ethical problem solving steps

Ethical Decision Making Models and 6 Steps of Ethical Decision Making Process

In many ways, ethics may feel like a soft subject, a conversation that can wait when compared to other more seemingly pressing issues (a process for operations, hiring the right workers, and meeting company goals). However, putting ethics on the backburner can spell trouble for any organization. Much like the process of businesses creating the company mission, vision, and principles ; the topic of ethics has to enter the conversation. Ethics is far more than someone doing the right thing; it is many times tied to legal procedures and policies that if breached can put an organization in the midst of trouble.

• A general definition of business ethics is that it is a tool an organization uses to make sure that managers, employees, and senior leadership always act responsibly in the workplace with internal and external stakeholders.
• An ethical decision-making model is a framework that leaders use to bring these principles to the company and ensure they are followed.
• Importance of Ethical Standards Part 1
• Ethical Decision-Making Model Approach Part 2
• Ethical Decision-Making Process Part 3
• PLUS Ethical Decision-Making Model Part 4
• Character-Based Decision-Making Model Part 5

The Importance of Ethical Standards

Leaders have to develop ethical standards that employees in their company will be required to adhere to. This can help move the conversation toward using a model to decide when someone is in violation of ethics.

There are five sources of ethical standards:

Utilitarian

This one is all about balance , and this approach tries to produce the greatest good with the least amount of harm to those involved. It deals with consequences and practitioners who use this method are trying to find the best ethical approach for the most people.

Leaders who decide to go with a “ rights approach ” are looking to protect and respect the rights and morals of anyone who could be impacted by ethical decisions. The intent is for people to be treated fairly and with dignity and not as a means to an end.

This one touches on the fact that everyone should be treated equally regardless of their position or influence in a company.

Common Good

Leaders should strive to protect the well-being of those around them . This ethical standard puts a lot of emphasis on relationships, and how compassion for the fellow man should drive people to do good by others.

A virtue approach requires leaders to base ethical standards on universal virtues such as honesty , courage , compassion , tolerance , and many others. Principles that are chosen should cause people to strive to be their better selves and wonder if an inappropriate action will negatively impact their inherent desire to be kind to others.

While many of these standards were created by Greek Philosophers who lived long ago, business leaders are still using many of them to determine how they deal with ethical issues. Many of these standards can lead to a cohesive ethical decision-making model.

What is the purpose of an ethical decision-making model?

Ethical decision-making models are designed to help individuals and organizations make decisions in an ethical manner.

The purpose of an ethical decision-making model is to ensure that decisions are made in a manner that takes into account the ethical implications for all stakeholders involved.

Ethical decision-making models provide a framework for analyzing ethical dilemmas and serve as a guide for identifying potential solutions. By utilizing these models, businesses can ensure they are making decisions that align with their values while minimizing the risk of harming stakeholders. This can result in better decision-making and improved reputation.

Why is it important to use an ethical decision making model?

Making ethical decisions is an integral part of being a responsible leader and member of society. It is crucial to use an ethical decision making model to ensure that all stakeholders are taken into account and that decisions are made with the highest level of integrity. An ethical decision making model provides a framework for assessing the potential consequences of each choice, analyzing which option best aligns with personal values and organizational principles, and then acting on those conclusions.

An Empirical Approach to an Ethical Decision-Making Model

In 2011, a researcher at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Canada completed a study for the Journal of Business Ethics.

The research centered around an idea of rational egoism as a basis for developing ethics in the workplace.

She had 16 CEOs formulate principles for ethics through the combination of reasoning and intuition while forming and applying moral principles to an everyday circumstance where a question of ethics could be involved.

Through the process, the CEOs settled on a set of four principles:

• self-interest
• rationality

These were the general standards used by the CEOs in creating a decision about how they should deal with downsizing. While this is not a standard model, it does reveal the underlying ideas business leaders use to make ethical choices. These principles lead to standards that are used in ethical decision-making processes and moral frameworks.

How would you attempt to resolve a situation using an ethical decision-making model?

When facing a difficult situation, it can be beneficial to use an ethical decision-making model to help you come to the best possible solution. These models are based on the idea that you should consider the consequences of your decision, weigh the various options available, and consider the ethical implications of each choice. First, you should identify the problem or situation and clearly define what it is. Then, you must assess all of the possible outcomes of each choice and consider which one is most ethical. Once you have identified your preferred option, you should consult with others who may be affected by your decision to ensure that it aligns with their values and interests. You should evaluate the decision by considering how it affects yourself and others, as well as how it meets the expectations of your organization or institution.

The Ethical Decision-Making Process

Before a model can be utilized, leaders need to work through a set of steps to be sure they are bringing a comprehensive lens to handling ethical disputes or problems.

Take Time to Define the Problem

Some initial analysis has to happen for leaders to truly understand where they need to bring in ethical principles . Leaders need to decide why an ethical decision needs to be made and the outcomes that are desired for the decision.

Consult Resources and Seek Assistance

Leaders then need to work on developing a strategy using the resources and people around them . Whether it be qualified co-workers, HR professionals, or policies and handbooks set long ago, leaders need to gain clarity from other sources when creating a strategy to tackle the issue.

Think About the Lasting Effects

While identifying the problem and seeking viable resources to help is the way to go, any advice for how to handle an issue should be filtered through the lens of how it will affect others . For instance, if there is an issue with employees getting to work on time, managers could install policies that change the time workers report, but if they are not careful, it may have a detrimental impact on other workers, and even clients.

Consider Regulations in Other Industries

Regulations and standards that other companies have established can be a good starting point for developing ethical strategies . Leaders should take a look at how they handle specific issues that have come their way. It might also be helpful to take a look at the mistakes the leader’s company and other organizations have made and learn from them. Everyone does not always get it right 100 percent of the time. Therefore, it is essential to see the good and bad side to become even more informed about a decision that should be made.

Decide on a Decision

After consulting others and doing a bit of extra research, it is time for a final decision . Since the choice will likely impact many it is a good idea to create a proposal of what the issue is and how leaders plan to work with the team to solve it. If the problem is more personal and involves harassment of some kind, it is more appropriate to only deal with those involved and establish a plan of action to handle that particular situation. However, for widespread ethical issues that have become a problem in the workplace, it is a good practice to bring decisions to the team at large.

Implement and Evaluate

This is where talk meets action. It is easy for people to research and create solutions to a problem, but when dealing with morality and ethics, it can be challenging to put it into action finally . No one benefits from a plan that is not put into practice, so at some point, leaders need to facilitate the implementation of the ethical decision. Also, the application is not enough. Evaluation allows everyone to see how the approach is working out, and if there were some unintended consequences leaders did not foresee. Is the problem finally fixed? Did things get better or worse? Analysis of this issue can help those involved figure out if the implementation was the appropriate response.

While each situation may call for specific steps to come before others, this is a general process that leaders can use to approach ethical decision-making . We have talked about the approach; now it is time to discuss the lens that leaders can use to make the final decision that leads to implementation.

PLUS Ethical Decision-Making Model

PLUS Ethical Decision-Making Model is one of the most used and widely cited ethical models.

To create a clear and cohesive approach to implementing a solution to an ethical problem; the model is set in a way that it gives the leader “ ethical filters ” to make decisions.

It purposely leaves out anything related to making a profit so that leaders can focus on values instead of a potential impact on revenue.

The letters in PLUS each stand for a filter that leaders can use for decision-making:

• P – Policies and Procedures: Is the decision in line with the policies laid out by the company?
• L – Legal: Will this violate any legal parameters or regulations?
• U – Universal: How does this relate to the values and principles established for the organization to operate? Is it in tune with core values and the company culture?
• S – Self: Does it meet my standards of fairness and justice? This particular lens fits well with the virtue approach that is a part of the five common standards mentioned above.

These filters can even be applied to the process, so leaders have a clear ethical framework all along the way. Defining the problem automatically requires leaders to see if it is violating any of the PLUS ethical filters. It should also be used to assess the viability of any decisions that are being considered for implementation, and make a decision about whether the one that was chosen resolved the PLUS considerations questioned in the first step. No model is perfect, but this is a standard way to consider four vital components that have a substantial ethical impact .

The Character-Based Decision-Making Model

While this one is not as widely cited as the PLUS Model, it is still worth mentioning. The Character-Based Decision-Making Model was created by the Josephson Institute of Ethics, and it has three main components leaders can use to make an ethical decision.

• All decisions must take into account the impact to all stakeholders – This is very similar to the Utilitarian approach discussed earlier. This step seeks to do good for most, and hopefully avoid harming others.
• Ethics always takes priority over non-ethical values  – A decision should not be rationalized if it in any way violates ethical principles. In business, this can show up through deciding between increasing productivity or profit and keeping an employee’s best interest at heart.
• It is okay to violate another ethical principle if it advances a better ethical climate for others  – Leaders may find themselves in the unenviable position of having to prioritize ethical decisions. They may have to choose between competing ethical choices, and this model advises that leaders should always want the one that creates the most good for as many people as possible.

There are multiple components to consider when making an ethical decision. Regulations, policies and procedures, perception, public opinion, and even a leader’s morality play a part in how decisions that question business ethics should be handled. While no approach is perfect, a well-thought-out process and useful framework can make dealing with ethical situations easier.

• How to Resolve Employee Conflict at Work [Steps, Tips, Examples]
• 5 Challenges and 10 Solutions to Improve Employee Feedback Process
• How to Identify and Handle Employee Underperformance? 5 Proven Steps
• Organizational Development: 4 Main Steps and 8 Proven Success Factors
• 7 Steps to Leading Virtual Teams to Success
• 7 Steps to Create the Best Value Proposition [How-To’s and Best Practices]

• Training & Certification
• Knowledge Center
• ECI Research
• Business Integrity Library
• Career Center
• The PLUS Ethical Decision Making Model

Seven Steps to Ethical Decision Making –  Step 1: Define the problem  (consult  PLUS filters ) –  Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support  –  Step 3: Identify alternatives –  Step 4: Evaluate the alternatives  (consult  PLUS filters ) –  Step 5: Make the decision –  Step 6: Implement the decision –  Step 7: Evaluate the decision  (consult  PLUS filters )

Introduction Organizations struggle to develop a simple set of guidelines that makes it easier for individual employees, regardless of position or level, to be confident that his/her decisions meet all of the competing standards for effective and ethical decision-making used by the organization. Such a model must take into account two realities:

• Every employee is called upon to make decisions in the normal course of doing his/her job. Organizations cannot function effectively if employees are not empowered to make decisions consistent with their positions and responsibilities.
• For the decision maker to be confident in the decision’s soundness, every decision should be tested against the organization’s policies and values, applicable laws and regulations as well as the individual employee’s definition of what is right, fair, good and acceptable.

The decision making process described below has been carefully constructed to be:

• Fundamentally sound based on current theories and understandings of both decision-making processes and ethics.
• Simple and straightforward enough to be easily integrated into every employee’s thought processes.
• Descriptive (detailing how ethical decision are made naturally) rather than prescriptive (defining unnatural ways of making choices).

Why do organizations need ethical decision making? See our special edition case study, #RespectAtWork, to find out.

First, explore the difference between what you expect and/or desire and the current reality. By defining the problem in terms of outcomes, you can clearly state the problem.

Consider this example: Tenants at an older office building are complaining that their employees are getting angry and frustrated because there is always a long delay getting an elevator to the lobby at rush hour. Many possible solutions exist, and all are predicated on a particular understanding the problem:

• Flexible hours – so all the tenants’ employees are not at the elevators at the same time.
• Faster elevators – so each elevator can carry more people in a given time period.
• Bigger elevators – so each elevator can carry more people per trip.
• Elevator banks – so each elevator only stops on certain floors, increasing efficiency.
• Better elevator controls – so each elevator is used more efficiently.
• More elevators – so that overall carrying capacity can be increased.
• Improved elevator maintenance – so each elevator is more efficient.
• Encourage employees to use the stairs – so fewer people use the elevators.

The real-life decision makers defined the problem as “people complaining about having to wait.” Their solution was to make the wait less frustrating by piping music into the elevator lobbies. The complaints stopped. There is no way that the eventual solution could have been reached if, for example, the problem had been defined as “too few elevators.”

How you define the problem determines where you go to look for alternatives/solutions– so define the problem carefully.

Step 2: Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support

Once the problem is defined, it is critical to search out resources that may be of assistance in making the decision. Resources can include people (i.e., a mentor, coworkers, external colleagues, or friends and family) as well professional guidelines and organizational policies and codes. Such resources are critical for determining parameters, generating solutions, clarifying priorities and providing support, both while implementing the solution and dealing with the repercussions of the solution.

Step 3: Identify available alternative solutions to the problem The key to this step is to not limit yourself to obvious alternatives or merely what has worked in the past. Be open to new and better alternatives. Consider as many as solutions as possible — five or more in most cases, three at the barest minimum. This gets away from the trap of seeing “both sides of the situation” and limiting one’s alternatives to two opposing choices (i.e., either this or that).

Step 4: Evaluate the identified alternatives As you evaluate each alternative, identify the likely positive and negative consequence of each. It is unusual to find one alternative that would completely resolve the problem and is significantly better than all others. As you consider positive and negative consequences, you must be careful to differentiate between what you know for a fact and what you believe might be the case. Consulting resources, including written guidelines and standards, can help you ascertain which consequences are of greater (and lesser) import.

You should think through not just what results each alternative could yield, but the likelihood it is that such impact will occur. You will only have all the facts in simple cases. It is reasonable and usually even necessary to supplement the facts you have with realistic assumptions and informed beliefs. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the more the evaluation is fact-based, the more confident you can be that the expected outcome will occur. Knowing the ratio of fact-based evaluation versus non-fact-based evaluation allows you to gauge how confident you can be in the proposed impact of each alternative.

Step 5: Make the decision When acting alone, this is the natural next step after selecting the best alternative. When you are working in a team environment, this is where a proposal is made to the team, complete with a clear definition of the problem, a clear list of the alternatives that were considered and a clear rationale for the proposed solution.

Step 6: Implement the decision While this might seem obvious, it is necessary to make the point that deciding on the best alternative is not the same as doing something. The action itself is the first real, tangible step in changing the situation. It is not enough to think about it or talk about it or even decide to do it. A decision only counts when it is implemented. As Lou Gerstner (former CEO of IBM) said, “There are no more prizes for predicting rain. There are only prizes for building arks.”

