TOWARD A UNIVERSAL DECLARATION

OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS

 

Progress Report Submitted to the Board of Directors

Of the International Association of Applied Psychology

By Janel Gauthier, Ph.D. Chair of the Ethics Committee

 

In 2002, the General Assembly of the International Union of Psychological Science approved a motion to create an Ad Hoc Joint Committee that would be responsible for developing a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. The initiative was to involve both the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) and the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP), with the understanding that the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (IACCP) would be invited to participate as well. A progress report was to be submitted to the IAAP Board of Directors by the Chair of the working group in 2004.

 

Background

 

Psychology as an organized and a responsible discipline develops codes of ethics to guide its members in behaving respectfully, competently and appropriately when engaged in research, teaching and practice. Some are based on clearly articulated principles, values, and standards while others are based on rules, regulations, and proscriptions/prescriptions.

 

There are tremendous variations in the form, the content, the usefulness and the rate of development of codes of ethics in psychology. For example, some codes provide a statement of moral principle that helps the individual psychologist to resolve ethical dilemmas whereas others do not. As a result, psychologists in different parts of the world are provided with different levels of ethical support and guidance for their behavior.  Furthermore, persons and peoples in these parts are given different levels of protection from the misuse of psychology.

 

The need to support, facilitate and promote the development of codes of ethics in the world was discussed at the biennial World Forum of Psychology during the 25th International Congress of Applied Psychology in Singapore, July 7-12, 2002. Both IUPsyS and IAAP recognized that something had to be done to address the issue.  However, there was a question as to what action (or actions) would be taken. 

 

At the same congress, a proposal to develop a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists was presented by Professor Janel Gauthier at a symposium entitled “Professional Codes of Ethics across National Boundaries: Seeking Common Ground.”  It was brought to the attention of IUPsyS and IAAP. A few days later, at the IUPsyS General Assembly, Professor Gauthier introduced a motion to create a joint working group to develop a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. It was approved unanimously.  Professor Gauthier was nominated to chair the working group on behalf of IUPsyS. As a member of the Board of Directors of IAAP, and as Chair of its Committee on Ethics, he was nominated by IAAP to be the liaison with IUPsyS.

 

The rationale for developing a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists is at least two-fold: it would provide a generic set of principles to develop and revise codes of ethics in psychology, and a universal standard to measure achievement and progress in psychological ethics throughout the world.

 

It is important to remember that the task of the working group is to develop a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. It is not to develop a worldwide code of ethics or a code of conduct that would be agreed upon and adhered to in all countries. 

 

Perhaps a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists could provide the foundation for developing a universal code of ethics.  However, a declaration of ethical principles should  not to be confounded with a code of ethics or a code of conduct. Codes of conduct define the bottom lines of professional conduct (i.e., what you must or must not do). Codes of ethics tend to be more aspirational, articulating standards according to underlying principles and values. A declaration of ethical principles reflects the principles and values that would be expected of a code of ethics or a code of conduct.

 

Membership

 

The current members of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee for the Development of a Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists are:

 

·         Professor Janel Gauthier (Canada), Chair

·         Professor Catherine Love (New Zealand)

·         Professor Elizabeth Nair (Singapore)

·         Professor Paul B. Pederson (Hawaii)

·         Professor Tuomo Tikkanen (Finland)

·         Professor Kan Zhang (China)

 

All of them were invited to serve on the Committee on the basis of their knowledge and expertise in the area of ethics or other areas relevant to the development of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists.

 

There is a need to recruit one or two more members to ensure representation from all five continents. Efforts are currently under way to recruit someone from Africa, and possibly someone from Central or South America.

 

The total number of members will remain deliberately limited to keep to make it possible to work efficiently as a group.

