Professional Code of Ethics of Psychologists in Iran, United States and Germany: A Comparative Study

Sima Ebrahimian, Omid Saed



Background and Aim: In order to minimize ethical problems in the work of psychologists, the code of ethics have established rules for psychologists' behavior by specifying ethical codes. Examining the code of ethics in other countries is helpful in determining the weakness points of the ethical codes of an association in which a psychologist works. The purpose of this study is to compare the code of ethics in three countries of Iran, United States and Germany.

Materials and Methods: First, the professional code of ethics in all three countries were extracted from their relevant organizations. In the second step, their differences and similarities were examined in terms of the code structure. Finally, all three code of ethics were analyzed in terms of content and executive procedures.

Findings: The structural analysis of the code of ethics showed that the introduction and general principles are common in all three code of ethics. In the German code of ethics, a separate section is devoted to the ethical codes for research and publication, and other ethical codes, which have been raised in other two code of ethics in the form of ethical standards, are listed in the separate section under the heading "Psychology in practice". Also, the content comparison of code of ethics showed that general principles of the Iranian and United States code of ethics point to ideal goals that are underpinned by ethical standards and, in their turn, are not enforceable rules, while in the German code of ethics, the general principles are the conditions and regulations that a psychologist has for have a professional identity in the German Professional Psychologists Association.

Ethical Considerations: Integrity and honesty in reporting, documenting and citing of resources were observed.

Conclusion: The differences between the codes of ethics can be explained by the difference in the research priorities of the relevant organizations, multicultural and multi-national of these countries and the differences in their technological advances.


Cite this article as: Ebrahimian S, Saed O. Professional Code of Ethics of Psychologists in Iran, United States and Germany: A Comparative Study. Med Ethics J. 2018; 12(43): e20.


Comparative Study; code of ethics; professional ethics; Iran; United States; Germany

Full Text:




Seghatoleslam T, Abbasi M, Asmaee S. Law and Ethics in Psychology from the codification of Ethical Codes to the Legal sanction. Iranian Journal of Medical Law 2012; 5(19): 47-88.

Pettifor JL. Are professional codes of ethics relevant for multicultural counselling? Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy/Revue Canadienne de Counseling et de Psychothérapie 2001; 35(1): 26-36.

American Psychological Association. Revision of Ethical Standard 3.04 of the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" (2002, as amended 2010). The American Psychologist 2016; 71(9): 900-901.

Brey P, Shelley-Egan C, Rodrigues R, Jansen P. The Ethical Assessment of Research and Innovation - A Reflection on the State of the Art (Based on Findings of the SATORI Project), in (ed.) Finding Common Ground: Consensus in Research Ethics Across the Social Sciences (Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity, Vol.1). Bradford: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2017. p.185-198.

Ramezani G, Mohammadi A, salami J, Tebyanian H. Relationship between Professional Ethics and Administrative Integrity among Medical University Staff. Health Research Journal 2017; 2(2): 99-107. [Persian]

Bigdeli E, Elahi T. Professional ethics, a catalyst in the process of consultation. Zanjan: The third national conference in honor of Suhrawardi, Zanjan University; 2012. [Persian]

Corey G. Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy: Thomson Higher Education. Belmont: Cengage Learning; 2015.

Haeny AM. Ethical Considerations for Psychologists Taking a Public Stance on Controversial Issues: The Balance Between Personal and Professional Life. Ethics Behav 2014; 24(4): 265-278.

Hoseinian S. Ethics in counseling and psychology. Tehran: Kamal Tarbiat Press; 2009. p.1-324. [Persian]

Legenhausen M. Moral philosophy in the monopoly of the Greeks? Andishe-Novin-E-Dini 2005; 2: 25-38. [Persian]

Nasiri Hamrah A. Ethics in behavioral science researches: Understanding methodology experts' views. Medical Ethics Journal 2017; 11(41): 25-36. [Persian]

Psychology and Counseling Organization of I.R.Iran. Profassional Ethic codes System. Psychotherapical Novelties 2008; 49(1): 136-148. [Persian]

Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Psychologie, Berufsverband Deutscher und Psychologinnen Psychologen DGPS Ethische und Richtlinien der des BDP Retrieved Dec 6, 2011, from. 1999.

Motavassel Arani M, Alamolhoda MH, Easazade N, Noormohammadi G. The Concept of the Rule No-Harm and Its Applications in Medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine 2017; 10(1): 221-230. [Persian]

Sadat Hosseini AA. An ethical critique on the national guidelines for pediatric research. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine 2012; 5(4): 14-26. [Persian]

Sikora K. Client welfare in psychologists’ ethics codes. Roczniki Psychologiczne/Annals of Psychology 2017; 16(4): 603-616.

Kiani A, Nabavinejad S, Ahmadi k. Personality traits and observance of professional ethics in counselors and psychologists. Thought and Behavior in Clinical Psychology 2008; 2(8): 79-90. [Persian]

Kiani A, Nabavinejad S, Ahmadi K. Developing and Validation of psychologists’ professional ethics Questionnaire for Counselors. Counseling Research & Developments, 2014; 13(49): 103-127. [Persian]

Rashtbari A, Saed O. Cultural aspects of ethics in psychotherapy: a review. Medical Ethics Journal 2018; 12(43): e7. [Persian]

Seghatoleslam T, Abbasi M, Asmaee S. Law and Ethics in Psychology from the codification of Ethical Codes to the Legal sanction. Medical Law Journal 2012; 5(19): 47-88. [Persian]

Leach MM, Harbin JJ. Psychological ethics codes: a comparison of twenty-four countries. Int J Psychol 1997; 32(3): 181-192.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License

This journal is distributed under the terms of CC BY-NC 4.0. Copyright © 2017 Medical Ethics Journal. All rights reserved. All credits and honors to PKP for their OJS.

For Author | Online Submission | About Contact