Step 7: Evaluate the decision Every decision is intended to fix a problem. The final test of any decision is whether or not the problem was fixed. Did it go away? Did it change appreciably? Is it better now, or worse, or the same? What new problems did the solution create?

Ethics Filters

The ethical component of the decision making process takes the form of a set of “filters.” Their purpose is to surface the ethics considerations and implications of the decision at hand. When decisions are classified as being “business” decisions (rather than “ethics” issues), values can quickly be left out of consideration and ethical lapses can occur.

At key steps in the process, you should stop and work through these filters, ensuring that the ethics issues imbedded in the decision are given consideration.

We group the considerations into the mnemonic PLUS.

• P  = Policies Is it consistent with my organization’s policies, procedures and guidelines?
• L = Legal Is it acceptable under the applicable laws and regulations?
• U  = Universal Does it conform to the universal principles/values my organization has adopted?
• S = Self Does it satisfy my personal definition of right, good and fair?

The PLUS filters work as an integral part of steps 1, 4 and 7 of the decision-making process. The decision maker applies the four PLUS filters to determine if the ethical component(s) of the decision are being surfaced/addressed/satisfied.

• Does the existing situation violate any of the PLUS considerations?
• Step 2:   Seek out relevant assistance, guidance and support
• Step 3: Identify available alternative solutions to the problem
• Will the alternative I am considering resolve the PLUS violations?
• Will the alternative being considered create any new PLUS considerations?
• Are the ethical trade-offs acceptable?
• Step 5: Make the decision
• Step 6: Implement the decision
• Does the resultant situation resolve the earlier PLUS considerations?
• Are there any new PLUS considerations to be addressed?

The PLUS filters do not guarantee an ethically-sound decision. They merely ensure that the ethics components of the situation will be surfaced so that they might be considered.

How Organizations Can Support Ethical Decision-Making  Organizations empower employees with the knowledge and tools they need to make ethical decisions by

• Intentionally and regularly communicating to all employees:
• Organizational policies and procedures as they apply to the common workplace ethics issues.
• Applicable laws and regulations.
• Agreed-upon set of “universal” values (i.e., Empathy, Patience, Integrity, Courage [EPIC]).
• Providing a formal mechanism (i.e., a code and a helpline, giving employees access to a definitive interpretation of the policies, laws and universal values when they need additional guidance before making a decision).
• Free Ethics & Compliance Toolkit
• Ethics and Compliance Glossary
• Definitions of Values
• Why Have a Code of Conduct?
• Code Construction and Content
• Common Code Provisions
• Ten Style Tips for Writing an Effective Code of Conduct
• Five Keys to Reducing Ethics and Compliance Risk
• Business Ethics & Compliance Timeline

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Creating Brand Value
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

7 Ways to Improve Your Ethical Decision-Making

• 03 Aug 2023

Effective decision-making is the cornerstone of any thriving business. According to a survey of 760 companies cited in the Harvard Business Review , decision effectiveness and financial results correlated at a 95 percent confidence level across countries, industries, and organization sizes.

Yet, making ethical decisions can be difficult in the workplace and often requires dealing with ambiguous situations.

If you want to become a more effective leader , here’s an overview of why ethical decision-making is important in business and how to be better at it.

Access your free e-book today.

The Importance of Ethical Decision-Making

Any management position involves decision-making .

“Even with formal systems in place, managers have a great deal of discretion in making decisions that affect employees,” says Harvard Business School Professor Nien-hê Hsieh in the online course Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “This is because many of the activities companies need to carry out are too complex to specify in advance.”

This is where ethical decision-making comes in. As a leader, your decisions influence your company’s culture, employees’ motivation and productivity, and business processes’ effectiveness.

It also impacts your organization’s reputation—in terms of how customers, partners, investors, and prospective employees perceive it—and long-term success.

With such a large portion of your company’s performance relying on your guidance, here are seven ways to improve your ethical decision-making.

1. Gain Clarity Around Personal Commitments

You may be familiar with the saying, “Know thyself.” The first step to including ethics in your decision-making process is defining your personal commitments.

To gain clarity around those, Hsieh recommends asking:

• What’s core to my identity? How do I perceive myself?
• What lines or boundaries will I not cross?
• What kind of life do I want to live?
• What type of leader do I want to be?

Once you better understand your core beliefs, values, and ideals, it’s easier to commit to ethical guidelines in the workplace. If you get stuck when making challenging decisions, revisit those questions for guidance.

2. Overcome Biases

A bias is a systematic, often unconscious inclination toward a belief, opinion, perspective, or decision. It influences how you perceive and interpret information, make judgments, and behave.

Bias is often based on:

• Personal experience
• Cultural background
• Social conditioning
• Individual preference

It exists in the workplace as well.

“Most of the time, people try to act fairly, but personal beliefs or attitudes—both conscious and subconscious—affect our ability to do so,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability .

There are two types of bias:

• Explicit: A bias you’re aware of, such as ageism.
• Implicit: A bias that operates outside your awareness, such as cultural conditioning.

Whether explicit or implicit, you must overcome bias to make ethical, fair decisions.

Related: How to Overcome Stereotypes in Your Organization

3. Reflect on Past Decisions

The next step is reflecting on previous decisions.

“By understanding different kinds of bias and how they can show themselves in the workplace, we can reflect on past decisions, experiences, and emotions to help identify problem areas,” Hsieh says in the course.

Reflect on your decisions’ processes and the outcomes. Were they favorable? What would you do differently? Did bias affect them?

Through analyzing prior experiences, you can learn lessons that help guide your ethical decision-making.

4. Be Compassionate

Decisions requiring an ethical lens are often difficult, such as terminating an employee.

“Termination decisions are some of the hardest that managers will ever have to make,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “These decisions affect real people with whom we often work every day and who are likely to depend on their job for their livelihood.”

Such decisions require a compassionate approach. Try imagining yourself in the other person’s shoes, and think about what you would want to hear. Doing so allows you to approach decision-making with more empathy.

5. Focus on Fairness

Being “fair” in the workplace is often ambiguous, but it’s vital to ethical decision-making.

“Fairness is not only an ethical response to power asymmetries in the work environment,” Hsieh says in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability . “Fairness–and having a successful organizational culture–can benefit the organization economically and legally as well.”

It’s particularly important to consider fairness in the context of your employees. According to Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , operationalizing fairness in employment relationships requires:

• Legitimate expectations: Expectations stemming from a promise or regular practice that employees can anticipate and rely on.
• Procedural fairness: Concern with whether decisions are made and carried out impartially, consistently, and transparently.
• Distributive fairness: The fair allocation of opportunities, benefits, and burdens based on employees’ efforts or contributions.

Keeping these aspects of fairness in mind can be the difference between a harmonious team and an employment lawsuit. When in doubt, ask yourself: “If I or someone I loved was at the receiving end of this decision, what would I consider ‘fair’?”

6. Take an Individualized Approach

Not every employee is the same. Your relationships with team members, managers, and organizational leaders differ based on factors like context and personality types.

“Given the personal nature of employment relationships, your judgment and actions in these areas will often require adjustment according to each specific situation,” Hsieh explains in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability .

One way to achieve this is by tailoring your decision-making based on employees’ values and beliefs. For example, if a colleague expresses concerns about a project’s environmental impact, explore eco-friendly approaches that align with their values.

Another way you can customize your ethical decision-making is by accommodating employees’ cultural differences. Doing so can foster a more inclusive work environment and boost your team’s performance .

7. Accept Feedback

Ethical decision-making is susceptible to gray areas and often met with dissent, so it’s critical to be approachable and open to feedback .

The benefits of receiving feedback include:

• Learning from mistakes.
• Having more opportunities to exhibit compassion, fairness, and transparency.
• Identifying blind spots you weren’t aware of.
• Bringing your team into the decision-making process.

While such conversations can be uncomfortable, don’t avoid them. Accepting feedback will not only make you a more effective leader but also help your employees gain a voice in the workplace.

Ethical Decision-Making Is a Continuous Learning Process

Ethical decision-making doesn’t come with right or wrong answers—it’s a continuous learning process.

“There often is no right answer, only imperfect solutions to difficult problems,” Hsieh says. “But even without a single ‘right’ answer, making thoughtful, ethical decisions can make a major difference in the lives of your employees and colleagues.”

By taking an online course, such as Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability , you can develop the frameworks and tools to make effective decisions that benefit all aspects of your business.

Ready to improve your ethical decision-making? Enroll in Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability —one of our online leadership and management courses —and download our free e-book on how to become a more effective leader.

About the Author

6 Step Process For Ethical Decision Making: A Guide with Examples

What is ethical decision making, why do we need to make ethical decisions, 6 steps of ethical decision making, 3 ethical decision making examples in the workplace, 5 approaches of ethical decision making.

Other Related Blogs

• The Ultimate Guide to Task Prioritization: Understanding Priority Levels
• Do More With Automated Training: 6 Reasons to Adopt
• Strategic Decision Making Skills for Leaders: 5+ Examples and Process
• Absenteeism in a Workplace: 5 Effective Approaches to Reduce Employee Absences
• Performance Management and Compensation: 3 Perspectives
• 8 Best Problem-Solving Activities To Build A Successful Team
• First-Time Manager Training: 8 Proven Hacks to Creating Effective Programs
• Replacement Planning vs Succession Planning: Which is Better? With 8 Benefits
• Changing Company Culture Requires a Movement Not a Mandate: 5 Key Steps
• Building Relationships at Work: 9 Effective Ways

Example of Ethical Decision Making for a Manager Based on the Steps outlined above:

1. utilitarianism: maximizing happiness  .

Imagine your company is deciding whether to adopt a new cost-cutting strategy that could lead to layoffs. A utilitarian approach would involve weighing the potential benefits of preserving the company’s financial health against the negative impact on employees’ livelihoods.

2. Deontology: Upholding Moral Rules  

As a manager, if you discover an employee has made a mistake that could harm the team’s project, a deontological perspective would mean addressing the issue transparently and finding a solution, even if it might initially cause discomfort.

3. Virtue Ethics: Building Good Character  

A leader who consistently demonstrates empathy and actively listens to their team members helps build a virtuous workplace environment that values open communication and mutual respect.

4. Justice: Fairness and Equity  

During promotions, a just manager considers employees’ skills and contributions rather than favoritism, ensuring that deserving individuals are recognized and rewarded.

5. Rights-Based Ethics: Protecting Individual Rights  

If implementing a new monitoring system, a rights-based leader would ensure that employees’ privacy is respected by implementing transparent policies and safeguards.

Is your team confident in your decision-making skills?

Discover insights with the free decision-making assessment for managers

Evidence Based Decision Making: 4 Proven Hacks For Managers

6 best books on decision making for managers, best decision coaches to guide you toward great choices, top 10 games for negotiation skills to make you a better leader.

Thinking Ethically

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources
• Ethical Decision Making

Moral issues greet us each morning in the newspaper, confront us in the memos on our desks, nag us from our children's soccer fields, and bid us good night on the evening news. We are bombarded daily with questions about the justice of our foreign policy, the morality of medical technologies that can prolong our lives, the rights of the homeless, the fairness of our children's teachers to the diverse students in their classrooms.

Dealing with these moral issues is often perplexing. How, exactly, should we think through an ethical issue? What questions should we ask? What factors should we consider?

The first step in analyzing moral issues is obvious but not always easy: Get the facts. Some moral issues create controversies simply because we do not bother to check the facts. This first step, although obvious, is also among the most important and the most frequently overlooked.

But having the facts is not enough. Facts by themselves only tell us what is ; they do not tell us what ought to be. In addition to getting the facts, resolving an ethical issue also requires an appeal to values. Philosophers have developed five different approaches to values to deal with moral issues.

The Utilitarian Approach Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Both Bentham and Mill suggested that ethical actions are those that provide the greatest balance of good over evil.

To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us. Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. And third, we choose the action that will produce the greatest benefits and the least harm. The ethical action is the one that provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

The Rights Approach The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant and others like him, who focused on the individual's right to choose for herself or himself. According to these philosophers, what makes human beings different from mere things is that people have dignity based on their ability to choose freely what they will do with their lives, and they have a fundamental moral right to have these choices respected. People are not objects to be manipulated; it is a violation of human dignity to use people in ways they do not freely choose.

Of course, many different, but related, rights exist besides this basic one. These other rights (an incomplete list below) can be thought of as different aspects of the basic right to be treated as we choose.

The right to the truth: We have a right to be told the truth and to be informed about matters that significantly affect our choices.

The right of privacy: We have the right to do, believe, and say whatever we choose in our personal lives so long as we do not violate the rights of others.

The right not to be injured: We have the right not to be harmed or injured unless we freely and knowingly do something to deserve punishment or we freely and knowingly choose to risk such injuries.

The right to what is agreed: We have a right to what has been promised by those with whom we have freely entered into a contract or agreement.

In deciding whether an action is moral or immoral using this second approach, then, we must ask, Does the action respect the moral rights of everyone? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals; the more serious the violation, the more wrongful the action.

The Fairness or Justice Approach The fairness or justice approach to ethics has its roots in the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." The basic moral question in this approach is: How fair is an action? Does it treat everyone in the same way, or does it show favoritism and discrimination?

Favoritism gives benefits to some people without a justifiable reason for singling them out; discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are not imposed. Both favoritism and discrimination are unjust and wrong.

The Common-Good Approach This approach to ethics assumes a society comprising individuals whose own good is inextricably linked to the good of the community. Community members are bound by the pursuit of common values and goals.

The common good is a notion that originated more than 2,000 years ago in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. More recently, contemporary ethicist John Rawls defined the common good as "certain general conditions that are...equally to everyone's advantage."

In this approach, we focus on ensuring that the social policies, social systems, institutions, and environments on which we depend are beneficial to all. Examples of goods common to all include affordable health care, effective public safety, peace among nations, a just legal system, and an unpolluted environment.

Appeals to the common good urge us to view ourselves as members of the same community, reflecting on broad questions concerning the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society. While respecting and valuing the freedom of individuals to pursue their own goals, the common-good approach challenges us also to recognize and further those goals we share in common.

The Virtue Approach The virtue approach to ethics assumes that there are certain ideals toward which we should strive, which provide for the full development of our humanity. These ideals are discovered through thoughtful reflection on what kind of people we have the potential to become.