 

Summary of Activities for 2002-2004

 

Since 2002, all of the activities of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee have focused on the identification of a framework that could be used to draft a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists.  These activities could be summarized as follows:

 

1) One major activity has involved reviewing some of the most important or influential codes of ethics in psychology to identify the ethical principles[1] that have been used to develop them.  Preference was given to codes of ethics that clearly identified the principles used to articulate standards of conduct to avoid inferences about the principles underlying codes of ethics. So far, five codes of ethics involving three different continents have been found to meet the criterion for review. These are:

 

·         The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists of the Canadian Psychological Association (2001);

·         The Código Ético del Psicólogo of the Sociedad Mexicana de Psicología (2002);

·         The Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand of the New Zealand Psychological Society (2002);

·         The Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct of the American Psychological Association (2002);

·         The Meta-Code of Ethics of the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations (1995).

 

Comparisons between these codes have revealed that the principles underlying them have a high level of commonality. As shown in Table 1, the principles adopted to develop each of one these codes of ethics are all highly congruent with one another.  Consequently, a generic set of fundamental principles was distilled from these codes, which could be used as a framework to develop a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. 

 

The following set of principles was found to best capture the commonalties identified in the principles adopted by the codes of ethics reviewed until now:

 

Þ     Respect for the dignity and rights of persons

Þ     Caring for others and concerns for their welfare

Þ     Competence

Þ     Integrity

Þ     Professional, scientific, and social responsibility

 

2) Another major activity has been to test the universality of the moral principles underlying codes of ethics in psychology.  This was achieved by comparing the codes of ethics in psychology and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and comparing the codes of ethics in psychology and those in other disciplines such as sports and martial arts.[2]

 

These comparisons have revealed that the moral principles underlying professional ethics have a high level of universality.  As shown in Table 2 and Table 3, the principles adopted to develop codes of ethics in psychology are all highly congruent with the moral imperatives underlying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and codes of ethics in sports (namely, coaching) and martial arts.

 

3) Another major activity has involved incorporating into a framework, as shown in Table 4, the ethical principles and moral values found to be most universal and best reflect the commonalties in the principles used to develop codes of ethics in psychology. This framework has been presented at international meetings as the proposed framework to develop a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists.

 

Given the proposed framework, one could anticipate that the resulting document would have a preamble followed by five sections, each relating to one of the five ethical principles identified in Table 4.  Each section would define the ethical principle in a values statement that outlines the fundamental moral values contained in the principle. However, it is too soon to tell what the final document will look like as the proposed framework is still being discussed and analyzed.

 

4) Another major activity has involved presenting for discussion and debates at international meetings the framework being proposed to develop a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists.  For example, after the International Congress of Applied Psychology in Singapore, it was presented at a symposium organized by Dr. Jean Pettifor and entitled “A universal declaration of ethical principles: Where is it at?” during the European Congress of Psychology in Vienna, July 6-11, 2003.  It was also presented at another symposium organized by Dr. Pettifor on “Comparisons of Ethical Codes Across National Boundaries” during the International Congress on Licensure, Certification and Credentialing of Psychologists in Montreal, April 21-24, 2004.  In both cases, it was well received and attendees provided helpful and supportive comments.

 

Another exciting event was a well attended focus group organized by Dr. Jean Pettifor to discuss the Feasibility of a Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists. It was also held during the International Congress in Montreal. The goal was to provide the chair and his working group with feedback and advice.  A summary of the main results of the focus group is attached to this report. Essentially, it was agreed that it was feasible, but would be difficult, and would require broad consultations. The moral principles need to be articulated in such a way that they can be operationalized differently around different cultures and needs, but still honored. Respect must include both individuals and peoples, and must not be used to oppress peoples. Competence and serving the needs of people must be relative to culture.

 

Activities planned for 2004-2006

 

As a working group, the Ad Hoc Joint Committee will be very active in the coming year. It will establish a means to keep people informed and to seek feedback and advice from those who live and work in different cultural settings. It will also begin to work on a draft of the universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists.

 

If everything unfolds according to plan, a complete draft of the universal declaration will be available for discussion at the 2006 Board of Directors Meeting in Athens, Greece. 

