes to ensure the themes reflected an appropriate level of specificity
for the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). That is, special attention was paid to maximizing both the inter-
nal homogeneity and the discriminability of themes (Patton, 1990). Finally, all four judges reviewed
the revised set of content themes and how they were applied to each comment. Following a series of
discussions, the judges reached a consensus on the final structure and labels for the themes reflecting
apparent deficiencies in the code, along with recommendations for resolving them.
Results
Results are presented in two sets. First, we present the applicability statistics for the five ethics
principles, 89 standards, and three additional variables. Then, we present the qualitative content
themes extracted from judges’comments about substantive deficiencies or ambiguities in the code.
Applicability statistics
The following applicability statistics capture the frequency with which a particular principle or
standard—as defined in the code—was judged as applicable to incidents in our sample. When
interpreting these statistics, a caveat should be borne in mind. More (or less) frequently applicable
principles or standards are not necessarily more (or less) important. Applicability statistics simply
indicate which principles and standards are more (or less) prevalent. These statistics provide no
information about the severity of incidents (some standards may be violated rarely but are
150 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

nevertheless quite serious). For example, just because incidents involving fabrication of data tend
to be reported rarely, this does not suggest that standards prohibiting fabrication are less impor-
tant or that they should be omitted from future versions of the code. These statistics provide a
starting place for understanding which principles and standards tend to be most frequently appli-
cable for I-O psychology, and they should be interpreted in the context of the qualitative themes
reported later.
Principles
The code’s five general principles all were applicable in varying degrees to the narrative incidents
reported by I-O psychologists. On average, 2.81 principles were coded as applicable to each inci-
dent, and each principle was, on average, applicable to 56.1% (Mdn =50.5%) of the incidents. The
most frequently coded principles were Fidelity and Responsibility (87.4%) and Integrity (77.6%),
and the least frequently coded was Justice (24.1%). Table 1presents the rank-order applicability
statistics for all five principles.
Standards
Among the 89 standards presented in the code, 75 (84.3%) were applicable to at least one incident,
whereas 14 (15.7%) standards were never coded as applicable. On average, 7.53 standards were
coded as applicable to each incident, and each standard was, on average, applicable to 8.5%
(Mdn =3.0%) of the incidents, indicating the complexity of mundane ethical issues. Of the 10
categories of standards, the most applicable on average were those related to Resolving Ethical
Issues (30.7%), Human Relations (16.7%), Privacy and Confidentiality (11.8%), and Assessment
(8.1%). In contrast, standards within the category of Therapy (0.0%) were, except for one incident,
not applicable. Table 1presents the average rank-order applicability statistics for the 10 categories
of standards.
Of the 89 individual standards, the 10 most applicable were Informal resolution of ethical vio-
lations (81.9%), Conflicts between ethics and organizational demands (61.8%), Reporting ethical
violations (49.0%), Avoiding harm (43.5%), Cooperation with other professionals (38.8%),
Maintaining confidentiality (26.6%), Conflict of interest (26.4%), Misuse of psychologists’work
(24.9%), Psychological services delivered to or through organizations (24.6%), and Exploitative rela-
tionships (24.4%). In contrast, 29 standards were applicable to fewer than 1% of the incidents (see
Table 2for rank-order applicability statistics).
Additional incident characteristics
The alleged, or potential, unethical perpetrator was somewhat more likely to not be a psychologist
(41.8%) than to be a psychologist (34.6%) (professional identity was unclear in 23.6% of inci-
dents). In 54.6% of incidents, there was an attempt to informally resolve the ethical issue with
the perpetrator (as prescribed in Standard 1.04), whereas 27.2% did not make an informal reso-
lution attempt (18.2% unclear). The ethical issue was reported to a higher institutional authority
26.7% of the time (as conditionally prescribed in Standard 1.05). In contrast, incidents were not
formally reported 52.2% of the time (21.1% unclear). For 35.2% of all incidents, no clear attempt
was made to informally or formally resolve the situation.
Deficiency themes
A total of 16 areas of deficiency (i.e., substantive gaps or ambiguities in the code) were extracted
from judges’comments. These 16 areas, or themes, grouped readily into the following seven
higher order categories: (a) Assessments in Organizations, (b) Research Practices, (c) Data
Management, (d) Professional Interactions, (e) Business Practices, (f) Student Ethics, and (g)
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 151
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 1. Rank-ordered principles and categories of standards based on applicability
Applicability
Principles and categories of
standards Summary
Percentage
of incidents
coded as
applicable
Principles
B. Fidelity and responsibility Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with
whom they work.
87.4%
C. Integrity Psychologists promote accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the
science, teaching, and practice of psychology.
77.6%
A. Beneficence and
nonmaleficence
Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and
seek to avoid or minimize harm.
50.5%
E. Respect for people’s rights
and dignity
Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and
their rights to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination.
41.0%
D. Justice Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons
to benefit from the contributions of psychology.
24.1%
Categories of standards
1. Resolving ethical issues Psychologists address conflicts between ethics and legal/
organizational demands; resolve ethical issues informally when
possible; and report ethical violations to appropriate parties.
30.7%
3. Human relations Psychologists avoid harming those they work with and avoid
situations involving multiple relationships or conflicts of interest.
16.7%
4. Privacy and confidentiality Psychologists protect confidential information; discuss the limits
of confidentiality; and disclose confidential information only with
appropriate consent or as mandated by law.
11.8%
9. Assessment Psychologists develop, score, and interpret assessments in line
with scientific best practices and take steps to maintain the pri-
vacy of assessment data and the security of test materials.
8.1%
5. Advertising and other public
statements
Psychologists avoid false or deceptive statements when advertis-
ing their services, findings, or credentials, and they do not exploit
vulnerable parties.