Virtues are attitudes or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop our highest potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

Virtues are like habits; that is, once acquired, they become characteristic of a person. Moreover, a person who has developed virtues will be naturally disposed to act in ways consistent with moral principles. The virtuous person is the ethical person.

In dealing with an ethical problem using the virtue approach, we might ask, What kind of person should I be? What will promote the development of character within myself and my community?

Ethical Problem Solving These five approaches suggest that once we have ascertained the facts, we should ask ourselves five questions when trying to resolve a moral issue:

What benefits and what harms will each course of action produce, and which alternative will lead to the best overall consequences?

What moral rights do the affected parties have, and which course of action best respects those rights?

Which course of action treats everyone the same, except where there is a morally justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination?

Which course of action advances the common good?

Which course of action develops moral virtues?

This method, of course, does not provide an automatic solution to moral problems. It is not meant to. The method is merely meant to help identify most of the important ethical considerations. In the end, we must deliberate on moral issues for ourselves, keeping a careful eye on both the facts and on the ethical considerations involved.

This article updates several previous pieces from Issues in Ethics by Manuel Velasquez - Dirksen Professor of Business Ethics at Santa Clara University and former Center director - and Claire Andre, associate Center director. "Thinking Ethically" is based on a framework developed by the authors in collaboration with Center Director Thomas Shanks, S.J., Presidential Professor of Ethics and the Common Good Michael J. Meyer, and others. The framework is used as the basis for many programs and presentations at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

• Creating Environments Conducive to Social Interaction

Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making

• Developing a Positive Climate with Trust and Respect
• Developing Self-Esteem, Confidence, Resiliency, and Mindset
• Developing Ability to Consider Different Perspectives
• Developing Tools and Techniques Useful in Social Problem-Solving
• Leadership Problem-Solving Model
• A Problem-Solving Model for Improving Student Achievement
• Six-Step Problem-Solving Model
• Hurson’s Productive Thinking Model: Solving Problems Creatively
• The Power of Storytelling and Play
• Creative Documentation & Assessment
• Materials for Use in Creating “Third Party” Solution Scenarios
• Resources for Connecting Schools to Communities
• Resources for Enabling Students

These 5 approaches and their history can be found at:

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v7n1/thinking.html

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Confronting Ethical and Moral Dilemmas: Don’t Go It Alone

September 13, 2021 • 8 min read.

In this Nano Tool for Leaders, Wharton’s G. Richard Shell explains how “the power of two” can help when you are faced with a moral or ethical dilemma at work.

Nano Tools for Leaders® — a collaboration between Wharton Executive Education and Wharton’s Center for Leadership and Change Management — are fast, effective leadership tools that you can learn and start using in less than 15 minutes, with the potential to significantly impact your success as a leader and the engagement and productivity of the people you lead.

Contributor: G. Richard Shell, Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics and author of The Conscience Code: Lead with Your Values. Advance Your Career .

Strengthen your ability to confront ethically questionable acts or wrongdoings by bringing in allies.

According to a 2021 report from the Ethics and Compliance Initiative, 63% of middle managers were pressured by bosses to violate their firm’s ethical code of conduct in 2020. Over half of middle and upper managers observed ethical misconduct, while 79% of employees experienced retaliation for reporting it. Well-run corporate compliance programs and healthy corporate cultures can reduce this problem significantly, but these are hard to sustain across large enterprises over long periods of time. And too many companies give only lip service to both.

When you are faced with a moral or ethical dilemma at work, it’s common to believe that your choices are limited to three less-than-optimal options: remain silent, single-handedly confront the perpetrator(s), or report him or her (and perhaps the whole team) to a higher authority. For those who are conflict averse — and those who don’t feel options two and three are viable for other reasons — the first option is the most appealing. But there is another way.

In fact, believing you have to handle this situation alone, no matter which option you choose, violates the Conscience Code — a set of 10 rules developed to help you lead with your values while advancing your career. Specifically, Rule #6 explains the importance of leveraging the Power of Two: an ally can bolster your confidence, help you think more clearly about next steps, and keep you grounded when people try to make it look as if you are the problem. In fact, when it comes to resisting pressure from peers and authority to “just go along with it” or “look the other way,” 1 + 1 equals much more than 2. Psychologists report that the best workplace allies are those who help you better understand the situation you are in and then provide the confidence boost you need to manage it. For ideas about when and how to leverage alliances, see the Action Steps below.

Action Steps

When you face wrongdoing at work, instead of choosing one of the less-than-optimal options described above, consider testing out your viewpoint in private with one other person, perhaps a quieter one who might be open to hearing your perspective and creating an alliance. If that is too risky, consider reaching out to the person who recruited you, a mentor, or a colleague who had been at the firm longer than you. If you are a woman or minority, research shows that you may find strength by conferring with one another in the face of situations involving sexism or racism.

Here are three ideas for leveraging the Power of Two:

• Deal with peer pressure. Another voice speaking truth will help you feel less isolated in your position and more confident in asserting your point of view. Professor Solomon Asch’s work on peer pressure showed that when everyone in a group says that “X is true,” the final holdout will go along with them more often than you might expect — even when they know that X is not true. This finding highlights the power of social contagion: A strong group can make dissenters too embarrassed to go against the crowd, or even make them actually believe something they knew previously to be false. In a follow-up experiment, Asch gave his subjects an ally or “true partner” — one voice in the room that spoke the correct rather than the incorrect answer. This caused subjects’ willingness to tell the truth to jump from 65% to 95%.
• Stand up to authority. Stanley Milgram’s infamous power-of-authority studies investigated why ordinary German people had gone along with the Holocaust in World War II. His experiments demonstrated that ordinary citizens could be pressured into delivering what appeared to be lethal levels of electric shocks to human “victims.” In one version of the experiment, Milgram created teams of three to deliver the shocks, with each team including two “dissenters” who were instructed to quit after a specified number of low-level shocks were “delivered.” With the two dissenters breaking off during the process, 90% terminated the experiment prior to the lethal shock level — with 25 of them quitting at a level less than half that. The takeaway? Having allies at your side can empower you to act on your values more quickly and decisively than relying on your inner resources alone. And having supportive peers may be especially important for those with more accommodating and conflict-averse personalities.
• Gain a fresh perspective. Professor Philip Zimbardo’s troubled Stanford Prison Experiment, in which he placed randomly selected undergraduate students in roles of “guards” and “prisoners,” attempted to prove that social roles and systemic pressures can distort the behavior of otherwise normal people. Although the guards’ behavior became troubling very quickly, it took an outsider to bring an end to the out-of-control proceedings. PhD student Christina Maslach was so disturbed by what she saw that she persuaded Zimbardo to end his experiment immediately on ethical grounds, applying both common-sense morality and the norms of social science. Research on ethical conflicts revealed numerous instances of ordinary people swept up in wrongdoing by peers and bosses — but who were saved by a perceptive spouse or friend who could see more clearly than they what was happening. The Power of Two thus extends to people completely outside your workplace “bubble” — people who can point out how far you have strayed from your ethical commitments and bring you back to your senses before it is too late.

How Leaders Use It

By now, the story of charismatic 19-year-old Stanford undergraduate Elizabeth Holmes and her idea for a new approach to blood testing is well known. What’s often missing from tales of the Theranos scandal are Tyler Shultz and Erika Cheung, two twentysomething employees who were faced with immense pressure from their superiors and peers to go along with what was clearly a massive fraud. Their story demonstrates the power of an ally when you encounter real-world conflicts.

New hires Shultz and Cheung worked together on a team that was testing the accuracy of the Edison — Holmes’s blood testing machine. When they noticed that data showing results that deviated too far from expected performance never made it into reports, they were told that it was standard practice to ignore these “outliers.” They also became concerned that the firm was misreporting a variety of metrics on the Edison’s accuracy for different types of blood tests, and that, compared with accurate results from traditional machines, the Edison failed. When Shultz and Cheung pushed back, they were admonished for not being “team players.” Finally, after their superiors knowingly submitted false data to regulators, Shultz turned in an anonymous complaint to investigators and sent an email to Holmes with details of his concerns (many of which came from Cheung). Berated once again, the two decided to quit. Cheung filed a formal complaint with the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services about the misconduct she had observed. The complaint triggered a formal investigation, which, in combination with a series of front-page investigative stories in the Wall Street Journal (sourced in part by Shultz and Cheung) and Shultz’s anonymous filing with regulators, brought an end to Theranos. Shultz and Cheung leveraged the Power of Two, feeding off each other’s energies; advancing each other’s strategic thinking; and providing independent, credible information from the inner workings of a corrupt organization that could be used as evidence by the legal system.

Knowledge in Action: Related Executive Education Programs

Richard Shell teaches in Negotiation and Influence: Making Deals and Strategy Work , Advanced Management Program , and Executive Development Program .

Additional Resources

• Access all Wharton Executive Education Nano Tools
• Download this Nano Tool as a PDF

More From Knowledge at Wharton

The Hidden Business Risks of Humanizing AI

To Survive Sustained Change, Start Rehearsing

What Companies Can Learn About Succession Planning from the Democratic Party’s Nomination Switch

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

Frontline Initiative Code of Ethics

The right decision method: an approach for solving ethical dilemmas.

Annie Johnson Sirek, MSW is a Project Coordinator at the Institute on Community Integration at the University of Minnesota. She thanks Marianne and Julie of the Human Services Research Institute, and Amy and Derek of the University of Minnesota, for developing this method to use in daily practice and training.

Share this page

• Share this page on Facebook.
• Share this page on Twitter.
• Share this page on LinkedIn.
• Share this page on Pinterest.
• Share this page via email.
• Print this page.

What is an ethical dilemma? 

An ethical dilemma requires a person to define right from wrong. But, as Direct Support Professionals (DSPs), we know that this is not so simple. We face difficult decisions in our daily practice. There are often many different rules, principles, and opinions at play. We are called to respond in allegiance to the individuals we support. The National Alliance for Direct Support Professionals (NADSP) Code of Ethics provides a roadmap to assist in resolving ethical dilemmas.

How do I resolve ethical dilemmas? 

Ethical dilemmas can be resolved through effective decision-making. Since we are so often called upon to make independent judgments, it is important to incorporate the NADSP Code of Ethics within our daily practice. Many ethical dilemmas can be resolved easily with consultation and reflection. However, some issues cannot. Therefore, to help make it easier to solve difficult ethical dilemmas, consider a framework from which to work. The College of Direct Support has provided an approach to ethical decision-making with the NADSP Code of Ethics. This is called the RIGHT Decision Method. 

RIGHT Decision Method 

• Recognize the ethical dilemma.
• Identify points of view.
• Gather resources and assistance.
• Have a plan.
• Take action based on ethical standards.

What is the RIGHT Decision Method? 

Sometimes there really is a “right” way to make decisions under difficult conditions. The RIGHT Decision Method gives us tools to make sound ethical decisions and resolve ethical dilemmas. RIGHT is an acronym that stands for each step of the decision-making process:

R: Recognize the ethical dilemma. 

The first step is recognizing the conflicting obligations and clearly stating the dilemma. It is important to recognize and use the NADSP Code of Ethics as you begin with this step. You may consider —

• In what ways is the Code of Ethics applicable to this issue?


I: Identify points of view. 

The second step is identifying points of view in the situation. This means considering the viewpoint of the person receiving services, your colleagues, other parties involved, and the NADSP Code of Ethics. Restating the problem clearly to someone else can also help you check out whether you have interpreted the situation accurately. It is important to understand how the person receiving supports feels. Consider —

• What does the person receiving support expect?

• Then think about others who are involved in the situation and how they feel.

• What do these individuals want or need?


G: Gather resources and assistance. 

The third step is gathering resources and assistance that might help you figure out what to do. Now that you have an accurate understanding for the problem and various perspectives, this step encourages you to consider other people who may be able to assist you. You may also need to find important information. For example —

• Are there agency policies that could be considered? What do these documents say? Are there any laws or regulations in the state that may influence your decision-making?

• Is this a situation where legal advice is needed? Does the person have a legal representative who must be involved?

• Are there community resources that might help resolve the problem?


H: Have a plan. 

The fourth step means that you are ready to make your decision. Formulating a plan will help you decide the best way to put your ideas into action. Once you have considered the following issues, write a plan down and identify step-by-step actions that you plan to take —

• Whom must you speak to first? What will you say? What preparations will you make?

• What steps can you take to ensure the best possible outcome for your decision?

• How might people react?


T: Take action based on ethical standards.  

The fifth and final step is implementing the plan you developed in the manner you decided. Then, it is important to monitor its success using the success indicators you identified in the planning process to help you reflect on your decision —

• What worked well and why?

• What did not work well and why?

• What would you do differently after you have evaluated your outcomes?

• Taylor, M., Silver, J., Hewitt, A., & Nord, D. (2006). Applying ethics in everyday work (Lesson 3) . In College of Direct Support course: Direct support professionalism (Revision 2) . DirectCourse.

Icon(s) used on this page:

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Behav Anal Pract
• v.16(3); 2023 Sep
• PMC10480129

Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis

Victoria d. suarez.

1 Endicott College, Beverly, MA USA

Videsha Marya

2 Village Autism Center, Marietta, GA USA

Mary Jane Weiss

3 Behavioral Health Center of Excellence, Los Angeles, CA USA

Human service practitioners from varying fields make ethical decisions daily. At some point during their careers, many behavior analysts may face ethical decisions outside the range of their previous education, training, and professional experiences. To help practitioners make better decisions, researchers have published ethical decision-making models; however, it is unknown the extent to which published models recommend similar behaviors. Thus, we systematically reviewed and analyzed ethical decision-making models from published peer-reviewed articles in behavior analysis and related allied health professions. We identified 55 ethical decision-making models across 60 peer-reviewed articles, seven primary professions (e.g., medicine, psychology), and 22 subfields (e.g., dentistry, family medicine). Through consensus-based analysis, we identified nine behaviors commonly recommended across the set of reviewed ethical decision-making models with almost all ( n = 52) models arranging the recommended behaviors sequentially and less than half ( n = 23) including a problem-solving approach. All nine ethical decision-making steps clustered around the ethical decision-making steps in the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts published by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board ( 2020 ) suggesting broad professional consensus for the behaviors likely involved in ethical decision making.

