Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Teaching ethics to undergraduate psychology students has been the focus of professional organizations for several years. However, the evidence that psychology programs are teaching ethics and its effectiveness is scarce. In this review, we present recent evidence on teaching ethics based on three themes: delivery of ethics in the curriculum, instructional strategies, and faculty issues related to teaching ethics to undergraduates. We describe a model for incorporating ethics in the culture of the institution. Further, we provide recommendations for both teaching and researching ethics education.

Keywords

Ethics undergraduates strategies model faculty

Introduction

Teaching ethics to undergraduate students has been the focus of professional organizations in psychology for several years. Three examples can illustrate the extension of work done in this area. The American Psychological Association (APA) presented the Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major: Version 2.0 (2013) as an update from the 2011 original recommendations. The Guidelines 2.0 (as it is usually referred) re-introduced a goal that highlighted ethics: Goal 3: Ethical and Social Responsibility in a Diverse World, and provided information about outcomes, indicators for foundational and baccalaureate levels, attributes, and assessment. Similarly, the British Psychological Society publication of the Guidance on Teaching and Assessment of Ethical Competence in Psychology Education (2015) made available detailed information for faculty. This guide included ethical content to be addressed at different educational levels, teaching methods, and assessment of learning. Furthermore, the newly revised Accreditation Standards for Psychology Programs in Australia (Australian Psychology Accreditation Council, 2017) reiterates the importance of understanding ethics in psychology as one of the foundational competencies for programs that are equivalent to a bachelor’s degree, since ethics education has been compulsory for both undergraduate and graduate programs in Australia since 1995.

Ethics governs behavior in each subspecialty of psychology. In the United States, ethics education is required in professional graduate programs in psychology (Domenech Rodríguez et al., 2014), but has not been intentionally incorporated in the teaching of psychology at the undergraduate level (see Norcross et al., 2016, for evidence), despite being a constant aspect of one’s everyday life and employment. A large number of undergraduate students will go directly into the workplace (Halonen, 2011; Hamilton et al., 2018). A work readiness construct is emerging and can be applied to those who complete an undergraduate degree in psychology, since psychologists are those who attain a doctorate, Ph.D., or a certificate. Work readiness is a multidimensional concept, which includes, among several attributes and skills, ethical judgment, and work ethics (Hamilton et al., 2018, citing Caballero & Walker, 2010).

The one area where ethical training for psychology majors at the undergraduate level in the United States is usually emphasized is in coursework in psychological research (APA, 2013; Halonen, 2011). The typical undergraduate psychology major will encounter issues related to ethics in courses where research is prioritized, such as research methods, possibly in psychopathology and other clinical courses, or in the syllabus. Usually, textbooks for psychology courses present ethics in chapters that explain research, while the research methods textbooks provide more detailed ethics information in a separate chapter. Another common place to find ethical issues is in course syllabi under the topic of Academic Honesty (You et al., 2011, 2018). These are hardly effective introductions to the complex personal and professional ethical decisions the psychology student will encounter after graduation. Englehardt (2018), an ethics educator in the United States, stated

The failure of higher education to prepare students to recognize ethical problems in their professions, and thus the failure to prepare them to think critically about determining what ought to be done regarding such ethical incidents, presents a national problem of massive proportions. (p. 334)

A serious concern in this area is that despite recommendations to include ethics in the undergraduate psychology curriculum (APA, 2013; Dunn et al., 2010; Halpern, 2010; Landrum & McCarthy, 2012), there is little evidence to support that ethics is being taught in any systematic fashion. While at least the British and Australian organizations recommended that educational models for undergraduate psychology are explicit in the incorporation of ethics in the undergraduate programs (Hulme, 2014; Hulme et al., 2015), we have no access to publications indicating how these concepts are being taught or how effective ethics education is. Many of the publications in teaching psychology focus on teaching ethically (Hogan & Kimmel, 1992; Landrum & McCarthy, 2012), academic honesty (Prohaska, 2012), honor codes (Schwartz et al., 2012), and teaching ethics in research courses (majority of publication in ethics). Other publications have documented the haphazard efforts to include ethics in undergraduate psychology programs (Norcross et al., 2016; Warchal et al., 2017). Two recent studies of faith-based institutions in the United States found that even in religiously focused universities, the presence of stand-alone ethics courses in the undergraduate psychology curriculum was lacking: 13% of programs in Franciscan schools providing such a course (Ruiz et al., 2019) and 23% of Jesuit institutions (Plante & Pistoresi, 2017).

Psychology is not the only discipline where this serious discussion about ethics training is evolving. While there is general consensus among educators in higher education that ethics education is essential and ought to be fully integrated in the undergraduate curriculum (Campbell et al., 2007; Englehardt & Pritchard, 2018; Norcross et al., 2016; Numminen et al., 2009), there are different opinions across disciplines on how ethics should be taught (Bebeau et al., 1985; Numminen et al., 2009). In this article, we will review the literature for recent evidence on teaching ethics in undergraduate programs.

At least three consistent themes regarding the teaching of ethics in undergraduate programs emerged in a review of the global literature on ethics training at the undergraduate level in nursing (Parandeh et al., 2015; Ramos et al., 2013), business (Floyd et al., 2013; Rutherford et al., 2012), engineering (Li & Fu, 2012), and psychology programs (Cranney et al., 2012). The themes identified were delivery of ethics (where and when to incorporate ethics in the curriculum), instructional strategies (how to teach ethics), and how to prepare the faculty to teach ethics to undergraduates.