5.2%
2. Competence Psychologists only work within the boundaries of their compe-
tence; base their recommendations on appropriate evidence; and
take steps to maintain expertise in their domain.
4.7%
6. Record keeping and fees Psychologists advertise their fees with transparency; maintain
accurate records and reports; and dispose of records in a fashion
that meets legal and institutional requirements.
4.2%
7. Education and training Psychologists design educational programs in line with program
objectives; provide accurate descriptions of courses and programs;
and provide feedback based on actual performance.
2.2%
8. Research and publication When conducting research, psychologists obtain institutional
approval; follow guidelines for informed consent; compensate and
debrief subjects appropriately; and accurately report results.
2.0%
10. Therapy When conducting therapy, psychologists clarify expectations
regarding treatments and potential risks at the outset and avoid
situations involving multiple (including sexual) relationships.
0.0%
152 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 2. Rank-ordered standards based on applicability
Applicability
Standard
Percentage of
incidents
coded as applicable
1.04 Informal resolution of ethical violations 81.9%
1.03 Conflicts between ethics and organizational demands 61.8%
1.05 Reporting ethical violations 49.0%
3.04 Avoiding harm 43.5%
3.09 Cooperation with other professionals 38.8%
4.01 Maintaining confidentiality 26.6%
3.06 Conflict of interest 26.4%
1.01 Misuse of psychologists’work 24.9%
3.11 Psychological services delivered to or through organizations 24.6%
3.08 Exploitative relationships 24.4%
5.01 Avoidance of false or deceptive statements 23.6%
4.05 Disclosures 21.9%
9.02 Use of assessments 20.1%
9.04 Release of test data 16.8%
4.04 Minimizing intrusions on privacy 16.6%
3.05 Multiple relationships 15.1%
4.02 Discussing the limits of confidentiality 13.1%
1.06 Cooperating with ethics committees 11.6%
2.04 Bases for scientific and professional judgments 11.3%
9.01 Bases for assessments 11.1%
6.02 Maintenance, dissemination, and disposal of confidential records of professional and
scientific work
9.8%
9.09 Test scoring and interpretation services 9.3%
7.06 Assessing student and supervisee performance 9.0%
8.10 Reporting research results 8.8%
1.08 Unfair discrimination against complainants and respondents 8.0%
9.06 Interpreting assessment results 7.5%
3.01 Unfair discrimination 7.3%
2.01 Boundaries of competence 7.0%
3.10 Informed consent 6.8%
6.01 Documentation of professional and scientific work and maintenance of records 6.5%
9.11 Maintaining test security 6.3%
3.03 Other harassment 6.0%
8.12 Publication credit 6.0%
(Continued)
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 153
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 2. (Continued )
Applicability
Standard
Percentage of
incidents
coded as applicable
2.05 Delegation of work to others 5.8%
6.04 Fees and financial arrangements 5.8%
8.11 Plagiarism 5.8%
9.03 Informed consent in assessments 5.8%
9.05 Test construction 5.8%
5.02 Statements by others 5.5%
1.02 Conflicts between ethics and law, regulations, or other governing legal authority 4.8%
6.06 Accuracy in reports to payors and funding sources 4.8%
1.07 Improper complaints 4.0%
3.02 Sexual harassment 4.0%
3.07 Third-party requests for services 3.0%
2.06 Personal problems and conflicts 2.8%
9.10 Explaining assessment results 2.8%
4.06 Consultations 2.5%
9.07 Assessment by unqualified persons 2.3%
7.01 Design of education and training programs 2.0%
8.02 Informed consent to research 2.0%
4.07 Use of confidential information for didactic or other purposes 1.8%
7.07 Sexual relationships with students and supervisees 1.5%
8.13 Duplicate publication of data 1.5%
9.08 Obsolete tests and outdated test results 1.5%
2.03 Maintaining competence 1.3%
6.05 Barter with clients/patients 1.3%
7.02 Descriptions of education and training programs 1.3%
6.07 Referrals and fees 1.0%
8.14 Sharing research data for verification 1.0%
3.12 Interruption of psychological services 0.8%
5.05 Testimonials 0.8%
7.03 Accuracy in teaching 0.8%
7.04 Student disclosure of personal information 0.8%
8.04 Client/patient, student, and subordinate research participants 0.8%
4.03 Recording 0.5%
5.03 Descriptions of workshops and non-degree-granting educational programs 0.5%
8.07 Deception in research 0.5%
(Continued)
154 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Proactive Ethical Behavior. Table 3presents a brief description of each theme, followed by a sum-
mary recommendation to address each deficiency.
1. Assessments in Organizations
The category of Assessments in Organizations was made up of two themes. Comments reflect-
ing Theme 1.1 (Fairness in the use and interpretation of applicant/employee assessments) sug-
gested that the code does not sufficiently emphasize the critical responsibility of many
psychologists in monitoring the fairness of assessment procedures and outcomes in employment
contexts (e.g., minimizing disparate treatment and the potential for adverse impact and unfair bias
against protected groups in employment decisions). These ethical responsibilities extend beyond
the use of individual assessments emphasized in the code and, if neglected, have the potential to
negatively impact large groups of individuals as well as the organizations involved.