Ethical decision making is operant behavior involving a behavior chain of complex responses (Marya et al., 2022 ). As behavior analysts, we make difficult ethical decisions daily. Behavior analysts are typically taught to respond to ethical scenarios via vignettes or descriptions of real-world ethical dilemmas (e.g., Bailey & Burch, 2016 ; Sush & Najdowski, 2019 ). However, the variability in ethical dilemmas that behavior analysts contact can be extensive and often contains contextual information not included in past training. Such contextual variables (e.g., impact of and on stakeholders, organizational variables, perspective of the funding source) might alter one’s course of action. Ethical decision-making models can equip behavior analysts with the needed tools to navigate varied and complex dilemmas. Thus, behavior analysts can benefit from models that allow an analysis of contextual variables because those variables often impact solutions.

Ethical conduct of board certified behavior analysts is governed by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) ethical codes. Since its inception, the BACB has disseminated three major codes— Guidelines for Responsible Conduct for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2004 , 2010 ), the Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2014 ), and most recently the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2020 ). Although versions prior to 2020 outlined specific ethical obligations and provided a framework and reference for considering paths of action when confronted with ethical challenges, no ethical decision-making tool was embedded until the most recent Code iteration.

Within applied behavior analysis (ABA), several ethical decision-making models have been published to guide behavior analysts to make optimal decisions (BACB, 2020 ; Bailey & Burch, 2013 , 2022 ; Brodhead, 2015 ; Brodhead, Quigley, & Wilczynski, 2018 ; Newhouse-Oisten et al., 2017 ; Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 ; Sush & Najdowski, 2019 ). These models unanimously share the common goal of providing readers with a systematic approach to ethical decision making, yet include unique elements that provide varying contextual recommendations. Some models offer a generalizable approach affording wider applicability to a variety of ethical situations (BACB, 2020 ; Bailey & Burch, 2013 , 2016 , 2022 ; Brodhead et al., 2018 ; Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 ; Sush & Najdowski, 2019 ), and other models provide guidance to navigate specific ethical situations (Brodhead, 2015 ; Newhouse-Oisten et al., 2017 ). Moreover, some models incorporate a problem-solving approach wherein multiple behaviors are considered along with their possible outcomes to aid decision making in ethical contexts (Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019 ).

Existing models within the behavior analytic literature have all emerged in the last 7 years and offer a discipline-specific approach. However, many other allied disciplines (e.g., medicine, psychology) have published literature offering models for ethical decision making for a longer period than the field of behavior analysis. Recently, there have been calls to action where behavior analysts have been looking to and learning from related professions (LaFrance et al., 2019 ; Miller et al., 2019 ; Pritchett et al., 2021 ; Taylor et al., 2019 ; Wright, 2019 ). Learning from other disciplines may help the field of behavior analysis rule out ineffective approaches or derive novel effective solutions more quickly.

The purpose of this systematic literature review was to conduct a descriptive analysis of ethical decision-making models across behavior analysis and allied disciplines. This literature review aimed to identify similarities and differences in approaches to ethical decision making that could inform future ethical decision-making models and aid the development of ethical decision-making skills in behavior analysts.

Inclusion Criteria

Articles included in this systematic review met the following three criteria: published in peer-reviewed journals through June 2020, written in English, and the title or abstract included keywords from the search (described below). We began the review in July 2020 and completed it in August 2021.

Search Procedure

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on ethical decision-making models for the fields of applied behavior analysis, education, medicine, occupational therapy, psychology, social work, and speech language pathology using the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Prisma Group, 2009 ). We chose these fields because of their similarities to behavior analysis’ mission in serving vulnerable populations. The following procedures were completed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines: (1) potential articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified; (2) the identified articles were comprehensively screened; (3) the eligibility of each article was evaluated across dependent measures; and (4) the included articles were analyzed.

The first and second authors completed primary database searches using PsycINFO and PubMed. The keywords used to identify potential articles to be included in this analysis were: applied behavior analysis, clinical psychology, counseling psychology, decision mak*, educat*, ethic*, model, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, speech and language*, and social work. In particular, the key words “ethic*”, “decision mak*”, and “model” were used in combination with the terms “applied behavior analysis,” or “clinical psychology,” or “counseling psychology,” or “medicine,” or “nursing,” or “occupational therapy,” or “speech,” or “language.”

The initial PsycINFO and PubMed searches yielded 635 articles. Of these, 46 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of the remaining 589 articles were read by the first and second authors to evaluate the inclusion of keywords. Full-text articles were retrieved for studies that included the words ethics or ethical , decision making , or model in their abstracts or titles ( n = 249). Of these, a total of 173 articles were selected for full-text review.

The articles selected for full-text review ( n = 173) were read in their entirety to evaluate whether they met these criteria: (1) included humans as the population of interest; (2) mentioned decision making; (3) mentioned ethics; (4) provided at least three identifiable steps to be followed as a part of a model in either a text or figure format; and (5) the provided model addressed how to respond to ethical dilemmas. The first and second authors scored each of the 173 articles across the aforementioned criteria to determine whether they would be included in the final analysis. Articles ( n = 27) for which it was unclear whether they met any of the criteria were coded as needing additional review, and the third and fourth authors completed an additional full-text review to determine whether they would be included in the final analysis. A total of 126 articles were removed for not meeting all five of the criteria. Thus, 47 articles remained to be included in the analysis.

Next, the first and second authors conducted a manual search (i.e., identification through other sources) of the references ( n = 1,354) for the remaining 47 articles. The screening criteria for this search was identical to the initial screening in which the title and abstract were searched for the inclusion of the words ethics or ethical , decision making , and model . Seventy-nine additional articles were identified through this process. Of these 79 articles, 16 were identified as duplicates from the initial PsycINFO and PubMed searches. Twelve articles were inaccessible to us online or through available library loans and were thus excluded. A list of these articles is not included in this article but is available upon request. Upon reviewing the full text of the remaining 51 articles, 26 additional articles met eligibility to be included in the analysis. In sum, a total of 60 articles met all inclusion criteria and were included.

Interrater reliability was scored using a consensus-based approach. In particular, all four authors collaboratively scored each of the models across the various measures described in the section below. If there was disagreement on scoring at any point, the authors collaboratively reviewed the model using figures provided within the article and any available text describing the model until consensus in scoring was reached.

Dependent Measures

Articles that met criteria for inclusion were evaluated across four dependent measures. First, we evaluated the steps included within the models from each article. Second, we categorized the model by the professional discipline or field of study. Third, we evaluated whether the model author presented the model in a specific order or sequence (i.e., linear or sequential model). Lastly, we scored whether the model included a problem-solving approach. We provide greater detail on each of these dependent measures below.

Decision-Making Steps

The models from each article were evaluated across nine steps (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). These steps were developed during the process of data synthesis. We read the included articles and identified common themes based on their prevalence in the examined literature. Next, we began classifying articles by the inclusion of these steps, indicating whether each article contained each of the identified steps. Then, we began tracking additional steps that appeared in articles. If those steps appeared in multiple articles, we added them as official steps in the analysis. When this was done, all previously coded articles were recoded for these additional steps. For the purpose of the current review, we identified the following nine components of ethical decision making: (1) ethical radar; (2) urgent detour; (3) pinpoint the problem; (4) information gathering; (5) available options/behaviors; (6) ranking and weighing; (7) analysis; (8) implementation; and (9) follow-up. Details on scoring criteria for each of these steps can be found in Appendix Table ​ Table4. 4 . We scored models included in each article as either including or not including the steps listed above. This was done by using the text description of the model, if provided, or the figure representation of the model if descriptive text was not included.

Steps from the Decision-Making Model from the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts ( 2020 ) and from the Current Literature Review

*Step 4 of the BACB model aligns with components from Step 6 of current literature review.

Decision-making Steps

Field of Study

The field of study of each article was recorded (e.g., psychology). Where possible, we also included a secondary field of study (e.g., school psychology). The primary field of study of the article was determined based on the journal that it was published in and the intended audience of the article. Secondary fields of study were coded to further gather information about the specific subfield. For example, if the article was published in a psychology journal and the audience of the article was specifically school psychologists.

Problem Solving

Models within each article were scored as including a problem-solving component or approach if the model author(s) guided the model users to identify two or more possible solutions and likely outcomes or consequences to the possible solutions. Models that did not include more than one possible solution and did not anticipate outcomes to solutions were scored as not including a problem-solving component.

Linear or Sequential

We coded whether the proposed model was linear or sequential in nature. That is, the model author(s) indicated that steps in the model followed a certain order or sequence wherein each preceding step in the model was to be considered prior to moving on to subsequent steps. If a model was not linear or sequential, this was also recorded.

Number of Models

A total of 55 ethical decision-making models across 60 peer-reviewed journal articles were analyzed. Models included in more than one article were counted as duplicates, and papers that included more than one model resulted in each unique model being coded.

Table ​ Table2 2 shows the number of models that included each of the nine steps. None of the steps were present in all models and the step that was included in the greatest number of models was ranking and weighing information ( n = 51; 93%). After ranking and weighing information, the steps found in the most-to-least number of models were: affected parties and available options/behaviors ( n = 49; 89%); reference other codes of ethics (e.g., personal, religious, organizational; n = 44; 80%); analysis ( n = 43; 78%), reference of professional codes ( n = 40; 73%); case specific information ( n = 38; 69%); implementation and pinpoint the problem (29 models each; 52%); follow up ( n = 26; 47%); ethical radar ( n = 21; 38%); urgent detour ( n = 16; 29%); and, information gathering ( n = 11; 20%).

Steps Included in Each Model

Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows a stacked bar chart of the primary and secondary fields of the ethical decision-making models. Medicine dominated the resulting set of models, followed by psychology, education, business, then child and youth care and organizational behavior management (OBM). Nevertheless, 23 different subspecialties were represented in the secondary field of the ethical decision-making models.

Stacked-Bar Graph Showing the Number of Ethical Decision-Making Models Based on the Primary and Secondary Literatures from which It Came

Table ​ Table3 3 presents a list of the synthesized models and their respective fields of study. The most common field of study across the 55 models was medicine ( n = 34; 62%). Seventeen of the models from medicine were specific to the subfield of nursing (50%) and three were specific to the subfield of psychiatry (9%). Of the remaining models from the field of medicine, one each was specific to critical care (3%), dentistry (3%), emergency medicine (3%), geriatrics (3%), internal medicine (3%), and oncology (3%). The remaining models from the field of medicine were coded as “general medicine” because they did not indicate a specific subfield.

Field of Study of Included Models

Thirteen models were specific to the field of psychology (24%). Four of the psychology specific models were from the subfield of counseling (31%) and two were specific to the subfield of school psychology (15%). Other specified psychology subfields included coaching ( n = 1; 8%), industrial/organizational psychology ( n = 1; 8%), pediatric psychology ( n = 1; 8%), and psychobiography ( n = 1; 8%). The remaining models were coded as “general psychology” because they did not indicate a specific subfield.

Three models were specific to the field of education (5%). Two of these were specific to the subfield of teaching (67%) and one was specific to the subfield of administration and leadership (33%). Two models were specific to the field of business (4%); one of these was specific to the subfield of management (50%) and the other to the subfield of leadership (50%). One model was specific to the field of child and youth care (2%), one was specific to engineering (2%), and one was specific to OBM (2%).

Figure ​ Figure2 2 shows the number of models that contained a problem-solving approach. A total of 23 models included a problem-solving approach (42%) and 32 did not (58%). Most of the models with a problem-solving component came from medicine ( n = 15; 65%), followed by psychology ( n = 7; 30%), and engineering ( n = 1; 43%). No models from the fields of business, education, or OBM included a problem-solving component.

Bar Graph Showing the Number of Decision-Making Models with and without a Problem-Solving Component, and Models that were Sequential or Nonsequential

Figure ​ Figure2 2 also shows the number of models that were sequential. A total of 52 models were linear or sequential in nature (95%), whereas 3 were not (5%). Most of the models that were sequential came from medicine ( n = 32; 62%), followed by psychology ( n = 14; 27%), education ( n = 3; 58%), business ( n = 2; 4%), engineering ( n = 1; 2%), and child and youth care ( n = 1; 2%).

The goal of this literature review was to identify and analyze published ethical decision-making models in behavior analysis and allied disciplines to determine consistency in recommended approaches. We examined 55 ethical decision-making models to collect data on what recommended steps were included and what approaches were most frequently emphasized. Three general themes within ethical decision-making models arose from our analysis. These include: (1) What steps were included within models; (2) Whether the steps were sequential (i.e., a behavior chain); and (3) Whether the entire process could be labeled as problem solving (i.e., Szabo, 2020 ). We discuss each of these findings in turn.

Behaviors Involved in Ethical Decision Making

The first main finding surrounds the variability in recommended steps of ethical decision making across models. We found that each of the nine steps coded appeared in an average (arithmetic mean) of 58% of the articles (range: 20%–93%). This suggests that some consistency exists in what behaviors various scholars recommend practitioners should engage in when faced with an ethical decision. However, the wide variability in how frequently each behavior appeared also highlights that ABA practitioners would benefit from researchers clarifying at least three important characteristics of ethical decision-making models. These are: (1) What behaviors are necessary and sufficient to make an optimal ethical decision in ABA contexts (i.e., component analysis)? (2) What are the conditions under which specific steps are and are not needed (i.e., conditional discrimination analysis)? (3) Is there an optimal functional result of ethical decision making that is more important than the specific topographies a practitioner uses to contact that outcome (i.e., functional analysis; see Cox, 2021 )? Practitioners and researchers may begin to explore some of these questions when engaging in ethical decision making.

More than half of the articles examined emphasized the need for consulting ethical codes. It is interesting that more ethical models recommended practitioners reference codes of ethics from outside their discipline ( n = 44; 80% of models; e.g., personal, religious, organizational) than their own discipline’s code of ethics ( n = 40; 73%). To our knowledge, the conflict between personal and professional codes of ethics is an underexplored topic in the ABA literature. Nevertheless, the slightly greater emphasis on other codes of ethics in addition to one’s own discipline suggests this might be an important area where practitioners could use guidance. Also, the field of ABA would likely benefit from future research and scholarship surrounding the conditions and functional outcomes of ethical decisions where personal and professional values conflict.