 

In the meantime, every effort will be made to consult and seek advice from psychologists all over the world in order to arrive at a draft that can be endorsed by all major international and national stakeholders in psychology.

 

Comments

 

Naturally, to be of worldwide value in psychology, a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists would have to be relevant to local communities and indigenous values, and sensitive to national and cultural differences.  Many of the codes analyzed so far have been North American/European in culture and, as such, tend to emphasize individualism over family, community, and collective good. For cultures that take a collectivist approach over an individual one, there are implications for the interpretation of informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, professional boundaries, and decision-making.  Most certainly, an attempt to develop a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists will require an explicit statement regarding the role of community and culture in people’s lives in order to obtain widespread support. A direction has been taken in the Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand (New Zealand Psychological Society, 2002) to address the issue of balance between the individual and the communal.  In this code, the ethical principle pertaining to respect reads “Respect for the dignity of persons and peoples.” Scholars who specialize in the philosophical underpinnings of the concept of “human rights” would have a tough time with the addition of the word “peoples.” Respect for peoples sometimes may be essential for respect for individuals in order to counter discrimination that is based on individual membership in specific people groups.  However, all of us have seen situations in which respect for peoples’ alleged cultural beliefs has been used to justify harm to individuals.

 

Obviously, the development of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists that is both aspirational and inspirational in its respect for the inherent dignity of all human beings will continue to be a challenge.  However, I am confident that, as a discipline, we will succeed. More than meets the eye has been accomplished in the last two years. Still more will be achieved during the next two years. The project enjoys strong and enthusiastic support from all parts of the world and the members of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee are experienced and eager to contribute.

 

Special Thanks

 

This report would not be complete without expressing my warmest gratitude to Dr. Jean Pettifor and Dr. Carole Sinclair who have generously accepted to serve as my personal advisors for this project.  Without their support and their guidance, this project would not be where it is today.  I also wish to use this opportunity to thank all of those who have so kindly accepted to serve on the Ad Hoc Joint Committee. Finally, my thanks go to all of those who have provided me with feedback and encouragement to carry on this very special and important project.

 

 

 

 

Janel Gauthier, Ph.D.

Chair of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee (IUPsyS/IAAP)

Chair of the Ethics Committee (IAAP)


 Table 1. – Comparisons of the ethical principles used to develop the American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, the Canadian Psychological Association’s (CPA’s) Code of Ethics for Psychologists, the European Federation of Psychologists Associations’ (EFPA’s) Meta-Code of Ethics, the Sociedad Mexicana de Psicología’s (SMP’s) Código Ético del Psicólogo, and the New Zealand Psychological Society’s (NZPS’s) Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

 

 

Ethical Principles

 

APA’s (2002)

 

CPA’s (2001)

 

 

EFPA’s (1995)

 

SMP’s (2002)

 

NZPS’s (2002)

 

Respect for the dignity and rights of persons

 

 

Principle E

 

 Principle I

 

Principle 1

 

Principle A

 

Principle I*

 

Responsible caring

 

 

(incl. in Princ. A)

 

Principle II

 

(incl.in Princ. 3)

 

 

Principle B

 

Principle II

 

Integrity in relationships

 

 

Principle C

 

Principle III

 

Principle 4

 

Principle C

 

Principle III

 

Responsibility to society

 

 

(incl. in Princ. B)

 

Principle IV

 

Principle 3

 

Principle D

 

Principle IV

 

Beneficence and nonmaleficence

 

 

Principle A

 

(incl. in Princ. II)

 

 

(incl. in Princ. 3)

 

(incl. in Princ. B)

 

(incl. in Princ. II)

 

Fidelity & responsibility

 

 

Principle B

 

(incl. in Princ. IV)

 

Principle 3

 

(incl. in Princ. D)

 

(incl. in Princ. IV)

 

Justice

 

 

Principle D

 

(incl. in Princ. I)

 

(incl. in Princ. 1)

 

(incl. in Princ. A)

 

 

Principle IV

 

Competence

 

 

(incl.in Princ.. D)

 

(incl.in Princ. II)

 

Principle 2

 

(incl. in Princ. B)

 

(incl. in Princ. II)

*In the Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Principle I reads as follows: Respect for the dignity of persons and peoples.