Comments reflecting Theme 1.2 (Scope of assessment label) capture the fact that many of the
ethical incidents reported by psychologists working in organizations involved the handling of data
not derived from traditional psychological assessments. Examples of alternative data sources
Table 2. (Continued )
Applicability
Standard
Percentage of
incidents
coded as applicable
8.05 Dispensing with informed consent for research 0.5%
8.15 Reviewers 0.5%
2.02 Providing services in emergencies 0.3%
5.04 Media presentations 0.3%
5.06 In-person solicitation 0.3%
8.03 Informed consent for recording voices and images in research 0.3%
10.02 Therapy involving couples or families 0.3%
6.03 Withholding records for nonpayment 0.0%
7.05 Mandatory individual or group therapy 0.0%
8.06 Offering inducements for research participation 0.0%
8.08 Debriefing 0.0%
8.09 Humane care and use of animals in research 0.0%
10.01 Informed consent to therapy 0.0%
10.03 Group therapy 0.0%
10.04 Providing therapy to those served by others 0.0%
10.05 Sexual intimacies with current therapy clients/patients 0.0%
10.06 Sexual intimacies with relatives or significant others of current therapy clients/
patients
0.0%
10.07 Therapy with former sexual partners 0.0%
10.08 Sexual intimacies with former therapy clients/patients 0.0%
10.09 Interruption of therapy 0.0%
10.10 Terminating therapy 0.0%
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 155
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 3. Themes reflecting apparent deficiencies in the Code and recommendations
Theme Deficiency Recommendation
1. Assessments in organizations
1.1 Fairness in the use and
interpretation of applicant/
employee assessments
The current assessment standards do not
consider the critical role of fairness when
administering and monitoring assess-
ments in organizations (e.g., applicants,
employees, work teams).
The Code should explicitly reference and
clearly define the criterion of fairness, not
just validity, in standards pertaining to
the ethical use and interpretation of
assessments.
1.2 Scope of assessment
label
The label “assessment”is too narrow to
capture the variety of instruments, meth-
ods, and other sources of data used by I-
O psychologists (e.g., employee surveys,
performance ratings).
The Code should adopt a more inclusive
definition of assessments; these standards
should apply to any data source that is
designed, administered, or interpreted by
psychologists.
2. Research practices
2.1 Framing research find-
ings in applied settings
The Code is too limited in prescribing the
accuracy of reporting in traditional publi-
cations or to individual assessees.
The Code should expand the scope of
reporting standards to apply to all formal
methods of communication used by psy-
chologists to communicate research find-
ings (e.g., client reports, oral
presentations, marketing materials).
2.2 Falsification and
research manipulation
The Code is too limited in forbidding only
fabrication and plagiarism, while many
other forms of research misconduct can
jeopardize the validity of research.
The standards should be expanded to
include admonitions against falsification
and inappropriate forms of data manipu-
lation; principles (e.g., Integrity) should
emphasize that transparency is funda-
mental to ethical research.
2.3 Authorship and publi-
cation credit
The Code provides limited guidance on
decisions involving publication credit
among authors.
The standard on publication credit should
be revised to provide more explicit guid-
ance on authorship decisions (e.g., clarify-
ing expectations at the outset, criteria for
evaluating contributions).
3. Data management
3.1 Data confidentiality
and security
While the Code includes multiple stand-
ards related to confidentiality and disclo-
sure, limited guidance is provided with
respect to data security or taking precau-
tionary steps to ensure data are not at
risk of being accessed by unapproved par-
ties or unintentionally identified.
The Code should specify that psycholo-
gists take steps to ensure that confiden-
tial data will not be breached or
unintentionally identified (e.g., hosting
data on secure servers, developing confi-
dential data keys, limiting aggregate
reporting to groups of five or more
respondents, etc.).
3.2 Informed consent and
data agreements
The Code does not provide guidance for
situations in which psychologists are pres-
sured to use data for purposes that fall
outside the original scope of consent.
The Code should provide explicit guidance
related to informed consent and data
agreements for psychologists working in
organizations (including situations where
consent isn’t required).
4. Professional interactions
4.1 Multiple relationships
and conflicts of interest
The Code provides limited guidance for
psychologists who must manage complex
conflicts of interest as part of their nor-
mal professional responsibilities (e.g.,
serving multiple stakeholders).
The Code should expand the definition of
multiple relationships to include not only
relationships with “persons”but also
“entities”(e.g., organizations), and outline
strategies for appropriately managing
conflicts of interest.
(Continued)
156 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 3. (Continued )
Theme Deficiency Recommendation
4.2 Psychologists in super-
visory roles
Even though many psychologists hold
supervisory positions (e.g., manager, fac-
ulty mentor), the Code provides limited
guidance concerning the ethical supervi-
sion and treatment of subordinates.
The Code should provide explicit guidance
about expectations of psychologists work-
ing in supervisory roles, such as role
modeling ethical behavior, holding subor-
dinates accountable to ethical standards,
and treating subordinates fairly.
4.3 Working with nonpsy-
chologists
The Code does not provide guidance on
how psychologists should navigate poten-
tially unethical behavior by nonpsycholo-
gist collaborators.
The Code should clarify what responsibili-
ties psychologists have to report or other-
wise address the unethical behavior of
nonpsychologists with whom they work.
4.4 Coercion Coercion is too narrowly defined in the
Code—limited to the issue of coercing
subjects to participate in research. Many
other situations involving coercion and
exploitation must be ethically navigated
by psychologists.
The Code should expand the definition of
coercion to apply beyond contexts involv-
ing research participant incentives.
Additionally, guidance should be provided
to psychologists who are themselves tar-
gets of coercion.
5. Business practices
5.1 Intellectual property The Code is silent on ethical issues per-
taining to psychologists honoring, or fail-
ing to honor, intellectual property rights.
The Code should include a new standard
specifying that psychologists respect intel-
lectual property rights and are expected
to seek permission when attempting to
share or incorporate others’intellectual
contributions for business purposes.
5.2 Exploiting privileged
information
Psychologists working in organizations
frequently have access to privileged infor-
mation about their employers, clients,
and competitors. The Code does not for-
bid the exploitation of privileged informa-
tion for personal gain (e.g., insider
trading, revising a project bid once a
competitor’s bid is known).