It is important to mention that our review was done prior to the publication of the BACB’s ( 2020 ) ethical decision-making model. The BACB’s model was published in the analysis and writing stage of this review. Our findings suggest a robust literature spanning 40+ years, 60+ articles, and 50+ models all clustered around similar ethical decision-making steps published by the BACB. Perhaps most intriguing is that we identified the nine steps from our review prior to the publication of the BACB’s model, and no previous models had incorporated all nine ethical decision-making steps until the BACB published their decision model (BACB, 2020). Practicing behavior analysts would benefit from future component analyses, conditional discrimination analyses, functional analyses, and empirical support surrounding the BACB’s ethical decision-making model.

Our analysis also suggests that behavior analysts and allied professionals approach ethical decision making similarly. Given the complexity of ethical decision making and the shared types of dilemmas human service professionals contact, some convergence is expected. However, there are many reasons that two professionals from different disciplines may come into disagreement (Boivin et al., 2021 ; Bowman et al., 2021 ; Cox, 2019 ; Gasiewski et al., 2021 ). Having familiar systems with empirical support for how to navigate ethical dilemmas might improve the likelihood that a positive resolution occurs. Further, such interprofessional similarities in ethical decision-making processes allows future interdisciplinary dialogue to focus more on specific areas of agreement because what and how information will be used to make a decision is already agreed upon.

Behavior Chains and Behavior Topography

We found that 95% of the ethical decision-making models could be described as a behavior chain (e.g., Catania, 2013 ). Framing ethical decision making as a behavior chain might be useful as it highlights the interrelated and sequential nature of ethical decision making. That is, completing one step in an ethical decision-making behavior chain leads to a context wherein the next response in the chain is more likely to contact reinforcement. For example, until you have gathered all relevant information about how the decision will affect all relevant parties, your ranking and weighing of information seems less likely to lead to the best outcome. That said, the temporally delayed nature of behaviors and consequences involved in ethical decision making is different than how behavior chains have been studied in laboratory settings (e.g., Baum, 2017 ; Cox, 2021 ; Slocum & Tiger, 2011 ). Future research will likely be needed to better understand the effects of temporal relations on behavior chains and thus determine what approach best provides a behavioral description of ethical decision making.

It is interesting that the order in which steps were proposed differed across models. We are unaware of any research that compares the effectiveness of different sequential ethical decision-making models to understand whether the order of behaviors recommended as a chain are more or less useful. Nevertheless, future research that identifies the extent to which rigid sequences of behaviors need to occur to optimize decision making would be helpful for the field of ABA. Such information would likely improve behavior analytic training programs and prove useful for clinical directors, ethics committee chairs, case supervisors (e.g., BCBAs), and direct staff (e.g., RBTs).

Ethical Decision Making as Problem Solving

Recent attention has been given to the common-sense problem-solving approach (Szabo, 2020 ), which we used to score models within the current analysis. This problem-solving approach may offer great utility and is observed across various fields (e.g., cognitive psychology; Szabo, 2020 ). Within behavior analysis, this problem-solving approach has increasingly been applied to teach complex skills (e.g., Suarez et al., 2021 ). Our review involves an interesting extension of this analysis to ethical decision making and indicates the steps of the models may also point to additional precurrent behaviors or mediating strategies that could prove to be important elements of the behavioral chain.

We found that 42% of the ethical decision-making models could be described as including problem solving (e.g., Kieta et al., 2019 ). Framing ethical decision making as involving problem solving is advantageous because of the existing empirical literature on how to teach problem-solving skills and recognition of the importance of verbal stimuli and verbal behavior (e.g., Kieta et al., 2019 ). However, this also might have the drawbacks of adding complexity and less empirical support specific from the behavior analytic literature on describing, predicting, and controlling problem solving. This suggests that there are either components of ethical decision making outside of problem solving or that there are components of problem solving that might be missing from current decision-making models. Future research using concept analysis (e.g., Layng, 2019 ) combined with laboratory experiments may help clarify which of the above scenarios is more likely (or if there’s an unknown third!).

We also found that 58% of the ethical decision-making models could not be described as including problem solving. We are unaware of any research that has directly compared the effectiveness of ethical decision-making models with and without problem-solving components. Nevertheless, a practically useful set of empirical questions might identify the conditions under which ethical decision-making models with and without problem-solving components are more helpful for practitioners. Behavior analytic training programs subsequently could teach fluency toward ethical decision making via problem solving under some conditions and ethical decision making without problem solving under other conditions.

Limitations and Final Thoughts

The current study included several limitations. One limitation centers on the procedures used for rater agreement. Article ratings were completed in a group format and by consensus among the authors. It is possible that reactivity to other members of the group affected overall ratings (e.g., Asch, 1956 ). It is also possible that the search terms we used failed to capture relevant ethical decision-making models or that additional search terms would have led to different results. Further, we also restricted our inclusion criteria to specific human service fields allied to ABA. Thus, it is possible that a more comprehensive search of ethical decision-making models across more varied professions would lead to different outcomes. Finally, we did not include ethical decision-making models published in books mainly due to access issues and a typical lack of peer-review for books. Regardless, these limitations may provide greater support for our primary findings that the existing variability in ethical decision-making steps and overall lack of empirical support suggest this area is ripe for future research.

The development of an ethical decision-making skill set is vital for behavior analysts and for other human service providers. Dilemmas present as complex circumstances, with specific and unique contextual variations that require nuanced assessment. The process of training behavior analysts to meet these demands is daunting. There is a need to identify strategies for navigating dilemmas and for making ethical decisions. Allied professions and behavior analysis have identified steps in this process. Many of these models use problem-solving techniques. The BACB’s Decision Making Model overlaps substantially with existing literature across professions, and uses a problem-solving, sequential approach. These results are especially interesting as we had completed identifying the decision-making steps scored in the current article before the BACB model was released. It seems that the field has built a model that is entirely aligned with and built upon this interprofessional database. It will be important to empirically evaluate this new model. It will also be important to explore other decision-making approaches, to compare models, and to (potentially) match models to the contextual variables embedded in the presenting dilemma. The field of behavior analysis has, at times, been insular, and this has been a source of internal and external criticism. However, this review of the literature supports the substantial overlap across fields and provides concrete hope for mutually beneficial interdisciplinary collaboration. So, although decision-making models can be field-specific, ethical dilemmas appear to be universal and so are the intended outcomes. As behavior analysis tackles this complex skill set, it is important to learn from colleagues in allied disciplines, examine the component skills likely to be crucial to the development of this behavioral repertoire, and develop procedures for measuring, teaching, and training clinicians to methodically approach ethical dilemmas.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Declarations

The authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose and have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

No human participants were involved in this research, and therefore informed consent was not obtained.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