Theme 1 – Delivery: Where and When

The first theme identified is the delivery of ethics education. The question is where and when to position the delivery of ethics in the curriculum. There are several models: stand-alone ethics courses in philosophy, stand-alone course in the discipline, and integration of ethics content throughout the entire discipline’s curriculum, as well as a combination of stand-alone courses with ethics incorporated in other courses in the discipline. In the business curriculum (Rutherford et al., 2012; Swanson & Fischer, 2008), a recommended approach is to teach ethics in all courses of the program, including a stand-alone ethics course in the discipline. In the business programs, ethics is expected to be introduced early, for instance, by asking students to reflect on their personal values and mission statement explicitly, which they can be used as an ethical compass to better equip themselves with tools they can apply in ethical activities that they will encounter later in their curriculum (Laird-Magee et al., 2015).

Similarly, in psychology the recommendation is to incorporate ethics throughout the program and possibly add a stand-alone ethics course as a capstone (APA, 2013; Dunn et al., 2010; Halpern, 2010; Landrum & McCarthy, 2012; You et al., 2018). Such a program was presented by Ruiz and Warchal (2014). The program they described incorporated ethics into the undergraduate psychology major in a variety of ways. It started with the mission of the university: to prepare students to be ethical and moral leaders. Ethics and ethical issues were introduced in the first psychology course (for examples see Ruiz & Warchal, 2013). Ethics was addressed as well at all levels, in each subsequent course offered by the program. The teaching of ethics in psychology culminated in a capstone practicum experience with a focus on ethical and professional issues. In this capstone, students reflected on professional identity, ethical decision-making, critical thinking, application of psychological theory and concepts, and insight into their own and others’ behavior and mental processes. All majors at the university were also required to take a number of theology and philosophy courses. Using the Defining Issues Test (DIT), the authors described significantly higher scores of senior psychology majors compared to first-year students, as well as seniors in other majors. However, they did not attribute the changes uniquely to the training in ethics due to the nature of the methods utilized.

Another model, suggested by Plante and Plante (2017), also goes beyond the psychology curriculum. They recommended that ethics should both be part of the organizational culture demonstrating the school’s commitment to ethical development and be evident to students even before they arrive on campus through the pre-orientation materials. They illustrated their model with an example from Santa Clara where students take a university-wide, core curriculum approved, applied ethics course, which may be offered by the philosophy department or by different departments (see also Plante & Pistoresi, 2017). Their recommendation is based on the assumption that the students will develop a basic understanding of the general principles of moral philosophy that they can apply to personal and professional domains.

Independent of where and when ethics is included in the teaching of psychology, intentionality is essential. The vision and mission of undergraduate education should be supported by institutional priorities, policies, and resource allocations (Meacham & Gaff, 2006, p. 6). In a review of mission statements available online for psychology departments in the United States, the inclusion of ethics in undergraduate psychology mission statements was scarce; less than 25% of mission statements reviewed encouraged student ethical development (Warchal et al., 2017).

Recommendations

Because everyone throughout their lives makes ethical decisions, the likely question should not be where and when; ethics should be an institutional priority and be embedded everywhere. Since the 1980s, there has been an increased, albeit small, attention to ethics and its incorporation in higher education (Elliot & June, 2018; Englehardt & Pritchard, 2018). Ethics education should start with the institution’s mission. If that is not in place, at least ethics should be incorporated into the psychology program mission. However, the inclusion of ethics in the mission of the institution and the psychology department should be intentional (Warchal et al., 2017).

Ethics should be part of the organizational culture of the institution and should be evident in all aspects of academic life. If the institution has a clear ethical model, it is easier to embrace it in all aspects of campus life (Plante & Plante, 2017). Plante and Plante provided several suggestions to demonstrate a school’s commitment to ethical development. Ethics should be embedded in materials available prior to the students’ arrival on campus. These materials should provide a clear model of how ethics is addressed at the institution, alert students and families to high-risk aspects of students’ life, and how these issues are handled. Ethics is presented in specific curricular and extracurricular programing, student models, awards, faculty, and other mentors, and in information about the adjudication system. Further, their suggestions included rewarding students and faculty who contribute to the culture of ethics on campus and recognize the importance of student governance in the process.

Ethics education should be available in all undergraduate psychology courses, as a common thread (APA, 2013; Dunn et al., 2010; Halpern, 2010; Landrum & McCarthy, 2012; You et al., 2018). The British Psychological Society (2015) suggested that the teaching of ethics should be considered as the teaching of any other subject (p. 10). Their recommendation was to identify the content one wants students to know, then the teaching and learning process, and how to assess what students learned. For content, they proposed two main topics: one covering research issues and the other “wider ethical issues,” which aspires to “think and act professionally” regarding a range of content from ethical mindfulness to statutory requirements. They provided a matrix using Rest’s Four Component model (1982) in combination with the Society’s ethical principles. They further suggested several teaching methods, pointing out that the teaching and learning process should be active, relevant and meaningful, and contextualized. Finally, they acknowledged that the assessment of ethics knowledge is easier than the assessment of emerging ethical awareness and critical thinking, but offered several suggestions, nonetheless.

Ethics education should start in the introduction to psychology course. APA’s Board of Educational Affairs (BEA) established the Working Group to Strengthening the Common Core of the Introductory Psychology Course (APA, 2014), which recommended ethics as one of the cross-cutting themes to incorporate ethics throughout the course and not only as a requirement to be checked off a list. An Activities Guide (Ruiz & Warchal, 2013) with exercises related to ethics for each chapter in a typical Introduction to Psychology text provides learning goals and outcomes, instructions for conducting the activity, materials needed, approximate time required, and a method of assessment.