The Code should include a new standard
specifying that psychologists do not
exploit privileged information for personal
gain. Such practices violate the ethical
principles of fair competition and in some
cases may even be illegal.
6. Student ethics
6.1 Academic integrity Beyond plagiarism, no standards deal
with issues of academic integrity from
either the student’s perspective (e.g.,
cheating) or the faculty perspective (e.g.,
managing integrity violations).
The standards on Education and Training
should include a new standard about psy-
chology students upholding academic
integrity principles as well as guidance for
faculty who must deal responsibly with
academic integrity violations.
6.2 Applicability to stu-
dents
Although the Introduction to the Code
states that it is applicable to student affil-
iate members of APA, it says nothing
about psychology students who are not
APA affiliates. Moreover, the standards
are not written as pertaining to students.
The Code should be revised to clarify the
extent to which students, including under-
graduate and graduate psychology stu-
dents and non-APA affiliates, are bound
by the principles and standards. New
standards for students should be incorpo-
rated as necessary.
7. Proactive ethical behavior
7.1 Proactive resolution of
ethical issues
Many of the standards convey a reactive,
rather than proactive, perspective, as if
the ethical issue has already been identi-
fied. There are many steps that psycholo-
gists might take prior to the emergence
of an ethical issue to limit its potential
severity or occurrence.
The Code should facilitate the identifica-
tion and anticipation of situations that
have the potential for developing into
ethical difficulties, as well as provide guid-
ance on strategies that might be used to
limit the severity or occurrence of ethical
issues.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 157
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

include archival organizational records (e.g., internal human resources statistics), employee per-
formance data (e.g., individual performance reviews), and data from employee surveys. These
kinds of data sources are common in psychological research and practice in organizations, but
they are not presently included among the issues covered in the code’s present standards category
of Assessments.
2. Research Practices
The category of Research Practices consists of three themes. The first theme, 2.1 (Framing
research findings in applied settings), criticizes the code’s focus on the presentation of research
results only in traditional contexts like academic publications and presentations. Psychologists
who serve as internal or external organizational consultants are frequently responsible for report-
ing research findings to a variety of stakeholders (e.g., clients, executives, managers) outside the
traditional research dissemination context. The obligation of I-O (and other) psychologists to
adhere to ethical standards regarding reporting research results, plagiarism, publication credit,
and so on apply as well when addressing those nonacademic audiences, and that should be
acknowledged in the code.
Theme 2.2 (Falsification and research manipulation) notes the apparent absence in the code of
subtler forms of research misconduct that are not encompassed by “fabrication”and “plagiarism.”
Most notably the code fails to warn against falsification, or the “willful distortion of data or results”
(Fanelli, 2009, p. 1). Additionally, so-called “questionable research practices”(QRPs) do not
receive any attention in the code, despite their higher prevalence rates compared to fabrication,
falsification, and plagiarism (Fiedler & Schwarz, 2016) as well as growing concerns around the
replicability of psychology research (Shrout & Rogers, 2018). As an example of how QRPs
may affect replicability, work by Bosco et al. (2016) suggests that hypothesizing after the results
are known (HARKing) may contribute to artificially inflated effect sizes. Additionally, Murphy
and Aguinis (2019) demonstrated that question trolling (i.e., digging around for significant effects
and building a research question or hypothesis around those effects) may be particularly prob-
lematic in terms of biasing reported effect sizes. These same QRPs, among others, appeared in
our data. Some examples of QRPs reported by psychologists in our sample included arbitrarily
removing outliers, cherry-picking cases or variables to demonstrate a desired result, and secret
(i.e., undisclosed) HARKing. We are not suggesting that the code ought to explicitly warn against
every possible QRP but rather that the code should acknowledge the ongoing discussion of QRPs
in the field and provide general guidelines for data transparency in research (Hollenbeck &
Wright, 2017; Vancouver, 2018).
The final theme in this category, 2.3 (Authorship and publication credit), summarizes com-
ments about ethical issues that emerged when determining appropriate credit for research con-
tributions. Examples of issues that emerged in the incidents that are not addressed by the code
include the listing of an institutional affiliation that does not accurately reflect where the work was
done (despite the APA publication manual’s vague guidance to list where the author worked or
studied when the work was conducted) and listing the names of colleagues on publications with-
out their permission or awareness.
3. Data Management
The third category, Data Management, consists of two themes. Theme 3.1 (Data confidentiality
and security) implicitly criticizes the lack of attention paid by the code to established precaution-
ary strategies that can help protect the privacy and confidentiality of data managed by psychol-
ogists. Many of these precautionary strategies are widely recognized and enforced by institutional
review boards for psychologists engaged in academic research (e.g., secure data storage, anony-
mous coding keys, best practices when reporting results in aggregate), but psychologists are
158 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

frequently responsible for managing data in organizational contexts where university ethics
boards have no authority.
Theme 3.2 (Informed consent and data agreements) questions the faulty implicit assumptions
in the code that all research activities carried out by psychologists are subject to the traditional
requirement for informed consent. The most basic tenet of The Common Rule pertaining to
research with human participants is the definition of what qualifies as “research”:“The activity
[is] a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge”(U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2018; OHRP Decision Chart 1, emphasis in the orig-
inal). However, I-O psychologists frequently collect data from employees for internal evaluative
purposes (e.g., performance appraisal data, program evaluation data), with no intention of pub-
lishing these data or otherwise contributing to generalizable knowledge. Such situations typically
fall outside the scope of traditional informed consent requirements but may involve some form of
agreement explaining how data may be used, who has access to it, and other details. Further, some
psychologists in our sample reported being pressured by colleagues—oftentimes executives—to
use employee data for additional purposes outside the scope of the original agreement. The code
provides no guidance about when such applications may or may not be permissible. We believe
that authors of even such “nonresearch”studies should be held to the same ethical standards (e.g.,
informed consent, respectful treatment, etc.).