Table 2. – Comparisons of moral rights underlying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and those underlying codes of ethics in psychology.

 

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

 

Codes of Ethics in Psychology

Right to be treated primarily as a person

Recognize as fundamental the principle of respect for the dignity of person

Right to be appreciated primarily as a person

Recognize that all persons have a right to have their innate worth as human beings appreciated.

Right to non-discrimination

Recognize as fundamental the right not to be discriminated because of culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, physical or mental abilities, age, socioeconomic status, or any other preference or personal characteristic, condition, or status.

Right to justice

Recognize that all persons have a right to fair treatment and due process

Right to freedom

Recognize as fundamental the right to self-determination and autonomy

Right to education, health and well-being

Recognize as fundamental the principle of caring for others and being concerned for their welfare

Right to protection, security and social order

Recognize as fundamental the right to informed consent and the principle of  responsible and competent caring

Right to privacy

Recognize as fundamental the right to  privacy and confidentiality

Right to free and full consent

Recognize as fundamental the right to free and full consent

Recognition of duties to the community

Recognize as fundamental the principle of professional, scientific, and social responsibility

Respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms

Recognize as fundamental the principle of respects for human rights


Table 3. – Comparisons of the ethical principles underlying codes of ethics in psychology, sports (coaching) and martial arts.

 

 

Psychology1

 

 

Sports (coaching)2

 

Martial Arts3

 

·        Respect for the dignity and rights of persons/peoples

·        Integrity

·        Responsibility to society

·        Competence

·        Caring for others – concerns for their welfare

 

 

 

·        Respect for the dignity of participants

·        Responsible coaching

·        Integrity

·        Competence

·        Concerns for others’ welfare

·        Social responsibility

 

·        Humility

·        Courage to stand up for truth and justice

·        Benevolence

·        Self-control

·        Integrity

·        Respect and sensitivity toward others

·        Honour

·        Loyalty

·        Devotion to others

 

 

1 Based on a comparative analysis of the ethical principles used to develop the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, the Canadian Psychological Association’s Code of Ethics for Psychologists, the European Federation of Psychologists Associations’ Meta-Code of Ethics, the Sociedad Mexicana de Psicología’s Código Ético del Psicólogo, and the New Zealand Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics for Psychologists Working in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

2 Based on a comparative analysis of the ethical principles used to develop the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Professional Coaches Association, the United States Olympic Committee Coaching Ethics Code and the Codes of Ethics of the National Coaching Foundation (United Kingdom).

3 Based on a comparative analysis of the ethical principles Code of Ethics of the United States Martial Arts Federation and the Code of Bushido.


Table 4. – Proposed framework for the development of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists.

 

 

Principle 1

Respect for the dignity

and rights of persons/peoples

 

 

Principle 2

Caring for others and

concerns for their welfare

 

Principle 3

Competence

 

Principle 4

Integrity

 

Principle 5

Professional, scientific, and social responsibility

 

 

·        Respect for dignity and worthiness of persons/peoples

 

·        Non-Discrimination

 

·        Informed consent (protection)

 

·        Free consent (freedom)

 

·        Fair Treatment/Due  Process (justice)

 

·        Privacy

 

·        Confidentiality

 

 

·        Caring (health and well-being)

 

·        Maximize Benefits

 

·        Minimize Harm

 

·        Offset/Correct Harm

 

 

·        Competence (responsible caring)

 

·        Self-knowledge (responsible caring)

 

 

 

·        Accuracy/Honesty

 

·        Objectivity (understanding and managing of biases)

 

·        Straightforwardness/Openness

 