Ethics should be a cross-cutting theme in all psychology courses offered. The Activities Guide provides suggestions that may be incorporated in other psychology courses. In addition, at least one course focused on ethics, preferably applied ethics, should be provided for psychology majors (LaCour & Lewis, 1998; Plante, 1988; Plante & Pistoresi, 2017; Plante & Plante, 2017; Ruiz & Warchal, 2014). Even if the institution or the department does not focus on the teaching of ethics, faculty may still include ethics in each course taught at the undergraduate level. For instance, ethics can be intentionally presented in each syllabus, in the learning goals/objectives/outcomes with a corresponding assessment (assignments), and the activities in class.

Theme 2 – Instructional Strategies

A second emerging theme refers to the instructional strategies used to teach ethics. This theme relates to the pervasive question of how to translate ethics theory, reflection, and analysis into demonstrated ethical thinking and behavior (Cannaerts et al., 2014; Floyd et al., 2013; Lampe & Engleman-Lampe, 2012; Ramos et al., 2013). This issue becomes increasingly important with the recognition that, at least in some countries, many undergraduates in general, and in psychology in particular, do not pursue graduate studies where stand-alone ethics are more common (Halonen, 2011; Hamilton et al., 2018). Preparing students to directly enter the workforce upon graduation with a sound foundation in professional ethics is critical (APA, 2013; British Psychological Society, 2015; Cranney et al., 2012; Halonen, 2011; Rutherford et al., 2012).

Although there is consensus among educators that case study is a common and effective way to teach ethical decision-making (Ellison et al., 2018; Englehardt & Pritchard, 2013), reflection on one’s personal experiences, similar to the case study and the processes involved in those positive experiences, facilitated greater application of case materials to new ethical problems (Antes et al., 2012). The use of a layered (multiple perspective) case study is more effective in enhancing students’ ethical reasoning skills than simply providing a solution to a case (O’Flaherty & McGarr, 2014). Similar outcomes are achieved with the “identify, analyze, and decide” approach on ethical dilemmas to teach ethics to IT engineering students (Minano et al., 2017).

Walling (2015) argued that by using case study alone for ethics courses, the instructors run the risk of turning the ethical reasoning into an exercise but fail to engage students in an ethically behavioral way. Instead, Walling used an activity that asked the students to identify a personal moral dilemma and then perform an ethics experiment in which they need to purposefully implement a practice that required a change in their thinking or behavior for two weeks. This activity enhanced the student’s moral imagination and enabled them to have a better understanding of themselves as moral agents who can engage in ethical practice.

Debate is another pedagogical strategy traditionally used to teach ethics. For instance, Roy (2012) used debates as a way for business students to learn and demonstrate their understanding of the ethical issues they may encounter in their professional field. Since ethical issues are not simply black and white, by engaging in debates, a higher level of learning about ethical issues is promoted because the students need to learn to do “analysis (compare and contrast viewpoints) and evaluation (take a stand and defend it)” (Roy, 2012, p. 73). These results were also confirmed with pharmacy students (Hanna et al., 2014) and physiotherapy and pharmacy students (Strawbridge et al., 2014).

Several other pedagogical strategies to bridge theory and practices have been suggested. To facilitate students’ transfer of what they learned in an ethics course to their personal and professional life, deep listening and facilitated dialogue with local community members, as well as students’ reflections in response to experiential learning activities, are effective pedagogical methods (Cochran & Weaver, 2017). Tutor-guided small group teaching in which there is more room for debate and reflection were much more effective than lecture-based teaching (Engel-Glatter et al., 2016).

Additional strategies are offered to improve the learning of ethics. Students’ participation in a roundtable format to discuss ethical issues allowed them time for self-reflection and an increase in peer support, which all contribute to students’ better understanding of ethical issues (Hutchinson et al., 2014). The process of preparing a summative, reflective portfolio helped students to develop a better understanding of ethical principles (O’Sullivan et al., 2012). Deliberate Psychological Education (DPE), a theory that explains how humans create meaning-making systems to interpret the world around them, is an effective way to enhance students’ ethical reasoning skills (Schmidt et al., 2013). However, for cognitive growth to occur and be long-lasting, the reflections must be purposeful and continuous (at least one semester).

Having students responsible for generating ethical education activities was an effective way to maintain students’ continued interest and engagement (Alpay, 2013). Even social media (e.g., Twitter) can be used as a way to teach students about ethics because it involves activities outside academics (Clark, 2014, p. 223). When information is provided in the students’ historical and ethical context, they learn and retain more (McGowan, 2013, p. 540). Integrating a historical perspective, using striking examples, and engaging in difficult group discussions have been recommended as three active learning approaches (Kirk, 2018).

A meta-analysis (Antes et al., 2009) indicated that ethics instruction in science is modest. More effective programs were based on (a) cognitive decision-making approaches followed by ethical sensitivity (emphasizing the social-interactional nature of ethical problems), (b) provided specific content, such as ethical domains, standards, and behaviors, and (c) used case-based instruction (instead of classroom-based, lecture-style instruction) (p.14). Due to the relational nature of the learning process, the authors suggested that we should be cautious about teaching ethics online.