4. Professional Interactions
The category of Professional Interactions consists of four themes. First, 4.1 (Multiple relation-
ships and conflicts of interest) suggests that the code’s warnings against multiple relationships and
conflicts of interest are too narrow and fail to consider important nuances. For I-O psychologists,
multiple relationships often extend beyond individuals such as clients, employees, managers, or
colleagues, to broader entities like organizations. Multiple relationships are sometimes unavoid-
able in these highly complex, yet entirely legitimate roles, creating potential conflicts of interest
that may not be directly financial in nature (Watts et al., 2022). For example, imagine a junior
consultant who is ostracized by their manager for failing to comply with QRPs that would dem-
onstrate “positive results”to an important client. The code should acknowledge the diverse forms
in which conflicts of interest can emerge, as well as offer guidance for psychologists who must find
ways to ethically navigate such situations.
The second theme in this category, 4.2 (Psychologists in supervisory roles), suggests that
the code provides inadequate guidance to psychologists with managerial responsibilities within
organizations—a relatively common circumstance for I-O psychologists. Psychologists operating
in supervisory roles have expanded ethical responsibilities, such as ensuring a work climate of
fairness and respect, role modeling ethical behavior, and holding subordinates (including nonpsy-
chologists) accountable to ethical standards.
Theme 4.3 (Working with nonpsychologists) emerged frequently in judges’comments, perhaps
because I-O psychologists are commonly responsible for collaborating with nonpsychologists
(e.g., human resource staff, executives, employees, clients). As presently written (e.g., standards
1.04 and 1.05), the code does not explicitly require psychologists who observe ethical violations
enacted by nonpsychologists to report these violations or otherwise address them. This raises
questions: When is a psychologist ethically responsible for addressing ethical violations of non-
psychologist colleagues, and to whom might such reports be made?
Finally, Theme 4.4 (Coercion) encourages consideration of how coercion may emerge as an
ethical problem outside the traditional context of academe. We observed that I-O psychologists
report coercion in a number of contexts, such as when psychologists (or others) use coercion to
advance their personal agenda within organizations or when psychologists are targets of coercion
by executives.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 159
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

5. Business Practices
The category of Business Practices includes two themes. Theme 5.1 (Intellectual property)
implicitly criticizes the code’s lack of guidance around issues pertaining to intellectual property.
I-O psychologists working in academic and applied contexts frequently have access to proprietary
information, such as training/educational materials and assessment tools. In some cases, these
materials are copyrighted and/or owned by psychologists, and in others they are owned by organ-
izations or universities.
Theme 5.2 (Exploiting privileged information) reveals that the code fails to warn against the use of
privileged information by psychologists for personal gain. Given that I-O psychologists frequently have
access to privileged information (e.g., employee data, HR systems data, competitor information, con-
fidential discussions with executives and colleagues, etc.), some respondents in our sample reported the
abuse of such information by other psychologists to advance their careers or financial interests.
6. Student Ethics
The sixth category, Student Ethics, includes two themes. Theme 6.1 (Academic integrity)
criticizes the lack of guidance provided in the code regarding academic integrity issues extending
beyond plagiarism, such as cheating on exams and assignments. Academic institutions have their
own codes so it is possible that there could be articulation issues between them. The code also
provides no guidance to instructors who are responsible for appropriately responding to students’
violations of academic integrity. This seems problematic as several respondents in our sample
reported an unwillingness on the part of instructors and administrators to hold students account-
able for academic integrity violations.
Theme 6.2 (Applicability to students) extends the last theme by observing that the code is silent
regarding its relevance to students. It is our understanding that academic departments of psychol-
ogy, especially those with graduate programs, generally have adopted the code (although we have
not uncovered any empirical documentation). Therefore, professors, adjunct faculty, graduate
research assistants, teaching fellows, and so on, in those departments are presumably “covered”
by the code. However, does the code apply to graduate students who are not affiliates of APA?
Does it apply to undergraduate students? Does it apply to students only in specific contexts (e.g.,
when serving as a research assistant, or when holding a relevant internship)? The APA advises
clinical students conducting supervised therapy that they are liable to complaints and lawsuits
(Lee, 2017)—one could infer that they are also formally covered by the code. Moreover, those
standards that mention students (e.g., Education and Training category) are written from the per-
spective of faculty and not students.
7. Proactive Ethical Behavior
The final category we identified is Proactive Ethical Behavior, which consists of one theme.
Theme 7.1 (Proactive resolution of ethical issues) suggests that the code should do more to pro-
mote ethical behavior by integrating a proactive ethical perspective throughout the principles and
standards. An ethical career in I-O psychology requires not only reacting appropriately to ethical
dilemmas but also foreseeing, attempting to prevent, and, if necessary, preparing for the emer-
gence of ethical difficulties.
Discussion
For a code of ethics to fulfill its educative and enforcement functions, it first and foremost must be
judged as relevant to the domain, or profession, that it seeks to guide. How does the APA Ethics
Code fare when applied systematically to ethical incidents reported by I-O psychologists? In many
160 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

respects, we found that the code generalized to the I-O psychology domain quite well. The fact
that, on average, multiple principles and multiple standards were judged as applicable to each
incident at minimum suggests that the code provides relevant guidance for the kinds of ethical
issues faced by I-O psychologists, including those working in academe, internal practice, and
external practice. It remains to be shown whether other APA divisions might find similar, gener-
ally supportive results.