All articles with an asterisk indicate the final articles included in the review

• Asch SE. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied. 1956; 70 (9):1–70. doi: 10.1037/h0093718. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2013). Ethics for behavior analysts  (2nd expanded ed).
• Bailey J, Burch M. Ethics for behavior analysts . 3. Routledge; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bailey J, Burch M. Ethics for behavior analysts . 4. Routledge; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baum WM. On Human Nature . Academic Press; 2017. Behavior analysis, Darwinian evolutionary processes, and the diversity of human behavior; pp. 397–415. [ Google Scholar ]
• Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2004, 2010). Guidelines for responsible conduct for behavior analysts. https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2010-Disciplinary-Standards_.pdf
• Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2014). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts . https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/BACB-Compliance-Code-10-8-15watermark.pdf
• Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts . https://bacb.com/wp-content/ethics-code-for-behavior-analysts/
• Boccio DE. Does use of a decision-making model improve the quality of school psychologists’ ethical decisions? Ethics & Behavior. 2021; 31 (2):119–135. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2020.1715802. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boivin, N., Ruane, J., Quigley, S. P., Harper, J., & Weiss, M. J. (2021). Interdisciplinary collaboration training: An example of a preservice training series. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–14 . 10.1007/s40617-021-00561-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Bolmsjö IÅ, Edberg AK, Sandman L. Everyday ethical problems in dementia care: A teleological model. Nursing Ethics. 2006; 13 (4):340–359. doi: 10.1191/0969733006ne890oa. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolmsjö IÅ, Sandman L, Andersson E. Everyday ethics in the care of elderly people. Nursing Ethics. 2006; 13 (3):249–263. doi: 10.1191/0969733006ne875oa. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bommer M, Gratto C, Gravander J, Tuttle M. A behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics. 1987; 6 (4):265–280. doi: 10.1007/BF00382936. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowman KS, Suarez VD, Weiss MJ. Standards for interprofessional collaboration in the treatment of individuals with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2021; 14 :1191–1208. doi: 10.1007/s40617-021-00560-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brodhead MT. Maintaining professional relationships in an interdisciplinary setting: Strategies for navigating nonbehavioral treatment recommendations for individuals with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2015; 8 (1):70–78. doi: 10.1007/s40617-015-0042-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brodhead MT, Quigley SP, Wilczynski SM. A call for discussion about scope of competence in behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2018; 11 (4):424–435. doi: 10.1007/s40617-018-00303-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Candee D, Puka B. An analytic approach to resolving problems in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics. 1984; 10 (2):61–70. doi: 10.1136/jme.10.2.61. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassells JM, Gaul AL. An ethical assessment framework for nursing practice. Maryland Nurse. 1998; 17 (1):9–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Cassells, J. M., Jenkins, J., Lea, D. H., Calzone, K., & Johnson, E. (2003). An ethical assessment framework for addressing global genetic issues in clinical practice. Oncology Nursing Forum, 30 (3): 383–392. Oncology Nursing Society. [ PubMed ]
• Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5 th ed.). Sloan. ISBN 10: 1-59739-023-7
• Christensen PJ. An ethical framework for nursing service administration. Advances in Nursing Science. 1988; 10 (3):46–55. doi: 10.1097/00012272-198804000-00006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cottone RR. A social constructivism model of ethical decision making in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2001; 79 (1):39–45. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01941.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cottone RR. Displacing the psychology of the individual in ethical decision-making: The social constructivism model. Canadian Journal of Counselling & Psychotherapy. 2004; 38 (1):5–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cottone RR, Claus RE. Ethical decision-making models: A Review of the literature. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2000; 78 (3):275–283. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01908.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cox DJ. Ethical considerations in interdisciplinary treatments. In: Rieske RD, editor. Handbook of interdisciplinary treatments for autism spectrum disorder . Springer; 2019. pp. 49–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cox DJ. Descriptive and normative ethical behavior appear to be functionally distinct. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2021; 54 (1):168–191. doi: 10.1002/jaba.761. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeWolf MS. Ethical decision-making. Seminars in Oncology Nursing. 1989; 5 (2):77–81. doi: 10.1016/0749-2081(89)90063-6. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• du Preez E, Goedeke S. Second order ethical decision-making in counselling psychology: Theory, practice and process. New Zealand Journal of Psychology. 2013; 42 (3):44–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duff M, Passmore J. Ethics in coaching: An ethical decision making framework for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review. 2010; 5 (2):140–151. doi: 10.53841/bpsicpr.2010.5.2.140. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eberlein L. Introducing ethics to beginning psychologists: A problem-solving approach. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice. 1987; 18 (4):353–359. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.18.4.353. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehrich LC, Kimber M, Millwater J, Cranston N. Ethical dilemmas: A model to understand teacher practice. Teachers & Teaching: Theory & Practice. 2011; 17 (2):173–185. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2011.539794. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fan LC. Decision-making models for handling ethical dilemmas. Proceedings of the ICE-Municipal Engineer. 2003; 156 :229–234. doi: 10.1680/muen.2003.156.4.229. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferrell BR, Eberts MT, McCaffery M, Grant M. Clinical decision making and pain. Cancer Nursing. 1991; 14 (6):289–297. doi: 10.1097/00002820-199112000-00002. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Forester-Miller, H., & Davis, T. E. (1996). A practitioner's guide to ethical decision making . American Counseling Association. https://www.counseling.org/docs/ethics/practitioners_guide.pdf?sfvrsn=2
• Garfat T, Ricks F. Self-driven ethical decision-making: A model for child and youth care workers. Child & Youth Care Forum. 1995; 24 (6):393–404. doi: 10.1007/BF02128530. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gasiewski K, Weiss MJ, Leaf JB, Labowitz J. Collaboration between behavior analysts and occupational therapists in autism service provision: Bridging the gap. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2021; 14 (4):1209–1222. doi: 10.1007/s40617-021-00619-y. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Green J, Walker K. A contingency model for ethical decision-making by educational leaders. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation. 2009; 4 (4):1–10. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greipp ME. Ethical decision making and mandatory reporting in cases of suspected child abuse. Journal of Pediatric Health Care. 1997; 11 (6):258–265. doi: 10.1016/S0891-5245(97)90081-X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grundstein-Amado R. An integrative model of clinical-ethical decision making. Theoretical Medicine. 1991; 12 (2):157–170. doi: 10.1007/BF00489796. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grundstein-Amado R. Ethical decision-making processes used by healthcare providers. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1993; 18 (11):1701–1709. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18111701.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haddad AM. Ethical considerations in home care of the oncology patient. Seminars in Oncology Nursing. 1996; 12 (3):226–230. doi: 10.1016/S0749-2081(96)80040-4. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harasym PH, Tsai TC, Munshi FM. Is problem-based learning an ideal format for developing ethical decision skills? Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences. 2013; 29 (10):523–529. doi: 10.1016/j.kjms.2013.05.005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes JR. Consultation-liaison psychiatry and clinical ethics: A model for consultation and teaching. General Hospital Psychiatry. 1986; 8 (6):415–418. doi: 10.1016/0163-8343(86)90022-8. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heyler SG, Armenakis AA, Walker AG, Collier DY. A qualitative study investigating the ethical decision making process: A proposed model. The Leadership Quarterly. 2016; 27 (5):788–801. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill M, Glaser K, Harden J. A feminist model for ethical decision making. Women & Therapy. 1998; 21 (3):101–121. doi: 10.1300/J015v21n03_10. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hough MC. Learning, decisions and transformation in critical care nursing practice. Nursing Ethics. 2008; 15 (3):322–331. doi: 10.1177/0969733007088430. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes KK, Dvorak EM. The use of decision analysis to examine ethical decision making by critical care nurses. Heart & Lung. 1997; 26 (3):238–251. doi: 10.1016/S0147-9563(97)90061-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hundert EM. A model for ethical problem solving in medicine, with practical applications. Focus. 2003; 144 (4):839–435. doi: 10.1176/foc.1.4.427. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnsen DC, Flick K, Butali A, Cunningham-Ford MA, Holloway JA, Mahrous A, Marchini L, Clancy JM. Two critical thinking models—Probing questions and conceptualization—Adding 4 skill sets to the teacher's armamentarium. Journal of Dental Education. 2020; 84 (7):733–741. doi: 10.1002/jdd.12177. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson RL, Liu J, Burgess Y. A model for making decisions about ethical dilemmas in student assessment. Journal of Moral Education. 2017; 46 (2):212–229. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2017.1313725. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones TM. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review. 1991; 16 (2):366–395. doi: 10.5465/amr.1991.4278958. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaldjian LC, Weir RF, Duffy TP. A clinician’s approach to clinical ethical reasoning. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2005; 20 (3):306–311. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40204.x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kanoti GA. Ethics and medical-ethical decisions. Critical Care Clinics. 1986; 2 (1):3–12. doi: 10.1016/S0749-0704(18)30620-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kieta AR, Cihon TM, Abdel-Jalil A. Problem solving from a behavioral perspective: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2019; 28 (2):275–300. doi: 10.1007/s10864-018-9296-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirsch NR. Ethical decision making: Application of a problem-solving model. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation. 2009; 25 (4):282–291. doi: 10.1097/TGR.0b013e3181bdd6d8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LaFrance DL, Weiss MJ, Kazemi E, Gerenser J, Dobres J. Multidisciplinary teaming: Enhancing collaboration through increased understanding. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12 (3):709–726. doi: 10.1007/s40617-019-00331-y. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laletas S. Ethical decision making for professional school counsellors: Use of practice-based models in secondary school settings. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling. 2018; 47 (3):283–291. doi: 10.1080/03069885.2018.1474341. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Layng TJ. Tutorial: Understanding concepts: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Perspectives on Behavior Science. 2019; 42 (2):345–363. doi: 10.1007/s40614-018-00188-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liang B, Chung A, Diamonti AJ, Douyon CM, Gordon JR, Joyner ED, Meerkins TM, Rene MK, Seinkiewicz SA, Weber AE, Wilson ES. Ethical social justice: Do the ends justify the means? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2017; 27 (4):298–311. doi: 10.1002/casp.2323. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macpherson I, Roqué MV, Segarra I. Moral dilemmas involving anthropological and ethical dimensions in healthcare curriculum. Nursing Ethics. 2020; 27 (5):1238–1249. doi: 10.1177/0969733020914382. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marya VG, Suarez VD, Cox DJ. Ethical decision-making and evidenced-based practices. In: Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Roane HS, editors. Handbook of applied behavior analysis interventions for autism . Springer; 2022. pp. 47–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newhouse-Oisten MK, Peck KM, Conway AA, Frieder JE. Ethical considerations for interdisciplinary collaboration with prescribing professionals. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2017; 10 (2):145–153. doi: 10.1007/s40617-017-0184-x. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marco CA, Lu DW, Stettner E, Sokolove PE, Ufberg JW, Noeller TP. Ethics curriculum for emergency medicine graduate medical education. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2011; 40 (5):550–556. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.076. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller KL, Re Cruz A, Ala'i-Rosales S. Inherent tensions and possibilities: Behavior analysis and cultural responsiveness. Behavior & Social Issues. 2019; 28 (1):16–36. doi: 10.1007/s42822-019-00010-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviewsand meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy. 2009; 89 (9):873–880. doi: 10.1093/ptj/89.9.873. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy MA, Murphy J. Making ethical decisions—Systematically. Nursing. 1976; 6 (5):CG13–CG14. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.076. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nekhlyudov L, Braddock CH., III An approach to enhance communication about screening mammography in primary care. Journal of Women's Health. 2009; 18 (9):1403–1412. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2008.1184. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park EJ. An integrated ethical decision-making model for nurses. Nursing Ethics. 2012; 19 (1):139–159. doi: 10.1177/0969733011413491. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park EJ. The development and implications of a case-based computer program to train ethical decision-making. Nursing Ethics. 2013; 20 (8):943–956. doi: 10.1177/0969733013484489. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Park EJ, Park M. Effectiveness of a case-based computer program on students’ ethical decision making. Journal of Nursing Education. 2015; 54 (11):633–640. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20151016-04. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips S. Ethical decision-making when caring for the noncompliant patient. Journal of Infusion Nursing. 2006; 29 (5):266–271. doi: 10.1097/00129804-200609000-00005. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponterotto JG, Reynolds JD. Ethical and legal considerations in psychobiography. American Psychologist. 2017; 72 (5):446–458. doi: 10.1037/amp0000047. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pritchett, M., Ala’i-Rosales, S., Cruz, A. R., & Cihon, T. M. (2021). Social justice is the spirit and aim of an applied science of human behavior: Moving from colonial to participatory research practices. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–19 . 10.1007/s40617-021-00591-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Rosenberg NE, Schwartz IS. Guidance or compliance: What makes an ethical behavior analyst? Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12 (2):473–482. doi: 10.1007/s40617-018-00287-5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaffer MA, Cameron ME, Tatley EB. The value, be, do ethical decision-making model: Balancing students’ needs in school nursing. Journal of School Nursing. 2000; 16 (5):44–49. doi: 10.1177/105984050001600507. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider GW, Snell L. CARE: An approach for teaching ethics in medicine. Social Science & Medicine. 2000; 51 (10):1563–1567. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00054-X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shahidullah JD, Hostutler CA, Forman SG. Ethical considerations in medication-related roles for pediatric primary care psychologists. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology. 2019; 7 (4):405. doi: 10.1037/cpp0000285. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegler M. Decision-making strategy for clinical-ethical problems in medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1982; 142 (12):2178–2179. doi: 10.1001/archinte.1982.00340250144021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sileo FJ, Kopala M. An A-B-C-D-E worksheet for promoting beneficence when considering ethical issues. Counseling & Values. 1993; 37 (2):89–95. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-007X.1993.tb00800.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slocum SK, Tiger JH. An assessment of the efficiency of and child preference for forward and backward chaining. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2011; 44 (4):793–805. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-793. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soskolne CL. Ethical decision-making in epidemiology: The case study approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1991; 44 (1):125–130. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90187-E. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suarez, V. D., Najdowski, A. C., Tarbox, J., Moon, E., St Clair, M., & Farag, P. (2021). Teaching individuals with autism problem-solving skills for resolving social conflicts. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–14 . 10.1007/s40617-021-00643-y [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Sullivan PA, Brown T. Common-sense ethics in administrative decision making. Part II. Proactive steps. Journal of Nursing Administration. 1991; 21 (11):57–61. doi: 10.1097/00005110-199111000-00013. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sush, D., & Najdowski, A. C. (2019). A workbook of ethical case scenarios in applied behavior analysis . Academic Press.
• Szabo, T. (2020). Problem solving. In M. Fryling, R. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox, & L. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language and cognition: Core concepts and principles for practitioners. Context Press.
• Taylor BA, LeBlanc LA, Nosik MR. Compassionate care in behavior analytic treatment: Can outcomes be enhanced by attending to relationships with caregivers? Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12 (3):654–666. doi: 10.1007/s40617-018-00289-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Toren O, Wagner N. Applying an ethical decision-making tool to a nurse management dilemma. Nursing Ethics. 2010; 17 (3):393–402. doi: 10.1177/0969733009355106. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsai TC, Harasym PH. A medical ethical reasoning model and its contributions to medical education. Medical Education. 2010; 44 (9):864–873. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03722.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tunzi M, Ventres W. Family medicine ethics: An integrative approach. Family Medicine. 2018; 50 (8):583–588. doi: 10.22454/FamMed.2018.821666. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tymchuk AJ. Guidelines for ethical decision making. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne. 1986; 27 (1):36. doi: 10.1037/h0079866. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright PI. Cultural humility in the practice of applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12 :805–809. doi: 10.1007/s40617-019-00343-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeni TA, Buckley MR, Mumford MD, Griffith JA. Making “sense” of ethical decision making. The Leadership Quarterly. 2016; 27 (6):838–855. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

Focus on Ethics: Ethical Finesse—A Strategy To Resolve Ethical Issues

You are here

Through the years we have found that the Focus on Ethics column is an excellent tool for identifying and addressing difficult issues childhood educators are facing in their work with young children and their families. This March 2017 column is particularly timely because it presents for consideration a scenario we have heard time and again. It describes the difficult situation facing a teacher who must balance what she believes is best for a child with a father’s insistence that his son not be allowed to dress up in clothes or play with accessories that are typically associated with girls (purses, jewelry, etc.). It is an issue you may be facing in your own classroom.

New Ethical Issue: “Don’t let my son dress up as a girl!”

This Focus on Ethics column asks you to consider how to respond to Mr. Jackson—the father of 4-year-old Victor—who insists that his son not be permitted to play with clothes or accessories typically associated with girls and women. This issue involves a conflict between a request made by a family member and what the teacher believes is good practice.

The situation

Victor enjoys playing dress-up in the dramatic play area. He is a quiet and reserved child who usually follows other children’s lead. But when engaging in dramatic play, Victor’s leadership shines as he collaboratively creates scenarios with his classmates. He is particularly adept at playing characters such as firemen, princesses, bumblebees, and moms. One day Mr. Jackson, Victor’s father, who rarely comes to the center, arrives to pick up Victor and sees that he is in a pink princess costume. He curtly tells Marge, Victor’s teacher, that he does not want her to allow Victor to play in the dress-up area in the future. He then orders Victor to change, and they quickly leave. Marge is taken aback by Mr. Jackson’s behavior.

The center is devoted to fostering relationships with all of its families, and Marge has recently made great strides in attracting Victor’s family to potlucks and school workdays. The staff collectively believe that in addition to building children’s imaginations, dramatic play enhances their social and communication skills and is an integral part of the learning process that gives children opportunities to develop abstract
thinking, literacy, math, and social studies skills.

What should Marge, an ethical teacher, do?

As we have written in NAEYC’s books on professional ethics and in this column, when faced with a challenging situation in the workplace, an early childhood educator needs to determine whether it is an ethical issue. Our experience tells us that many are unsure about how to proceed. The first question you should ask yourself is, “Does this issue concern right and wrong, rights and responsibilities, human welfare, or individuals’ best interests?” If you answer no to all of these questions, it is not an ethical issue and you will need to handle it as you would handle any workplace concern. If you answer yes to any of the questions, you are facing an ethical issue. How you respond will depend on whether the issue is an  ethical responsibility  or an  ethical dilemma .

Ethical responsibility or ethical dilemma?

Ethical responsibilities are mandates that are clearly spelled out in the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct: they describe what early childhood educators must and must not do. It is important to remember PBS Kids (supports all STEM learning) that when you encounter a situation that involves an ethical responsibility, you must follow the Code’s clear directions. Then you can be confident that when you have done the right thing, the Code is there to back you up. You can rely on it to help you explain why you made a difficult or unpopular decision.

When you determine that a situation involves ethics and that it is not a clear-cut responsibility, it is likely to be an ethical dilemma. A dilemma is a situation in which the legitimate needs and interests of two or more individuals or groups are in conflict with one another. Resolving a dilemma forces you to choose between two or more morally justifiable courses of action, each of which has some benefits but also some costs.

Using ethical finesse

While it is true that ethical dilemmas often force you to make difficult decisions, sometimes they can be resolved by using  ethical finesse . This strategy is particularly appealing because it enables you to resolve an issue in a way that is acceptable to all the parties involved. It lets you avoid having to pick a winner and a loser.

Finessing an ethical dilemma requires creative problem solving and good-faith negotiation, and it requires that, in an effort to find a course of action that is satisfactory to all, everyone involved be willing to compromise. We have found that many of the ethical dilemmas faced by early childhood educators can be finessed, so we recommend that this be the first approach you try. But it is important to remember that finesse will not resolve every dilemma you will face. The philosopher Kenneth Kipnis, who played an important role in the development of the NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct, offers this important reminder:

Ethical finesse lets us avoid having to give up something precious. There is nothing wrong with it, indeed it is helpful to have a checklist of maneuvers for slipping out of a dilemma. But professional ethics does not consist entirely of finesse. Sometimes hard choices must be made. (Kipnis 1987, 29)

While ethical finesse is a useful strategy that can help resolve many dilemmas, remember that you must still be prepared to make a difficult decision when it is required. The process described below will help you address the dilemmas you encounter in your work with children and families fairly, and in a way that reflects your knowledge and commitment to the field’s Code of Ethical Conduct.

We recommend you use the following process to help you reach a well-reasoned response that systematically applies the Code.

Part 1—Determine the nature of the problem

1. Is it an ethical issue?

2. If it is an ethical issue, does it involve ethical responsibilities, or is it an ethical dilemma? (If it is an ethical responsibility, what does the Code mandate that Marge do?) If it is an ethical dilemma, Marge can seek a resolution using the steps that follow.

Part 2—If it is a dilemma, analyze it using this process

1. Identify Marge’s conflicting responsibilities.

2. Brainstorm possible resolutions.

3. Consider ethical finesse (finding a way to meet everyone’s needs without having to make a difficult decision).

4. Look for guidance in the NAEYC Code. Carefully review its Core Values, Ideals, and Principles—particularly those that apply to responsibilities to children and families.

5. Based on your review of the Code, and using your best professional judgment, describe what you think is the most ethically defensible course of action.

To read our discussion of this situation, please see the Focus on Ethics column in the September 2017 issue of Young Children .

Kipnis, K. 1987. “How to Discuss Professional Ethics.”  Young Children  42 (4): 26–30.

Respond to this situation

Focus on Ethics is designed to involve the readers of Young Children . Email your proposed resolution to the situation to coeditors Stephanie Feeney ( [email protected] ) and Nancy Freeman ( [email protected] ). Be sure to use the subject line “NAEYC Ethics.”

Responses should be no more than 500 words and must be received by June 30, 2017. The analysis will appear in the September 2017 issue of Young Children .