Some high-impact practices are also recommended, such as a variety of capstones. Research projects are capstones recommended by Cranney and Dunn (2011). It is in research courses or working on research projects where most ethics education is taking place in undergraduate programs (based on the evidence available on teaching of psychology publications). In a review of the impact of capstones, in particular those that integrate work learning experiences, Hamilton et al. (2018) proposed these particular experience as high-impact practices in the preparation of undergraduate psychology majors in order to support understanding and articulation of the value of their degrees. Effective capstone experiences, such as service learning, supports students’ development of a professional identity, strengthens students’ lifelong learning skills, and prepares students as ethical citizens and leaders (McNamara et al., 2011). “Service learning is an educational approach in which students use knowledge and skills learned in the classroom when engaged in activities with community partners” (Bringle et al., 2016, p. 3). Bringle et al. provided extensive empirical evidence to support service learning impact on academic and civic learning, as well as personal growth.

Recommendations

There are many options for activities to teach ethics, and those reviewed above may be incorporated into most, if not all, courses in psychology. Ideally, the whole institution, including the department, is focused on teaching ethics; there could be a progression of activities from case studies to debates to round tables to high-impact practices, to be emphasized by each discipline at different levels. However, even if there is no institutional or departmental shared vision, ethics can be included in each course as part of a faculty’s teaching philosophy.

For instance, in all of her classes, one of the authors introduces each course to the students as one more step in their career development, including the roles and responsibilities of the faculty and students in that course (stated in the syllabus). Some resources (Ruiz, 2009; Ruiz & Warchal, 2013) focus on how ethics may be addressed in most chapters covered in typical textbooks for Introduction to Psychology courses; however, these resources provide inspiration for activities that may be easily adapted to more advanced courses, such as development, personality, learning, memory, etc.

Capstones are high-impact practices. Internships, as well as service learning, may require more institutional support than research projects; however, they are well worth the work based on the evidence. The ethical discussions in these capstones start with the preparation of students for placement with community members; it continues as different steps of the project progress, until the final evaluation with a reflection on the consequences of the work done (Chapdelaine et al., 2005). In the book Service learning in psychology: Enhancing undergraduate education for the public good, Bringle et al. (2016), offered several ideas of service learning projects for most courses taught at the undergraduate level.

In summary, many instructional strategies are available to teach ethics. This review highlights the need for more research into the teaching of ethics to determine how to bridge the gap between teaching content and application. The research should address not only how students learn to think in ethical ways, but also, more importantly, if and how the teaching of ethics translates to ethical behavior.

Theme 3 – Faculty

The third theme involves faculty responsibility, preparation, and training. While ethics and its theories have historically been the domain of philosophers, even some philosophers agree that professionals should focus on the teaching of ethical issues in their respective disciplines. Gunsalus (2013) strongly encourages all faculty to teach ethics in their fields as part of their responsibilities. She proposes that the responsibility of professional teachers is too important to leave to those outside our disciplines. She encourages faculty to teach ethics if they believe that they should help students explore questions and use the knowledge they provide responsibly, and if accountability, transparency, fairness, and rigor matter in their discipline. In a discussion of practical ethics, Englehardt and Pritchard (2013) suggest that in preparing students we should address situations that are likely to occur in their professional careers, and we do not need to be philosophers to be able to understand the ethical aspects in these situations.

However, when asked to teach a new subject, the first reaction for most faculty is to question their competency to do so. Some faculty struggle with the idea of teaching content they have not been specifically trained to teach, do not consider themselves ethics experts, and may minimize the ethics related content (Cannaerts et al., 2014: Rutherford et al., 2012). They express a lack of knowledge, comfort, and ease of teaching ethics (Fortenberry, 2017; Gunsalus, 2013), fear conflict in the classroom (Gunsalus, 2013), or have feelings of inadequacy (Litzinger, 2017). Faculty are also concerned about the curriculum when they provide arguments for not teaching ethics or including ethics in their courses, such as an overcrowded curriculum (Fortenberry, 2017; Gunsalus, 2013), ethics cannot be taught, as it is boring and dry (Gunsalus, 2013), ethics is diluted when included in existing courses (Fortenberry, 2017), and co-teaching is too expensive (Fortenberry, 2017) and requires considerable coordination and maintenance (Li & Fu, 2012).

Psychologists who agree with the arguments against teaching ethics may have a valid point. Psychology codes of ethics state that psychologists should not practice or teach outside their areas of expertise (American Counseling Association, 2014; American Psychological Association, 2017; Australian Psychological Society, 2007; Canadian Psychological Association, 2017; Ethics Committee of the British Psychological Society, 2018; Gauthier, 2008, to mention a few). However, the codes do not prevent psychologists from updating their knowledge base and developing competence in many different areas. In fact, psychologists are encouraged to expand their knowledge base to meet the changing needs of society. Equipping students with ethical knowledge and decision-making skills to face the personal, social, and professional complexities of life should be a goal of all psychology programs. Teaching psychologists can develop the knowledge and skills needed to teach ethics through many avenues of continuing education and faculty development programs.

There are many models on how to prepare faculty to teach ethics. The British Psychological Society’s publication the Guidance on teaching and assessment of ethical competence in psychology education (2015) provided a good overview for faculty of what they believe should be covered and how. They offered a matrix that incorporates the standards of their Code of Ethics and Conduct with Rest’s Four Component model. They focused on the content of their ethics code but recognized that the aspirational goal is to encourage ethical behavior. A focus on content could be a starting point for faculty anywhere.