With respect to applicability statistics, two patterns emerged. First, as anticipated, some stand-
ards almost never applied to the ethical issues reported by I-O psychologists—those in the cate-
gory of Therapy. In a sense, this can be seen as running counter to the intent to create “a broader
breadth and application of the Code across disciplines”(APA). But, of course, that objective is
limited substantially as clinicians comprise a large proportion of the APA. One possible way
to improve the applicability of the code outside clinical areas would be to integrate the
Therapy standards into broader standards that already exist in other sections of the code and then
tailoring the remaining standards that are not easily integrated so that they are context free. For
example, Standard 10.1 (Informed Consent to Therapy) could be subsumed under standard 3.10
(Informed Consent), and Standards 10.5 through 10.8 (all dealing with sexual misconduct) could
be subsumed under Standards 3.02 (Sexual Harassment) and 3.05 (Multiple Relationships).8
A second noteworthy pattern that emerged from these applicability statistics is the fundamental
relationship between the breadth of principles/standards and their applicability. As is to be
expected, the (few) broad conceptual principles are far more applicable, on average, than the (many)
specific standards. Moreover, this same pattern is evident within each domain—among the principles
and among the standards. For example, the principles of Integrity, and Fidelity and Responsibility are
framed so broadly that they are two to three times more applicable than the principle of Justice—
which is the most narrowly defined of the five principles. These differences in applicability may point
to natural opportunities for refinement. If an ethical principle is framed too broadly, it has the poten-
tial to lose its meaning as a distinct principle (an issue we confronted frequently when attempting to
distinguish between Integrity versus Fidelity and Responsibility). In contrast, principles that are too
narrowly defined risk irrelevance to the majority of ethical situations faced by professionals in a
domain. For example, we found that because the Justice principle is so narrowly focused on issues
of equity (i.e., a type of distributive justice), it fell short of applying to situations involving other com-
mon manifestations of justice (e.g., interactional or procedural justice; Colquitt et al., 2005).
The additional incident characteristics provided some insight into the extent to which I-O psy-
chologists reported following the guidelines presented in the code, at least with respect to Standards
1.04 (Informal resolution of ethical violations) and 1.05 (Reporting ethical violations). In just over
half of all cases, I-O psychologists clearly reported that they relied on informal resolution strategies as
recommended in standard 1.04 (i.e., addressing the issue directly with the violator). Meanwhile, the
decision to report to a higher institutional authority (e.g., HR, committees on professional ethics,
state licensing boards, etc.) clearly occurred in roughly a quarter of cases, which again aligns with
the formal reporting recommendations in Standard 1.05 should informal resolution attempts fail.
However, in approximately one-third of cases, no clear attempt was made by the respondent at either
informal or formal resolution. Fear of retaliation is one potential explanation for this group of
respondents who made no clear attempt to resolve the situation. Unfortunately, although there
are some circumstances in which legal protections are provided against retaliation (for example,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act), the code presently provides little guidance to psychologists for
reporting or otherwise managing potential retaliation concerns (see Keith-Spiegel et al., 2010,for
a guide for researchers that takes into account emotional and interpersonal difficulties).
Applicability statistics on their own provide an incomplete picture of the code’s relevance and
how it might be improved. Thus, we observed 16 themes summarizing apparent deficiencies in the
code (see Table 3). These themes spanned ethical issues encountered predominately in academe
8We do not think it is feasible to add categories for each specialty practice area, analogous to the Therapy category.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 161
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

(e.g., authorship and publication credit, academic integrity) as well as issues encountered primar-
ily in practice (e.g., working with nonpsychologists, fairness in employee assessments). However,
the majority of these themes appear equally relevant to academic and applied work domains (e.g.,
coercion, falsification and research manipulation, privacy and security concerns, etc.).
Furthermore, despite being different career paths, the boundaries between academia and practice
are often blurry. For example, many areas of practice involve conducting applied research (e.g.,
data science, job analysis, validation) and academics often partner with organizations and employ-
ees through their research and pedagogy. Thus, we expect that all I-O psychologists, regardless of
one’s professional area of work, are likely to benefit from addressing these putative deficiencies.
Some of these deficiencies may be readily remedied by adding a new standard or refining existing
standards to reduce ambiguity and improve generalizability. For example, adding a standard for
academic integrity is a small change that would immediately increase the relevance of the code to
students—a group that happens to comprise a large proportion of the total membership of SIOP
as well as APA.
On the other hand, a few deficiencies uncovered “meta”issues, or conflicting general assump-
tions concerning how the code should be interpreted and applied. Perhaps most notably, we found
that the alleged perpetrator of ethical violations in I-O psychology was more likely to not be a
psychologist. If Standards 1.04 (Informal resolution of ethical violations) and 1.05 (Reporting eth-
ical violations) are taken literally, then a psychologist who observes unethical behavior on the part
of a nonpsychologist is not responsible (as far as the code is concerned) for confronting or report-
ing that individual. Given that such situations occurred more than 40% of the time in our sample,
it can probably be assumed that such situations are prevalent in I-O psychology.
Possibly, such conflicts are unique to Div. 14, because I-O psychologists often interact with a
diverse range of stakeholders who are not psychologists. However, we note that members of other
psychological disciplines also interact with nonpsychologists through their work, such as develop-
mental, counseling, or school psychologists who work with education professionals in school sys-
tems (Dailor & Jacob, 2011), forensic psychologists who work with members of law enforcement or
the judicial system, or, more generally, researchers who conduct multidisciplinary research.
Implications for I-O psychologists
What implications should I-O psychologists draw from these findings about applying the code to
their professional decisions? First, regardless of the code’s putative deficiencies, as a practical mat-
ter it is critical to recognize that by holding membership in SIOP, I-O psychologists agree to abide
by the principles and standards presented in the code. Thus, every I-O psychologist should be
familiar with the code because these are the professional principles and standards by which their
behavior may be appraised in the event of alleged misconduct.