·        Avoidance of Deception

 

·        Avoidance of Conflict of Interest

 

·        Development of Knowledge

 

·        Respect for society

 

·        Duties to society (development of society)

 

 


THE FEASIBILITY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION

OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS

 

Summary of the Focus Group Discussion

International Congress on Licensure, Certification and Credentialing of Psychologists

Montréal (Québec), Canada

April 23, 2004

 

There are shared values across cultures because of our common humanity, although practices may vary with different beliefs, religions, social conditions and political systems.  The purpose of the session was to explore the feasibility of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists and how it could be best achieved. There were over 40 participants and almost all of the following countries were represented: Australia, Bermuda, Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palestine, Peru, Romania, South Africa, Spain, and United States.

 

Background

 

In July 2002, Janel Gauthier presented a paper at a symposium on professional codes of ethics across national boundaries at the International Congress of Applied Psychology in Singapore. It was entitled Toward a Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists. A few days later, Janel submitted a proposal to the International Union of Psychological Science to develop such a declaration in an effort to promote the universal respect for and observance of ethical principles among all psychologists in the world. It was immediately approved by the International Union and endorsed by the International Association of Applied Psychology. Subsequently, Janel was asked by the International Union to chair a working group to draft a Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists.

 

During the Congress in Montreal, Janel made a presentation during which he described a proposed framework for the development of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. The next day, a Focus Group Discussion was held to provide him and his working group with feedback and advice. The following questions were discussed:

1.      Is a declaration of ethical principles for psychologists feasible on a world-wide basis? Why? Why not? What do you see as the biggest benefits? What do you see as the biggest disadvantages?

2.      Janel has identified five principles that appear to be common in codes of ethics across four continents. Do you think that psychologists in different cultures would interpret these as having the same meaning or different meanings?

i)                    Respect for the dignity and rights of persons. What does this mean? What about peoples?

ii)                   Caring for others and concerns for their welfare. What others? Where? Individuals and groups?

iii)                 Competence. In what? Is this different from ii) above?

iv)                 Integrity. What does that mean?

v)                  Professional, scientific, and social responsibility. What does tha mean?

3.      Are there important ethical principles that are not included in the above?

4.      What advice do you have for Janel and his working group?

The main results of the focus group are summarized below.

 

Feasibility

 

·        Overall, participants thought that a declaration of ethical principles for psychologists on a world-wide basis was a worthwhile project.

·        They thought that it was “feasible” – “doable.”

·        There can be no such thing as a universal code of conduct because of the diversity in the world, but a universal declaration of ethical principles would be feasible.

·        Even if there are different definitions of self, there are moral principles that are general to us all.

·        There will be difficulties and obstacles.

·        Language will be an obstacle because meanings can change in the translation.

·        There seems to be two separate approaches to ethics : one individually-based and one collectively based.

·        It will require broad consultation, including minorities and indigenous peoples across multiple cultures.

·        To achieve a high level of consensus, it will be essential to take into account the huge diversity the world and differences in world view.

 

Preamble

 

·        We should focus on why it is being done:

·        Framework of ethical principles for the development of codes of ethics. 

·        Reference that could be used to assess progress in the articulation of ethical guidelines

·        For those who have developed a codes of ethics, it may be a way to identify principles that they have not yet considered

·        Develop continuing process for dialogue on ethical principles.

·        Contribution to the improvement of the human condition.

·        If adopted by international psychology organizations, it could become a moral standard that could be used to support international actions against practices that are contrary to the high level of morality that must regulate the scientific and professional roles assumed by psychologists in modern society.

·        Someone asked “Is it [the universal declaration] to unite us as a profession globally?”

·        It was suggested that the preamble indicate that these principles could be interpreted in different ways in different cultures.

·        We need to allow for different operationalization of these principles in the context of the cultures in which they are used.

·        The principles need to be articulated in such a way that they can be operationalized differently around different cultures or needs, but still honoured.