In their book Graduating with honors, Plante and Plante (2017) provided not only extensive information on how to create a culture in which ethics is a priority, but also information specifically for faculty. For instance, they included a sample syllabus and suggestions for what to include in any ethics course. For them, the course should consist of a foundation in moral philosophy, an examination of key ethical conflicts and decision-making approaches particular to each discipline, and finally expand ethical reflections from the professions to everyday life situations.

More specifically, Smith (2014) provided information about a faculty training that consists of 12–15 hours to cover what he believes are the requirements for “leading fruitful ethical discussions” (p. 202): a toolbox to support pedagogical interventions for classroom discussions, an understanding of challenges faculty will face leading ethical discussions, and hands-on experience practicing with their colleagues. Chowdhury (2016) suggests that faculty professional development programs provide instruction on facilitating case examples and reflecting on moral and ethical issues. Several models of programs for faculty preparation are available in the book Ethics across the curriculum – Pedagogical perspectives (Englehardt & Pritchard, 2018).

Recommendations

Since we propose that ethics should be embedded in the institution as a whole, from mission to all courses, including co- and extracurricular activities, we cannot expect that ethics education should be the exclusive job of philosophers or selected faculty. Professional organizations present ethics as both content (code) and skills (sensitivity, reasoning, integrity, and courage), and therefore we should be able to teach it. We strongly recommend that psychology faculty can and should teach ethics. We agree that ethics theories should be taught by those with training. However, psychologists, including those who teach, are at least trained in a code of ethics for psychology.

Ideally, each psychology program would have at least one course in ethics, as well as have ethics covered in all of the other courses. If asked to teach a new ethics course, the faculty should review the information in that field and update their competence level to be knowledgeable as well as comfortable teaching content (see resources above), just as one would for any new course. For those concerned about curriculum or instructional strategies, we suggest to start small: maybe ask a few questions on assignments or exams, then move on to more intentional activities. Based on personal experiences, we have noticed that students appreciate the challenges of discussing issues that are relevant for them on academic (honor code, plagiarism, etc.) as well as professional issues (confidentiality, boundaries, etc.).

Discussion

In summary, ethics education is essential and can be achieved. Professional organizations agree that ethics is important and that it should be taught throughout the curriculum, starting at least at the undergraduate level, by psychologists. There are many models of when, where, and how to teach ethics to undergraduate students. What is necessary first and foremost is an intentional instructional commitment to the importance of teaching ethics to undergraduate psychology majors. Ideally, the importance of ethics education will be stressed in both the university and the psychology department mission. Ethics would be reflected in the information provided to students even before they arrive on campus, during their new student orientation, and during co- and extracurricular activities. However, if the commitment to teach ethics is not at the institutional level, individual faculty still can teach ethics in each of their undergraduate courses.

An institutional culture committed to ethics would provide continuing ethics training for faculty to gain content knowledge and feel confident in their role as ethics educators. Again, if the institution is not providing this support, there are many resources available for faculty interested in teaching ethics to undergraduates. One centralized location to access a variety of resources is Teaching ethics to undergraduate psychology students (www.TEUPS.org) (Ruiz & Warchal, 2013–2020).

Incorporating ethical training while preparing students for professional life is important. As educators, we should support our students as they develop a professional identity (Hamilton et al., 2018). The psychologically literate citizen as a professional identity has been suggested for those who complete undergraduate programs, and are not psychologists. The psychologically literate citizen concept was proposed by McGovern et al. (2010) and focused on the application of psychological science to intentionally meet personal, professional, and societal goals. Acting ethically is a significant characteristic listed in the definition.

There are some limitations to this project. First is the scope of the review, which was an in-depth, but not systematic (Shamseer et al., 2015, p. 10) review of the literature (available through EBSCOHost, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar). This review focused on English language and undergraduate programs. The search resulted in work published in the United States, UK, Australia, and Canada, which limits the type of program available to students and the implications for the teaching of ethics. For instance, in India undergraduate psychology content is covered in philosophy programs. In other countries, such as Germany and other European countries, most students will continue their studies to obtain a Master’s of Science in Psychology. In Brazil, undergraduate programs in psychology consist of five years with preparation for licensing, and no need for graduate education to become a licensed psychologist; therefore, ethics training is included in the undergraduate program.

Consequently, the generalization of the themes identified in this review and recommendations proposed are focused on undergraduate programs that prepare students for the workforce with limited ethics training. While the focus of our review and recommendations are for undergraduate programs in psychology, one can argue that these recommendations are relevant for all undergraduate education, and even graduate programs, as a reminder to all of us of the importance of ethics education. In summary, we recommend that in our role as educators we should support students as they develop a professional identity, which should include ethical standards. We can do this through intentional ethics education, as individual instructors; however, ideally, it should be part of the culture of our educational institutions.

Last but not least, a commitment to assessment and research is needed. How effective are the ethical education models? Does the placement of ethics in the curriculum make a difference in students’ ethical development? What is the impact of the various instructional strategies on ethical behavior? Is there evidence that ethical knowledge is transferred to ethical behavior? What training do faculty need to feel competent to teach ethics? These are some of the questions that need to be addressed in the teaching of ethics to undergraduate psychology students. We need more evidence to understand the impact of ethics education, not only regarding psychology majors, but also other undergraduates.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was supported by an Alvernia University Faculty Excellence grant.