At the same time, these data suggest that familiarity with the code—even following the code
precisely—is not enough to ensure a consistently ethical career in I-O psychology. The apparent
deficiencies uncovered point to several gaps and problems of interpretation that may emerge when
I-O psychologists attempt to apply the code. As a result, it would be ill advised for I-O psychol-
ogists to limit their ethical framing to the manifest content of the code. For example, it is not
sufficient for I-O psychologists who engage in academic or applied research to simply follow
the code’sResearch and Publication standards. By warning against only fabrication and plagia-
rism, these standards set a rather low bar. To be an ethical scientist–practitioner, we expect that
I-O psychologists, and psychologists more broadly who engage in research activities, hold them-
selves to higher standards of research integrity.
Finally, even if the deficiencies identified here are addressed in future iterations of the code, it
seems unlikely that any code can perfectly capture the entire domain of ethical issues that might
emerge in a profession as diverse and dynamic as psychology. In keeping with its original intent, it
162 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

is best not to view the code akin to a comprehensive rulebook but rather as a general guide for
helping psychologists navigate ethical issues, including novel situations not covered explicitly in
the code. In sum, I-O psychologists should educate themselves in the content and application of
the code but recognize that following the code alone does not necessarily make one an ethical I-O
psychologist; it is an important starting place.
Implications for revisions of the APA code
For members of the APA ECTF who are responsible for revising the code, the putative deficiencies
and recommendations identified in Table 3may provide some guidance. Although we relied on a
sample of incidents only from I-O psychologists, we suspect that some, and perhaps many, of
these apparent gaps and ambiguities might also be observed when applying the code to incidents
from psychologists in other nonclinical divisions. For example, we expect that Div. 13 (Society of
Consulting Psychology) and Div. 21 (Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology) would
likely encounter many similar ambiguities and deficiencies if they were to study the applicability of
the code to ethical incidents in their work domains. Thus, addressing these deficiencies has the
potential to increase the relevance of the code to the broader field of psychology.
Finally, APA might draw on the method presented here to periodically assess the relevance of
the code to all its members. Ethical incidents could be collected from a representative sample of
APA members across its divisions, and the code could be systematically applied to these incidents
to identify more general deficiencies that apply to the entire field. Although the original code was
drafted following the collection of critical incidents from APA members (APA, 1953), this empiri-
cal approach has been used sparsely since that time to inform revisions (Pope & Vetter, 1992).
Basing future revisions on ethical incidents may help the APA to better anchor the code in the
actual ethical experiences of psychologists—thereby increasing the code’s relevance, usefulness,
and influence.
Ideas for commentaries
We hope this work stimulates lively discussion around the role of the APA Ethics Code in I-O
psychology as well as how we can improve the ethics resources available to I-O psychologists. Here
are a few specific ideas that we think could make useful contributions as commentaries:
1. Does the APA Ethics Code sufficiently capture the notion of “ethicality”? Are there other
aspects of ethicality that are missing from the current version of the code?
2. Should the APA (a) expand the code to account for unique contexts in which ethical dilem-
mas emerge (i.e., be context and discipline specific) or (b) consolidate the code to focus on
broad ethical standards that cut across contexts (i.e., be context and discipline agnostic)?
3. How can I-O psychology training programs and professional organizations better prepare
students to navigate modern ethical dilemmas, so as to supplement the code?
4. Does I-O psychology need its own ethics code to supplement the APA Code?
5. What ethical decision-making models might be applied or developed to help psychologists
navigate the code’s gaps and gray areas?
6. Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that I-O psychologists are sufficiently educated
about navigating ethical dilemmas (e.g., APA, SIOP, training programs, supervisors,
employers)?
7. Are there similar challenges or lessons learned from ethics codes used in other subfields
and disciplines (e.g., school psychology, management, law) from which I-O psychologists
could benefit?
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 163
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

8. What can the APA and I-O psychologists in the United States learn from work psychol-
ogists operating in other countries, who oftentimes have their own associations and codes
of conduct (e.g., European Association for Work and Organizational Psychology,
Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists)?
9. What are I-O psychologists’opinions about the relevance of the code to their work, its
overall utility for the field of I-O psychology, and how it might be improved?
10. What are the opinions of psychologists from other nonclinical divisions of APA (e.g., Div.
13, Div. 21) regarding the code and recent attempts by the APA ECTF to update the code?
11. Given the limited enforcement power available to the APA for ethical issues involving unli-
censed psychologists (including most I-O psychologists), how might the code be reliably
enforced for I-O psychologists?
12. Given the changing nature of work, what ethical dilemmas might I-O psychologists face in
the future that the code could address proactively?
Supplementary material. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112
Acknowledgments. An earlier version of this work was presented at the 2022 Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology in Seattle, WA. The authors are much indebted to Deirdre Knapp, chair of the Society for
Industrial-Organizational Psychology’s Committee for the Advancement of Professional Ethics; SIOP’s Institutional Research
Committee and Executive Board; David Nershi; and Sertrice Grice of Org Vitality, LLC; as well as Amanda Drescher of Mercer
| Sirota, for their indispensable help in approving, facilitating, and administering the survey of SIOP membership. Of course,
many thanks are owed to the SIOP respondents who shared their narratives
References
American Psychological Association. (1953, 1959). Ethical standards of psychologists. Author.
American Psychological Association (2002). APA council adopts new ethics code. Monitor on Psychology,33(9), 12.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Adopted August 21, 2002,
with 2010 and 2016 Amendments. Author.
American Psychological Association. (2020). New division demographic dashboard. https://www.apa.org/about/division/
digest/leader-resources/demographic-dashboard, retrieved September 1, 2021.