. . . . or send us an ethical issue you have experienced

We hope you will share with us an ethical issue you have encountered in your workplace that you would like to be considered for presentation in this column. Send a short (400–500 word) description of the situation to coeditors. Be sure to use the subject line “NAEYC Ethics.”

Photgraph courtsey of iStock

Stephanie Feeney, PhD, is professor emerita of education at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She is coauthor of NAEYC’s “Code of Ethical Conduct” and NAEYC’s books about professional ethics. She participated in the development of supplements to the code for adult educators and program administrators and has written extensively about ethics in early care and education. She is the author of numerous articles and books, including Professionalism in Early Childhood Education: Doing Our best for Young Children  and coauthor of Who Am I in the Lives of Children ?   [email protected]

Nancy K. Freeman, PhD, is professor emerita of education at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, where she was a member of the early childhood faculty. She has served as president of NAECTE and was a member of its board for many years. Nancy has written extensively on professional ethics since the 1990s, and has been involved in the Code’s revisions and in the development of its Supplements for Program Administrators and Adult Educators.   [email protected]

Vol. 72, No. 1

Print this article

Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis

• Discussion and Review Paper
• Published: 29 November 2022
• Volume 16 , pages 657–671, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Victoria D. Suarez   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4940-0780 1 ,
• Videsha Marya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5836-5470 1 , 2 ,
• Mary Jane Weiss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2836-3861 1 &
• David Cox   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4376-2104 1 , 3  

1606 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Human service practitioners from varying fields make ethical decisions daily. At some point during their careers, many behavior analysts may face ethical decisions outside the range of their previous education, training, and professional experiences. To help practitioners make better decisions, researchers have published ethical decision-making models; however, it is unknown the extent to which published models recommend similar behaviors. Thus, we systematically reviewed and analyzed ethical decision-making models from published peer-reviewed articles in behavior analysis and related allied health professions. We identified 55 ethical decision-making models across 60 peer-reviewed articles, seven primary professions (e.g., medicine, psychology), and 22 subfields (e.g., dentistry, family medicine). Through consensus-based analysis, we identified nine behaviors commonly recommended across the set of reviewed ethical decision-making models with almost all ( n = 52) models arranging the recommended behaviors sequentially and less than half ( n = 23) including a problem-solving approach. All nine ethical decision-making steps clustered around the ethical decision-making steps in the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts published by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board ( 2020 ) suggesting broad professional consensus for the behaviors likely involved in ethical decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Assessing the Reliability of and Preference for an Ethical Decision Model

Promoting Ethical and Evidence-Based Practice through a Panel Review Process: A Case Study in Implementation Research

Ethical behavior analysis: evidence-based practice as a framework for ethical decision making, explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

All articles with an asterisk indicate the final articles included in the review

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General & Applied, 70 (9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Article   Google Scholar  

Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2013). Ethics for behavior analysts  (2nd expanded ed).

Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2016). Ethics for behavior analysts (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315669212

Book   Google Scholar  

Bailey, J., & Burch, M. (2022). Ethics for behavior analysts (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003198550

Baum, W. M. (2017). Behavior analysis, Darwinian evolutionary processes, and the diversity of human behavior. In On Human Nature (pp. 397–415). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420190-3.00024-7

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2004, 2010). Guidelines for responsible conduct for behavior analysts. https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2010-Disciplinary-Standards_.pdf

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2014). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts . https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/BACB-Compliance-Code-10-8-15watermark.pdf

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (BACB, 2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts . https://bacb.com/wp-content/ethics-code-for-behavior-analysts/

*Boccio, D. E. (2021). Does use of a decision-making model improve the quality of school psychologists’ ethical decisions? Ethics & Behavior, 31 (2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1715802

Boivin, N., Ruane, J., Quigley, S. P., Harper, J., & Weiss, M. J. (2021). Interdisciplinary collaboration training: An example of a preservice training series. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–14 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00561-z

*Bolmsjö, I. Å., Edberg, A. K., & Sandman, L. (2006a). Everyday ethical problems in dementia care: A teleological model. Nursing Ethics , 13 (4), 340–359. https://doi.org/10.1191/0969733006ne890oa

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

*Bolmsjö, I. Å., Sandman, L., & Andersson, E. (2006b). Everyday ethics in the care of elderly people. Nursing Ethics , 13 (3), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1191/0969733006ne875oa

*Bommer, M., Gratto, C., Gravander, J., & Tuttle, M. (1987). A behavioral model of ethical and unethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics , 6 (4), 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382936

Bowman, K. S., Suarez, V. D., & Weiss, M. J. (2021). Standards for interprofessional collaboration in the treatment of individuals with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14 , 1191–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00560-0

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Brodhead, M. T. (2015). Maintaining professional relationships in an interdisciplinary setting: Strategies for navigating nonbehavioral treatment recommendations for individuals with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8 (1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0042-7

Brodhead, M. T., Quigley, S. P., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2018). A call for discussion about scope of competence in behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11 (4), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00303-8

*Candee, D., & Puka, B. (1984). An analytic approach to resolving problems in medical ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics , 10 (2), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.10.2.61

*Cassells, J. M., & Gaul, A. L. (1998). An ethical assessment framework for nursing practice. Maryland Nurse , 17 (1) 9–21.

Google Scholar  

*Cassells, J. M., Jenkins, J., Lea, D. H., Calzone, K., & Johnson, E. (2003). An ethical assessment framework for addressing global genetic issues in clinical practice. Oncology Nursing Forum, 30 (3): 383–392. Oncology Nursing Society.

Catania, A. C. (2013). Learning (5 th ed.). Sloan. ISBN 10: 1-59739-023-7

*Christensen, P. J. (1988). An ethical framework for nursing service administration. Advances in Nursing Science, 10 (3), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198804000-00006

*Cottone, R. R. (2001). A social constructivism model of ethical decision making in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development , 79 (1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01941.x

*Cottone, R. R. (2004). Displacing the psychology of the individual in ethical decision-making: The social constructivism model. Canadian Journal of Counselling & Psychotherapy , 38 (1), 5–9. https://dev.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/rcc/article/view/58725/44214

*Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A Review of the literature. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78 (3), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01908.x

Cox, D. J. (2019). Ethical considerations in interdisciplinary treatments. In R. D. Rieske (Ed.), Handbook of interdisciplinary treatments for autism spectrum disorder (pp. 49–61). Springer.

Cox, D. J. (2021). Descriptive and normative ethical behavior appear to be functionally distinct. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54 (1), 168–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.761

*DeWolf, M. S. (1989, May). Ethical decision-making. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 5 (2), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-2081(89)90063-6

*du Preez, E., & Goedeke, S. (2013). Second order ethical decision-making in counselling psychology: Theory, practice and process. New Zealand Journal of Psychology , 42 (3), 44–49. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elizabeth-Du-Preez-2/publication/275960529_Second_order_ethical_decision_making_in_Counselling_Psychology/links/569d4f9408ae16fdf0796d75/Second-order-ethical-decision-making-in-Counselling-Psychology.pdf

*Duff, M., & Passmore, J. (2010). Ethics in coaching: An ethical decision making framework for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review , 5 (2), 140–151. http://www.mysgw.co.uk/Images/368/Duff/20/26/20Passmore/20 (2010)/20An/20ethical/20decision/20making/20framework/20for/20coaching/20psychologists.pdf

*Eberlein, L. (1987). Introducing ethics to beginning psychologists: A problem-solving approach. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice , 18 (4), 353–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.4.353

*Ehrich, L. C., Kimber, M., Millwater, J., & Cranston, N. (2011). Ethical dilemmas: A model to understand teacher practice. Teachers & Teaching: Theory & Practice , 17 (2), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2011.539794

*Fan, L. C. (2003). Decision-making models for handling ethical dilemmas. Proceedings of the ICE-Municipal Engineer, 156 , 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.2003.156.4.229

*Ferrell, B. R., Eberts, M. T., McCaffery, M., & Grant, M. (1991). Clinical decision making and pain. Cancer Nursing, 14 (6), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002820-199112000-00002

*Forester-Miller, H., & Davis, T. E. (1996). A practitioner's guide to ethical decision making . American Counseling Association. https://www.counseling.org/docs/ethics/practitioners_guide.pdf?sfvrsn=2

*Garfat, T., & Ricks, F. (1995). Self-driven ethical decision-making: A model for child and youth care workers. Child & Youth Care Forum, 24 (6), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02128530

Gasiewski, K., Weiss, M. J., Leaf, J. B., & Labowitz, J. (2021). Collaboration between behavior analysts and occupational therapists in autism service provision: Bridging the gap. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14 (4), 1209–1222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00619-y

*Green, J., & Walker, K. (2009). A contingency model for ethical decision-making by educational leaders. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 4 (4), 1–10. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1071389.pdf

*Greipp, M. E. (1997). Ethical decision making and mandatory reporting in cases of suspected child abuse. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 11 (6), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-5245(97)90081-X

*Grundstein-Amado, R. (1991). An integrative model of clinical-ethical decision making. Theoretical Medicine, 12 (2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489796

*Grundstein-Amado, R. (1993). Ethical decision-making processes used by healthcare providers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18 (11), 1701–1709. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18111701.x

*Haddad, A. M. (1996). Ethical considerations in home care of the oncology patient. Seminars in Oncology Nursing , 12 (3), 226–230). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-2081(96)80040-4

*Harasym, P. H., Tsai, T. C., & Munshi, F. M. (2013). Is problem-based learning an ideal format for developing ethical decision skills? Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 29 (10), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2013.05.005

*Hayes, J. R. (1986). Consultation-liaison psychiatry and clinical ethics: A model for consultation and teaching. General Hospital Psychiatry, 8 (6), 415–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-8343(86)90022-8

*Heyler, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., Walker, A. G., & Collier, D. Y. (2016). A qualitative study investigating the ethical decision making process: A proposed model. The Leadership Quarterly, 27 (5), 788–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.003

*Hill, M., Glaser, K., & Harden, J. (1998). A feminist model for ethical decision making. Women & Therapy , 21 (3), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v21n03_10

*Hough, M. C. (2008). Learning, decisions and transformation in critical care nursing practice. Nursing Ethics, 15 (3), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733007088430

*Hughes, K. K., & Dvorak, E. M. (1997). The use of decision analysis to examine ethical decision making by critical care nurses. Heart & Lung, 26 (3), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-9563(97)90061-3

*Hundert, E. M. (2003). A model for ethical problem solving in medicine, with practical applications. Focus, 144 (4), 839–435. https://doi.org/10.1176/foc.1.4.427

*Johnsen, D. C., Flick, K., Butali, A., Cunningham-Ford, M. A., Holloway, J. A., Mahrous, A., Marchini, L., & Clancy, J. M. (2020). Two critical thinking models—Probing questions and conceptualization—Adding 4 skill sets to the teacher's armamentarium. Journal of Dental Education, 84 (7), 733–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12177

*Johnson, R. L., Liu, J., & Burgess, Y. (2017). A model for making decisions about ethical dilemmas in student assessment. Journal of Moral Education, 46 (2), 212–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1313725

*Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16 (2), 366–395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4278958

*Kaldjian, L. C., Weir, R. F., & Duffy, T. P. (2005). A clinician’s approach to clinical ethical reasoning. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20 (3), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40204.x

*Kanoti, G. A. (1986). Ethics and medical-ethical decisions. Critical Care Clinics, 2 (1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-0704(18)30620-1

Kieta, A. R., Cihon, T. M., & Abdel-Jalil, A. (2019). Problem solving from a behavioral perspective: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28 (2), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9296-9

*Kirsch, N. R. (2009). Ethical decision making: Application of a problem-solving model. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 25 (4), 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1097/TGR.0b013e3181bdd6d8

LaFrance, D. L., Weiss, M. J., Kazemi, E., Gerenser, J., & Dobres, J. (2019). Multidisciplinary teaming: Enhancing collaboration through increased understanding. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 (3), 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00331-y

*Laletas, S. (2018). Ethical decision making for professional school counsellors: Use of practice-based models in secondary school settings. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling.47 (3), 283–291. https://doi-org.lib.pepperdine.edu/10.1080/03069885.2018.1474341

Layng, T. J. (2019). Tutorial: Understanding concepts: Implications for behavior analysts and educators. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42 (2), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00188-6

*Liang, B., Chung, A., Diamonti, A. J., Douyon, C. M., Gordon, J. R., Joyner, E. D., Meerkins, T. M., Rene, M. K., Seinkiewicz, S. A., Weber, A. E., & Wilson, E. S. (2017). Ethical social justice: Do the ends justify the means?. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27 (4), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2323

*Macpherson, I., Roqué, M. V., & Segarra, I. (2020). Moral dilemmas involving anthropological and ethical dimensions in healthcare curriculum. Nursing Ethics, 27 (5), 1238–1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733020914382

Marya, V. G., Suarez, V. D., & Cox, D. J. (2022). Ethical decision-making and evidenced-based practices. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis interventions for autism (pp. 47–70). Springer.