Author Biographies

Dr Ana Ruiz is a Professor of Psychology at Alvernia University. She received a B.S. from the Catholic University of Pernambuco, Brazil; an M.A. in Cognitive Development from the Federal University of Pernambuco, Brazil; a Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Cornell University; and attended the Wye Faculty Seminar, Aspen Institute. Her publications include the books Service learning in psychology: Enhancing undergraduate education for the public good and Service-learning code of ethics, numerous chapters and articles on ethical issues on international service learning and research on international service learning, the impact of service on alumni career development, and teaching ethics to undergraduate psychology students. She is the co-creator of the online resource Teaching Ethics to Undergraduate Psychology Students – TEUPS.

Dr Judith Warchal is a Professor Emerita in the Psychology and Counseling Department at Alvernia University in Reading, Pennsylvania. Dr Warchal has extensive experience as a therapist specializing in rehabilitation counseling, individual and family counseling, cognitive assessments, geriatric counseling, and evaluating clients for bariatric surgery. She has coauthored a book on ethics in service-learning, articles on teaching ethics in psychology, and the online resource Teaching Ethics to Undergraduate Psychology Students – TEUPS.

Dr Di You is a Professor of Psychology at Alvernia University. Her research interests are moral development and professional ethics. She has published academic papers on moral sensitivity, moral reasoning, ethics in undergraduate psychology curriculum, moral distress, mental illness stigma, and multiculturalism.

ORCID iD

Ana Ruiz

References

Alpay

(2013). Student-inspired activities for the teaching and learning of engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 1455–1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9297-8

American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. Author.

American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: Version 2.0. http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/index.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2014). Strengthening the common core of the introductory psychology course. American Psychological Association, Board of Educational Affairs. http://www.apa.org/ ed/governance/bea/intro-psych-report.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Author.

Antes

Murphy

Waples

Mumford

Brown

Connelly

Devenport

(2009). A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 19, 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035380.

Antes

A. L.

Thiel

C. F.

Martin

E. L.

Stenmark

C. K.

Connelly

Devenport

L. D.

Mumford

M. D.

(2012). Applying cases to solve ethical problems: The significance of positive and process-oriented reflection. Ethics & Behavior, 22(2), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2012.655646

Australian Psychological Society. (2007). Code of ethics. Melbourne: Author.

Australian Psychology Accreditation Council. (2017). Accreditation standards for psychology programs in Australia. https://www.psychologyboard.gov.au/Accreditation.aspx

10.

Bebeau

Rest

J. R.

Yamoor

C. M.

(1985). Measuring dental students’ ethical sensitivity. Journal of Dental Education, 49(4), 225–235.

11.

Bringle

R. G.

Reeb

Brown

M. A.

Ruiz

A. I.

(2016). Service learning in psychology: Enhancing undergraduate education for the public good. American Psychological Association.

12.

British Psychological Society. (2015). Guidance on teaching and assessment of ethical competence in psychology education. The British Psychological Society.

13.

Campbell

A. V.

Chin

Voo

T. C.

(2007). How can we know that ethics education produces ethical doctors? Medical Teacher, 29(5), 431–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590701504077

14.

Canadian Psychological Association. (2017). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists. 4th ed. Author.

15.

Cannaerts

Gastmans

de Casterlé

B. D.

(2014). Contribution of ethics education to the ethical competence of nursing students: educators’ and students’ perceptions. Nursing Ethics, 21(8), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733014523166

16.

Chapdelaine, A., Ruiz, A., Warchal, J., & Wells, C. (2005). Service-Learning Code of Ethics. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

17.

Chowdhury

M. A.

(2016). Emphasizing morals, values, ethics, and character education in science education and science teaching. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Science, 4(2), 1–16.

18.

Clark

M. J.

(2014). Using Twitter to practice Christian ethics: Technology and accompaniment. Teaching Theology and Religion, 17(3), 223. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12206

19.

Cochran

E. A.

Weaver

D. F.

(2017

). Can virtue be learned? An exploration of student learning experiences in ethics courses and their implications for influencing moral character.

Teaching Theology and Religion, 20(3), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/teth.12392

20.

Cranney

Botwood

Morris

(2012). National standards for psychological literacy and global citizenship: Outcomes of undergraduate psychology education. https://groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Cranney_NTF_Final_Report_231112_Final_pdf.pdf

21.

Cranney

Dunn

D. S.

(Eds.). (2011). The psychologically literate citizen: Foundations and global perspectives. Oxford University Press.

22.

Domenech Rodríguez

M. M.

Erickson Cornish

J. A.

Thomas

J. T.

Forrest

Anderson

Bow

J. N.

(2014). Ethics education in professional psychology: A survey of American Psychological Association accredited programs. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(4), 241–247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tep0000043

23.

Dunn, D. S., Brewer, C. L., Cautin, R. L., Gurung, R. A. R., Keith, K. D., McGregor, L. N., Nida, S. A., Puccio, P., & Voigt, M. J. (2010). The undergraduate psychology curriculum: Call for a core. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Undergraduate education in psychology: A blueprint for the future of the discipline (p. 47 -61). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12063-003

24.

Elliott, D. & June, K. (2018). The evolution of ethics education: 1980-2015. In E.E. Englehardt & M.S. Pritchard, (Eds.) Ethics Across the Curriculum–Pedagogical Perspectives, (pp: 11-37). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78939-2_2

25.

Ellison

Facemire

Herkert

J. R.

(2018). Designing an EAC program for the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University: Early initiatives and lessons from the literature. In Englehardt

E. E.

Pritchard

M. S.

(Eds.) Ethics across the curriculum-Pedagogical perspectives (pp.329–342). Springer.