American Psychological Association. (2021). Ethics Code Task Force: Drafting a transformational APA Ethics Code. https://
www.apa.org/ethics/task-force
American Psychological Association. (August, 2016). Revision of ethics code standard 3.04. https://www.apa.org/ethics/
code/standard-3.04
American Psychological Association, Ethics Committee. (1997). Report of the ethics committee, 1996. American
Psychologist,49(7), 659–666.
American Psychological Association, Ethics Committee. (June, 2009). Response to the council of representatives’directive
to review a discrepancy between the aspirational and enforceable sections of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code
of Conduct (2002) related to conflicts between ethics and law and conflicts between ethics and organizational demands.
https://www.apa.org
Behnke, S. (2006). APA’s ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: An ethics code for all psychologists :::?
Monitor on Psychology,37(8), 66.
Bersoff, D. N. (2008). Ethical conflicts in psychology (2nd ed.), American Psychological Association.
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Field, J. G., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, D. R. (2016). HARKing’s threat to organizational research:
Evidence from primary and meta-analytic sources. Personnel Psychology,69(3), 709–750.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101.
Byrt, T., Bishop, J., & Carlin, J. B. (1993). Bias, prevalence, and kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,46(5), 423–429.
Campbell, L., Vasquez, M., Behnke, S. & Kinscherff, R. (2010). APA ethics code commentary and illustrations. American
Psychological Association.
Campbell, R., & Morris, M. (2017). Complicating narratives: Defining and deconstructing ethical challenges in community
psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology,60(3–4), 491–501.
Canter, M. B., Bennett, B. E., Jones, S. E., & Nagy, T. F. (1994). Ethics for psychologists: A commentary on the APA ethics
code. American Psychological Association.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview.
In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–58). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
164 Logan L. Watts et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Dailor, A. N., & Jacob, S. (2011). Ethically challenging situations reported by school psychologists: Implications for training.
Psychology in the Schools,48(6), 619–631.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data.
PLoS ONE,4(5), e5738.
Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science,
7(1), 45–52.
Firmin, M. W., DeWitt, K., Smith, L. A., Ellis, H. M., & Tiffan, N. M. (2018). Academic differences between the NASP and
APA ethical codes. Education,139(2), 74–80.
Fisher, C. E. (2017). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. SAGE.
Gebhardt, J. A. (2016). Quagmires for clinical psychology and executive coaching? Ethical considerations and practice chal-
lenges. American Psychologist,71(3), 216–235.
Golann, S. E. (1970). Ethical standards for psychology: Development and revision, 1938–1968. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences,169, 398–405.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific
data. Journal of Management,43(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316679487
Joyce, N. R., & Rankin, T. J. (2010). The lessons of the development of the first APA ethics code: Blending science, practice,
and politics. Ethics & Behavior,20(6), 466–481.
Keith-Spiegel, P. (1994). Teaching psychologists and the new APA ethics code: Do we fit in? Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice,25(4), 362–368.
Keith-Spiegel, P., Sieber, J. & Koocher, G. P. (2010). Responding to research wrong-doing: A user-friendly guide. http://www.
ethicsresearch.com/images/RRW_11-10.pdf
Lee, K. (2017). Psychology students, protect thyselves: What graduate students need to know about professional liability,
student insurance and safeguarding their careers. APA Monitor,48(7), 58.
Lees-Haley,P.R.,Courtney,J.C.,&Dinkins,J.P.(2005). Revisiting the need for reform in the disclosure of tests and raw test data
to the courts: The 2002 APA ethics code has not solved our dilemma. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice,5(2), 71–81.
Lefkowitz, J. (2021). Forms of ethical dilemmas in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,14(3), 297–319.
Lefkowitz, J. (Chair), Greenberg, J., Jeanneret, R., Knapp, D., McIntyre, R., Lowman, R. L. and Behnke, S. (2006, May 5).
“Resolved: The APA Ethics Code is Inadequate for I-O Psychology.”Panel Discussion presented at the 21st Annual
Conference Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), Dallas, TX.
Lefkowitz, J. & Watts, L. L. (2022). Ethical incidents reported by industrial-organizational psychologists: A ten-year follow
up. Journal of Applied Psychology,107(10), 1781–1803. doi: 10.1037/apl0000946.
Lowman, R. L. (1993). An ethics code for I/O psychology: For what purpose and at what cost. The Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist,31(1), 90–92.
Murphy, K. R., & Aguinis, H. (2019). HARKing: How badly can cherry-picking and question trolling produce bias in pub-
lished results? Journal of Business and Psychology,34(1), 1–17.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
Pope, K. S., & Vetter, V. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association:
A national survey. American Psychologist,47(3), 397–411.
Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the
replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology,69, 487–510.
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). (2020). SIOP membership demographics. Downloaded March
22, 2020 from https://www.siop.org/Membership/Demographic
Society of Consulting Psychology Special Committee on the Revision of the APA Ethics Code (2021). Potential revisions of
ethical standards, Memorandum dated March 19. Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2018). Office of Human Research Participation. Downloaded from https://
www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html, August 21, 2021.
Vancouver, J. B. (2018). In defense of HARKing. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,11(1), 73–80.
Wasserman, R. (2013). Ethical issues and guidelines for conducting data analysis in psychological research. Ethics & Behavior,
23(1), 3–15.
Watts, L. L., Gray, B., & Medeiros, K. E. (2022). Side effects associated with organizational interventions: A perspective.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,15(1), 76–94.
Watts, L. L. & Nandi, S. (2021). How then should we teach? Incorporating the lens of structural forms to improve ethics
education. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,14(3), 353–356.
Cite this article: Watts, L. L., Lefkowitz, J., Gonzalez, M. F., & Nandi, S. (2023). How relevant is the APA ethics code to
industrial-organizational psychology? Applicability, deficiencies, and recommendations. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology 16, 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 165
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2022.112 Published online by Cambridge University Press