·        Some participants stated that we need a universal mission statement from which the principles will flow.  There was some discussion about what this mission might be.

·        Psychologists need to be aware that psychologists are not agents of state control.

·        We need to avoid the universal principles being used to oppress people.

·        We need to underline the dangerousness of psychological knowledge when it is misused.

·        Is there a way to state the objectives in such a way that we say that psychologists do not harm, do not oppress, etc. ?

·        Some participants expressed their dissention with the idea of including a mission statement.

·        It was suggested to be sparse and parsimonious to avoid a crash.

·        It was suggested to move slowly, with tolerance for ambiguity.

·        Go for modest objectives.

·        Application of the principles in psychology as a science and as a profession : “We believe this about oppression, exploitation, the human spirit, human relationships, etc.”  We can arrive at this. Then you can say to somebody: “This body says that you are wrong.”

 

Principles

 

Principle 1: Respect for the Dignity and Rights of Persons/Peoples

 

·        Both « individuals » and « peoples » need to be recognized and respected.

·        Its was suggested to recognize that there may be conflicts between them.

·        Some thought that there should be two separate principles (one for respect of individuals and another for respect of peoples) while others argued to keep them together.

·        Neither should come first : Write “persons/peoples”

·        Someone suggested to have only the word « respect » to designate the principle.

·        We have different world views. Many of us look at life as “either or” rather than “wholeness.”  We will interpret the word « respect » differently.

·        There should be a parameter set to help with the interpretation of the principle.

·        We should incorporate into the principle respect for the person’s view of themselves and the world and their relationships to others.

·        We need a strong statement regarding racism and sexism.

·        Dignity and respect for indigenous systems need to be integrated.

·        The principle needs to allow for the different ways in which human dignity is expressed. It needs to be inclusive.

·        It was suggested to incorporate in principle 1 the notion of “cultural safety.”

 

Principle 2: Caring for Others and Concerns for Their Welfare

 

·        First statement should be  “Do no harm”

·        Need to have continuing knowledge – Caring is not good enough

 

Principle 3: Competence

 

·        Competence has to be relative to culture.

·        What is considered “competent” in one culture may not be considered “competent” in another culture.

·        We should have a willingness to consult with one another and to monitor ourselves..

 

Principle 4: Integrity

 

·        Psychology is not objective and unbiased.

·        It is difficult to be objective because we study ourselves.

·        Incorporate the notion of understanding your bias instead of focusing on objectivity.

·        Key is to understand ourselves so as not to do harm or to allow ourselves to become agents of evil.

 

Principle 5: Professional, Scientific and Social Responsibility

 

·        Need to include something about knowledge creation and use of knowledge for good.

 

What Other Important Principles Should be Considered for Inclusion?

 

·        No one is against what is there.

·        Someone noted that it had little to do with science.

·        What is the essence of psychology and is it included in the principles?

·        We should include something about “free exchange” or “free flow” of scientific information

 

Process

 

·        It would be important to know about codes of ethics in other countries. For example, the Chinese have humility in their code. Where does that fit?

·        Even if we do not get there, engaging in this process is very important. In this process, we need inputs of different ways of thinking.

·        There was suggestion that the process include the development of ethical dilemmas that are presented to psychologists from many cultures for resolutions with the idea of reformulating the principles.

·        To reach consensus, we must take into account the huge diversity around the world.

 

Where Do We Go from Here

 

·        Consider using a web site to keep people informed and to seek feedback and advice from  those who live and work in different cultural settings.

·        Establish links between the web site housing the information and the web sites of international and national psychology organizations interested in supporting the development of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists.

 



[1] The term “ethical principle” is used primarily in the sense of a recognized moral imperative that is to guide our behavior unless it conflicts with another, higher ranking moral imperative.

 

[2] As for the codes of ethics in psychology, only codes of ethics in sports and martial arts that clearly identified the principles used to articulate standards of conduct were reviewed and compared with codes of ethics in psychology.