Newhouse-Oisten, M. K., Peck, K. M., Conway, A. A., & Frieder, J. E. (2017). Ethical considerations for interdisciplinary collaboration with prescribing professionals. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10 (2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-017-0184-x

*Marco, C. A., Lu, D. W., Stettner, E., Sokolove, P. E., Ufberg, J. W., & Noeller, T. P. (2011). Ethics curriculum for emergency medicine graduate medical education. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 40 (5), 550–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.076

Miller, K. L., Re Cruz, A., & Ala'i-Rosales, S. (2019). Inherent tensions and possibilities: Behavior analysis and cultural responsiveness. Behavior & Social Issues, 28 (1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-00010-1

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Prisma Group. (2009). Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviewsand meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy, 89 (9), 873–880. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873

*Murphy, M. A., & Murphy, J. (1976). Making ethical decisions—Systematically. Nursing, 6 (5), CG13–CG14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.05.076

*Nekhlyudov, L., & Braddock, C. H., III (2009). An approach to enhance communication about screening mammography in primary care. Journal of Women's Health, 18 (9), 1403–1412. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2008.1184

*Park, E. J. (2012). An integrated ethical decision-making model for nurses. Nursing Ethics, 19 (1), 139–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011413491

*Park, E. J. (2013). The development and implications of a case-based computer program to train ethical decision-making. Nursing Ethics, 20 (8), 943–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733013484489

*Park, E. J., & Park, M. (2015). Effectiveness of a case-based computer program on students’ ethical decision making. Journal of Nursing Education, 54 (11), 633–640. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20151016-04

*Phillips, S. (2006). Ethical decision-making when caring for the noncompliant patient. Journal of Infusion Nursing, 29 (5), 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1097/00129804-200609000-00005

*Ponterotto, J. G., & Reynolds, J. D. (2017). Ethical and legal considerations in psychobiography. American Psychologist , 72 (5), 446–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000047

Pritchett, M., Ala’i-Rosales, S., Cruz, A. R., & Cihon, T. M. (2021). Social justice is the spirit and aim of an applied science of human behavior: Moving from colonial to participatory research practices. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–19 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00591-7

Rosenberg, N. E., & Schwartz, I. S. (2019). Guidance or compliance: What makes an ethical behavior analyst? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 (2), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00287-5

*Schaffer, M. A., Cameron, M. E., & Tatley, E. B. (2000). The value, be, do ethical decision-making model: Balancing students’ needs in school nursing. Journal of School Nursing, 16 (5), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/105984050001600507

*Schneider, G. W., & Snell, L. (2000). CARE: An approach for teaching ethics in medicine. Social Science & Medicine, 51 (10), 1563–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00054-X

*Shahidullah, J. D., Hostutler, C. A., & Forman, S. G. (2019). Ethical considerations in medication-related roles for pediatric primary care psychologists. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 7 (4), 405. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpp0000285

*Siegler, M. (1982). Decision-making strategy for clinical-ethical problems in medicine. Archives of Internal Medicine, 142 (12), 2178–2179. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1982.00340250144021

*Sileo, F. J., & Kopala, M. (1993). An A-B-C-D-E worksheet for promoting beneficence when considering ethical issues. Counseling & Values, 37 (2), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1993.tb00800.x

Slocum, S. K., & Tiger, J. H. (2011). An assessment of the efficiency of and child preference for forward and backward chaining. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44 (4), 793–805. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-793

*Soskolne, C. L. (1991). Ethical decision-making in epidemiology: The case study approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 44 (1), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90187-E

Suarez, V. D., Najdowski, A. C., Tarbox, J., Moon, E., St Clair, M., & Farag, P. (2021). Teaching individuals with autism problem-solving skills for resolving social conflicts. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–14 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00643-y

*Sullivan, P. A., & Brown, T. (1991). Common-sense ethics in administrative decision making. Part II. Proactive steps. Journal of Nursing Administration, 21 (11), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-199111000-00013

Sush, D., & Najdowski, A. C. (2019). A workbook of ethical case scenarios in applied behavior analysis . Academic Press.

Szabo, T. (2020). Problem solving. In M. Fryling, R. Rehfeldt, J. Tarbox, & L. Hayes (Eds.), Applied behavior analysis of language and cognition: Core concepts and principles for practitioners. Context Press.

Taylor, B. A., LeBlanc, L. A., & Nosik, M. R. (2019). Compassionate care in behavior analytic treatment: Can outcomes be enhanced by attending to relationships with caregivers? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 (3), 654–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00289-3

*Toren, O., & Wagner, N. (2010). Applying an ethical decision-making tool to a nurse management dilemma. Nursing Ethics, 17 (3), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733009355106

*Tsai, T. C., & Harasym, P. H. (2010). A medical ethical reasoning model and its contributions to medical education. Medical Education, 44 (9), 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03722.x

*Tunzi, M., & Ventres, W. (2018). Family medicine ethics: An integrative approach. Family Medicine, 50 (8), 583–588. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2018.821666

*Tymchuk, A. J. (1986). Guidelines for ethical decision making. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 27 (1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079866

Wright, P. I. (2019). Cultural humility in the practice of applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12 , 805–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00343-8

*Zeni, T. A., Buckley, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Griffith, J. A. (2016). Making “sense” of ethical decision making. The Leadership Quarterly, 27 (6), 838–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.09.002

Download references

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Endicott College, Beverly, MA, USA

Victoria D. Suarez, Videsha Marya, Mary Jane Weiss & David Cox

Village Autism Center, Marietta, GA, USA

Videsha Marya

Behavioral Health Center of Excellence, Los Angeles, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria D. Suarez .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose and have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

Informed Consent

No human participants were involved in this research, and therefore informed consent was not obtained.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Suarez, V.D., Marya, V., Weiss, M.J. et al. Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis. Behav Analysis Practice 16 , 657–671 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00753-1

Download citation

Accepted : 07 October 2022

Published : 29 November 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00753-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• behavior analysis
• decision making
• ethical behavior
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Staff and Board
• Mission and Strategic Plan
• Berkshire Region
• Central Region
• Northeast Region
• Pioneer Valley Region
• Southeast Region
• Shared Interest Groups / Activities / Task Forces
• Donate to NASW-MA Chapter
• Membership Benefits
• Student Membership
• Join or Renew
• Action Center
• Legislative Agenda & Priority Bills
• Legislative Education & Advocacy Day (LEAD)
• Political Action for Candidate Election (PACE)
• Additional Advocacy Resources
• Employment Lawyers and Legal Resources
• Clinical Alerts
• Private Practice
• Supervision
• Workplace Safety
• Social Work Assistance Network (SWAN)
• Therapy Matcher
• FOCUS CE Mailer PDF Archive
• CE Webinars
• MLK Jr. Forum 2025 - coming soon
• Virtual School Social Work Conference 2024
• Virtual Symposium 2025 Call for Proposals
• Nursing Home & Elder Issues Conference 2024
• CE Events Calendar
• Online CE Institute
• CE Authorization by NASW-MA
• CE Frequently Asked Questions
• CE Advertisements
• Student Resource Center
• BIPOC Student Membership Program
• Graduation Cords
• Legislative Education and Advocacy Day (LEAD)
• Licensing Test Prep
• Career Services
• Professional Mentoring
• Loan Forgiveness
• Scholarships / Fellowships
• Student Ambassador Program
• Intern with NASW-MA
• Social Work Voice (member only)
• Email Newsletter (member only)
• Office Space
• CE Programs & Trainings
• Supervision, Groups, and Services
• Volunteer, Research, Other
• Place an Ad
• Awards 2023
• Awards Information and History

Is there a conflict of values, or rights, or professional responsibilities? (For example, there may be an issue of self-determination of an adolescent versus the well-being of the family.) 2. IDENTIFY the key values and principles involved. What meanings and limitations are typically attached to these competing values? (For example, rarely is confidential information held in absolute secrecy; however, typically decisions about access by third parties to sensitive content should be contracted with clients.) 3. RANK the values or ethical principles which - in your professional judgment - are most relevant to the issue or dilemma. What reasons can you provide for prioritizing one competing value/principle over another? (For example, your client’s right to choose a beneficial course of action could bring hardship or harm to others who would be affected.) 4. DEVELOP an action plan that is consistent with the ethical priorities that have been determined as central to the dilemma. Have you conferred with clients and colleagues, as appropriate, about the potential risks and consequences of alternative courses of action? Can you support or justify your action plan with the values/principles on which the plan is based? (For example, have you conferred with all the necessary persons regarding the ethical dimensions of planning for a battered wife’s quest to secure secret shelter and the implications for her teen-aged children?) 5. IMPLEMENT your plan, utilizing the most appropriate practice skills and competencies. How will you make use of core social work skills such as sensitive communication, skillful negotiation, and cultural competence? (For example, skillful colleague or supervisory communication and negotiation may enable an impaired colleague to see her/his impact on clients and to take appropriate action.) 6. REFLECT on the outcome of this ethical decision making process. How would you evaluate the consequences of this process for those involved: Client(s), professional(s), and agency (ies)? (Increasingly, professionals have begun to seek support, further professional training, and consultation through the development of Ethics review Committees or Ethics Consultation processes.) From discussion by Frederick Reamer & Sr. Ann Patrick Conrad in Professional Choices: Ethics at Work (1995), video available from NASW Press 1-800-227-3590 Format developed by Sr. Vincentia Joseph & Sr. Ann Patrick Conrad NASW Office of Ethics and Professional Review, 1-800-638-8799 750 1st Street, NE, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002     Ethics Resources: (formerly COI) Other Ethics Information: 8/27/2024 NEW Loan Forgiveness Program - Applications Open! 8/23/2024 Liability Insurance through NASW Assurance Services / Preferra 8/14/2024 Member Verification Postcards from National NASW 8/5/2024 NASW-PACE Endorses Vice President Kamala Harris for President 9/12/2024 Webinar - Childhood Trauma & Emotional Eating: A Trauma-Informed... (1.5 CEUs) 9/14/2024 Virtual License Test Prep Course 9/17/2024 Webinar - Unmasking Gambling Disorder: History, Risk Factors, and Pathways to Help... (1.5 CEUs) 9/25/2024 Webinar - Starting a Private Practice (1.5 CEUs) National Association of Social Workers - Massachusetts Chapter 6 Beacon Street, Suite 915, Boston MA 02108 tel: (617)227-9635 fax: (617)227-9877 email: chapter [email protected] Copyright 2020, NASW-MA. All rights reserved. 171 COMMENTS Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving Ethical Decision Making Models and 6 Steps of Ethical Decision Making Ethical Decision Making Models and 6 Steps of ... The PLUS Ethical Decision Making Model The PLUS Ethical Decision Making Model PDF Practioner's Guide to Ethical Decision Making If the problem is not resolved by reviewing the ACA Code of Ethics, then you have a complex ethical dilemma and need to proceed with further steps in the ethical decision-making process (Bradley & Hendricks, 2008; Forester-Miller & Davis, 1996). Levitt, Farry, and Mazzarella (2015) indicated that decision-making models can be time consuming. A Framework for Ethical Decision Making A Framework for Ethical Decision Making 7 Ways to Improve Your Ethical Decision-Making 7 Ways to Improve Your Ethical Decision-Making - HBS Online 6 Step Process For Ethical Decision Making: A Guide with Examples 6 Step Process For Ethical Decision Making: A Guide ... - Risely PDF Guides to Ethical Decision-Making SOC 160: Introduction to Social Work Learning Unit 2: Handout Guides to Ethical Decision-Making Model III: Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving - Frederic Reamer and Sr. Ann Patrick Conrad The following approach, discussed by Reamer and Conrad, was included in a video developed by the PDF Decision Making Models for Managing Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work Decision Making Models for Managing Ethical Dilemmas in Social Work Practice 1. Elaine Congress ETHIC Model (Congress, E.P. (2000). What social workers should know about ethics: Understanding and resolving practice dilemmas. Advances in Social Work, Vol.1., No. 1. Retrieved from The Elusiveness of Closure Text Box 5.1: A Model for Ethical Problem Solving in Clinical Medicine [Step 1] Identify the ethical problem: Consider the problem within its context and attempt to distinguish between ethical problems and other medical, social, cultural, linguistic and legal issues. Explore the meaning of value-laden terms, e.g. futility, quality of life. [Step 2] Thinking Ethically Thinking Ethically - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics PDF A Method for Ethical Problem Solving Brian H. Childs, Ph.D Robert Veatch and his colleagues have a five-step model for outlining the process that will be described in this brief introduction: 1. Respond to the sense something is wrong….acknowledge the itch. 2. Begin to gather information about the case in order to develop an assessment of the itch. 3. Identify the ethical and moral problem (ethics ... PDF Ethical Decision Making Framework Frederic Reamer (2012) Ethical Decision Making Framework - Frederic Reamer (2012) 1. Identify the ethical issues, including the social work values and ethics that conflict. 2. Identify the individuals, groups, and organizations that are likely to be affected by the ethical decision. 3. Tentatively identify all possible courses of action and the participants involved in Thinking Ethically: A Framework for Moral Decision Making History and description of the 5 ethical models: Philosophers have developed five different approaches to values to deal with moral issues. The Utilitarian Approach. Utilitarianism was conceived in the 19th century by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill to help legislators determine which laws were morally best. Confronting Ethical and Moral Dilemmas: Don't Go It Alone According to a 2021 report from the Ethics and Compliance Initiative, 63% of middle managers were pressured by bosses to violate their firm's ethical code of conduct in 2020. Over half of middle ... The RIGHT Decision Method: An approach for solving ethical dilemmas The RIGHT Decision Method: An approach for solving ethical ... Promoting Ethical Discussions and Decision Making in a Human Service The ethics submission form was specifically designed to follow the problem-solving and decision-making steps outlined in the training materials. For example, the form prompts team members to (a) describe their concern (i.e., detect the problem), (b) consider which BACB Code item is relevant to their scenario (i.e., define the problem), (c ... Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across ... Focus on Ethics: Ethical Finesse—A Strategy To Resolve ... If it is an ethical dilemma, Marge can seek a resolution using the steps that follow. Part 2—If it is a dilemma, analyze it using this process. 1. Identify Marge's conflicting responsibilities. 2. Brainstorm possible resolutions. 3. Consider ethical finesse (finding a way to meet everyone's needs without having to make a difficult ... Essential Steps in Ethical Problem Solving Essential Steps in Ethical Problem Solving Author: Barry L. Mintzer, Esq. FOCUS Newsletter - July, 1996 Determine whether there is an ethical issue or dilemma. Is there a conflict of values, or rights, or professional responsibilities? (For example, there may be an issue of self-determination of an adolescent versus the well-being of the family Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines Through consensus-based analysis, we identified nine behaviors commonly recommended across the set of reviewed ethical decision-making models with almost all (n = 52) models arranging the recommended behaviors sequentially and less than half (n = 23) including a problem-solving approach. All nine ethical decision-making steps clustered around ... Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving Essential Steps for Ethical Problem-Solving 1. DETERMINE whether there is an ethical issue or/and dilemma. Is there a conflict of values, or rights, or professional responsibilities? ... NASW Office of Ethics and Professional Review, 1-800-638-8799 750 1st Street, NE, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20002 . More Ethics Articles . Ethics Resources: A 10-Step Process for Resolving Ethical Issues A 10-Step Process for Resolving Ethical Issues Competency-based assessment tools for engineering higher education: a An ethical committee must review and approve the protocol for these online exams, as detailed in Appendix D. ... Furthermore, continuing with the traditional knowledge assessment through a clear definition of steps for problem-solving, adapting it to the course and learning objectives. Additionally, integrating machine learning algorithms will ... essay homework paper phd project resume review speech study thesis