26.

Engel-Glatter

Cabrera

L. Y.

Marzouki

Elger

B. S.

(2016). Teaching bioethics to a large number of biology and pharma students: Lessons learned. Ethics & Behaviors, 28(1), 70–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1196361

27.

Englehardt

E. E.

(2018). Ethics across the curriculum at Utah Valley University. In: Englehardt

E. E.

Pritchard

M. S.

(Eds.), Ethics across the curriculum—Pedagogical perspectives (pp. 329–342). Springer.

28.

Englehardt

E. E.

Pritchard

M. S.

(2013). Teaching practical ethics. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 27(2), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.5840/ijap20131293

29.

Englehardt

E. E.

Pritchard

M. S.

(2018). Introduction. In: Englehardt

E. E.

Pritchard

M. S.

(Eds.), Ethics across the curriculum—Pedagogical perspectives (pp.1–10). Springer.

30.

Ethics Committee of the British Psychological Society (2018). Code of ethics and conduct. Leicester: The British Psychological Society.

31.

Floyd

L. A.

Atkins

Caldwell.

(2013). Ethical outcomes and business ethics: Toward improving business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 753–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1717-z

32.

Fortenberry

(2017). In National Academy of Engineering: Overcoming challenges to infusing ethics into the development of engineers: Proceedings of a workshop. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24821

33.

Gauthier

(2008). The universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists: Third draft. Assembly of the International Union of Psychological Science.

34.

Gunsalus, C. K. (2013). Essay on the responsibility to teach ethics. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/05/14/essay-responsibility-teach-ethics.

35.

Halonen

J. S.

(2011). Are there too many psychology majors? [pdf] [White paper].

36.

Halpern

D. F.

(2010). Undergraduate education in psychology: A blueprint for the future of the discipline. American Psychological Association.

37.

Hamilton

Morrissey

S. A.

Farrell

L. J.

Ellu

M. C.

O’Donovan

Weinbrecht

O’Connor

E. L.

(2018). Increasing psychological literacy and work readiness of Australian psychology undergraduates through a capstone and work-integrated learning experience: Current issues and what needs to be done. Australian Psychologist, 53(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12309

38.

Hanna, L. A., Barry, J., Donnelly, R., Hughes, F., Jones, D., Laverty, G., Parsons, C., & Ryan, C. (2014). Using debate to teach pharmacy students about ethical issues. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 78(3), 57. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe78357

39.

Hogan

P. M.

Kimmel

A. J.

(1992). Ethical teaching of psychology: One department’s attempts at self-regulation. Teaching of Psychology, 19(4), 205–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1904_1

40.

Hulme

J. A.

(2014). Psychological literacy: from classroom to real world. The Psychologist, 27(12), 932–935.

41.

Hulme, J., Skinner, R., Worsnop, F., Collins, E., Banyard, P., Kitching, H., Watt, R., & Goodson, S. (2015). Psychological Literacy: a multi-faceted perspective. Psychology Teaching Review, 21(2), pp. 13–24. https://shop.bps.org.uk/publications/psychology-teaching-review-vol-21-no-2-autumn-2015.html.

42.

Hutchinson

M. K.

Shedlin

M. G.

Gallo

Krainovich-Miller

Fulmer

(2014). Ethics-in-the-round: A guided peer approach for addressing ethical issues confronting nursing students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(1), 58–60. https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-35.1.58

43.

Kirk

(2018, May 24). 3 more ways to teach ethics (Blog post). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-ethical-professor/201805/3-more-ways-teach-ethics

44.

LaCour

Lewis

D. M.

(1998). Effects of a course in ethics on self-rated and actual knowledge of undergraduate psychology majors. Psychological Reports, 82(2), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1998.82.2.499

45.

Laird-Magee

Gayle

B. M.

Preiss

(2015). Personal values and mission statement: A reflective activity to aid moral development. Journal of Education for Business, 90(3), 156–163, https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1007907

46.

Lampe

Engleman-Lampe

(2012). Mindfulness-based business ethics education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16(3), 99–111.

47.

Landrum

R. E.

McCarthy

M. A.

(2012). Teaching ethically: challenges and opportunities. American Psychological Association.

48.

(2012). A systematic approach to engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9249-8

49.

Litzinger

50.

McGowan

A. H.

(2013). Teaching science and ethics to undergraduates: A multidisciplinary approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 535–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9338-3

51.

McGovern, T. V., Corey, L., Cranney, J., Dixon, W. E., Jr., Holmes, J. D., Kuebli, J. E., Ritchey, K. A., Smith, R. A., & Walker, S. J. (2010). Psychologically literate citizens. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Undergraduate education in psychology: A blueprint for the future of the discipline (p. 9–27). American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/12063-001 https://doi.org/10.1037/12063-001

52.

McNamara

Brown

Field

Kift

Butler

Treloar

(2011). Capstones: Transitions and professional identity. WACE World Conference – Conference proceedings. Philadelphia.

53.

Meacham

Gaff

J. G.

(2006). Learning goals in mission statements: Implications for educational leadership. Liberal Education, 92(1), 6–13.

54.

Minano

Uruburu

Moreno-Romero

Perez-Lopez

(2017). Strategies for teaching professional ethics to IT engineering degree students and evaluating the result. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9760-x

55.

Norcross

J. C.

Hailstorks

Aiken

L. S.

Pfund

R. A.

Stamm

K. E.

Christidis

(2016). Undergraduate study in psychology: Curriculum and assessment. American Psychologist, 71(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040095

56.

