Abstract The Canadian Psychological Association Code of Ethics differs from many codes of conduct that it is based on clearly-articulated Principles, Values, and Standards that constitute a best practice model, rather than on rules, regulations, and proscriptions/prescriptions (or a worst practice model). Our approach to ethical conduct issues can be seen to have extended beyond our discipline into the other social sciences, the other natural sciences, and the other biological/biomedical sciences -- the arenas of research, if not also other areas of practice. In order to bring about changes it is often useful to have external references and standards that have been approved by professional bodies, but documents, themselves, are no guarantee that changes will occur practice. Although 137 of the 153 Standards articulated our Code relate to the conduct of research with human participants, it appears that there may be some confusion about how these Standards might be operationalized the research context. The conduct of research is a social endeavour that is embedded a number of social contexts described this article. Conducting research with humans fact establishes a social relationship with participants, a relationship that requires respect for the dignity and welfare of others. An elaboration on what relationships may mean the context of psychological research is provided to assist the operationalization of this Principle and the examination of the values and motivations underlying our research culture.The primary thesis of this article is that the 1991 Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists has the potential for making a significant contribution to changing the research culture a way that will maximize the well-being of everyone involved. Instrumental this process is CPA's proactive focus on Values and Principles, rather than merely on designed to minimize harm. Fundamental to this process is an understanding of what the Principle of Integrity Relationships means the research context. The implications of the evolving culture for ethical research are addressed more fully below.BackgroundIn the period following World War II there was an increased awareness of the potential for abuse research involving humans. In the 1947 Nuremberg Code, developed response to the atrocities perpetrated in the name of science, research with human participants was finally constrained within both ethical and legal limits (Tri-Council Working Group on Ethics, 1996). Even two decades after Nuremberg, however, it was not uncommon to find universities paying more attention to the conduct of research with laboratory animals than to research conducted with human animals(f.1).Psychologists have not always been the forefront of movements to enhance the integrity with which human participants are treated the research context. The so-called Crisis Social Psychology of the 1970s, following on the heels of the Golden Age of research this area, was based -- part -- on objections to the mistreatment of participants psychological research. However, psychologists have responded to justified critiques, both with reactions to prevent the recurrence of unacceptable conduct and with more proactive policies and standards.Approaches To Ethics: Rules Vs. GuidelinesAs noted elsewhere, Professional and research codes of ethics have tended to place major emphasis on of behaviour, often with minimal bottom line Do Nots and Dos frequently accompanied by (p)rocedures for adjudicating complaints and for imposing on those who are guilty of violations (Stark[-Adamec] & Pettifor, 1995, p. A3). This rules and sanctions approach can be problematic that: tend to proliferate as a function of the virtual impossibility of covering every conceivable situation that a researcher may encounter; the use of negative reinforcement may be less effective modifying and maintaining prosocial behaviour than it may be inducing strategies to circumvent the rules; and fear of detection of these transgressions can, turn, escalate the rule-bending/-breaking. …