Numminen

van der Arend

Leino-Kilpi

(2009). Nurses’ codes of ethics in practice and education: A review of the literature. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 23(2), 380–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2008.00608.x

57.

O’Flaherty

McGarr

(2014). The use of case-based learning in the development of student teachers’ level of moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.870992

58.

O’Sullivan

A. J.

Howe

A. C.

Miles

Harris

Hughes

C. S.

Jones

Leinster

S. J.

(2012). Does a summative portfolio foster the development of capabilities such as reflective practice and understanding ethics? An evaluation from two medical schools. Medical Teacher, 34(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.638009

59.

Parandeh

Khaghanizade

Mohammadi

Mokhtari

(2015

). Factors influencing development of professional values among nursing students and instructors: A systematic review.

Global Journal of Health Science, 7(2), 284–293. https://doi.org/39270. 0.5539/gjhs.v7n2p284

60.

Plante

T. G.

(1998). Teaching a course on psychology ethics to undergraduates: An experiential model. Teaching of Psychology, 25(4), 286–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986289809709717

61.

Plante

T. G.

Pistoresi

(2017). A survey of ethics training in undergraduate psychology programs at Jesuit universities. Pastoral Psychology, 66(3), 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-017-0755-3

62.

Plante

T. G.

Plante

L. G.

(2017). Graduating with honors: Best practices to promote ethics development in college students. Praeger.

63.

Prohaska

(2012). Strategies for encouraging ethical behavior. In Landrum

R. E.

McCarthy

M. A.

(Eds.), Teaching ethically: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 79–88). APA.

64.

Ramos

F. R. S.

de Pires

D. E. P.

Brehmer

L. C. F.

Gelbcke

F. L.

Schmoeller

S. D.

Lorenzetti

(2013). The discourse of ethics in nursing education: Experience and reflections of Brazilian teachers - Case study. Nurse Education Today, 33(10), 1124–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.12.011

65.

Rest, J. R. (1982). Morality. In J. Flavell, & E. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology, volume on cognitive development (pp. 556–629). New York, NY: Wiley.

66.

Roy

D. P.

(2012). Promoting active learning of ethical issues in marketing communications using debates. Marketing Education Review, 22(1), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.2753/MER1052-8008220112

67.

Ruiz

(2009). Ethics in the Introduction to Psychology course. Observer, 22(5). Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2009/may-june-09/ethics-in-the-introduction-to-psychology-course.html

68.

Ruiz

Warchal

(2013). Activities Guide: Teaching Ethics in the Introduction to Psychology Course. Instructional Research Award: OTRP Online. http://teachpsych.org/resources/Documents/otrp/resources/ruiz13.pdf

69.

Ruiz

Warchal

(2013–2020). Teaching ethics to undergraduate psychology students (TEUPS). http://de.alvernia.edu/teachingpsychethics/

70.

Ruiz

Warchal

(2014). Ethics as an undergraduate psychology outcome: When, where, and how to teach it. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 13(2), 120–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/plat.2014.13.2.120

71.

Ruiz

Warchal

You

(2019). Ethics education in Franciscan undergraduate psychology programs. Journal of Academic Ethics, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09329-1

72.

Rutherford

M. A.

Parks

Cavazos

D. E.

White

C. D.

(2012). Business ethics as a required course: Investigating the factors impacting the decision to require ethics in the undergraduate business core curriculum. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0039

73.

Schmidt

Davidson

Adkins

(2013). Applying what works: A case for deliberate psychological education in undergraduate business ethics. Journal of Education for Business, 88(3), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.659295

74.

Schwartz

B. M.

Tatum

H. E.

Wells

J. W.

(2012). The honor system: Influences on attitudes, behaviors, and pedagogy. In Landrum

R. E.

McCarthy

M. A.

(Eds.), Teaching ethically: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 89–98). APA.

75.

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 350(7989), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647

76.

Smith

K. C.

(2014). Ethics is not rocket science: How to have ethical discussions in your science class. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 15(2), 202–207. http://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.784

77.

Strawbridge

J. D.

Barrett

A. M.

Barlow

J. W.

(2014). Interprofessional ethics and professionalism debates: Findings from a study involving physiotherapy and pharmacy students. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28(1), 64–65. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2013.829423

78.

Swanson

D. L.

Fisher

D. G.

(2008). Business ethics education: If we don’t know where we’re going, any road will take us there. In Swanson

D. L.

& Fisher

D. G.

(Eds.), Advancing business ethics education (pp. 1–23) Information Age Publishing.

79.

Walling

(2015). Beyond ethical frameworks: Using experimentation in the engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(6), 1637–1656. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717723276

80.

Warchal, J., Ruiz, A., & You, D. (2017). Do psychology department mission statements reflect the APA undergraduate learning goals? Psychology Learning and Teaching, 16(3), 368–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717723276.

81.

You

Ruiz

Warchal

(2018). The presentation of ethics in undergraduate psychology syllabi. Teaching of Psychology, 45(4), 346–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318796921

82.

You

Warchal

Ruiz

(2011). A review of ethics from Project Syllabus. Psychology Journal, 8(2), 82–86.

Teaching Ethics to Undergraduate Psychology Students: Review of the Evidence and Recommendations

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theme 1 – Delivery: Where and When

Recommendations

Theme 2 – Instructional Strategies

Recommendations

Theme 3 – Faculty

Recommendations

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biographies

ORCID iD

References