Bias Is Not Color Blind: Ignoring Gender and Race Leads to Suboptimal Selection Decisions.

Rabinovitch, H. et al. (2025, May 27).

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9akq8_v1

Abstract

Blindfolding—selecting candidates based on objective selection tests while avoiding personal information about their race and gender— is commonly used to mitigate bias in selection. Selection tests, however, often benefit people of a certain race or gender. In such cases, selecting the best candidates requires incorporating, rather than ignoring, the biasing factor. We examined people's preference for avoiding candidates’ race and gender, even when fully aware that these factors bias the selection test. We put forward a novel prediction suggesting that paradoxically, due to their fear of appearing partial, people would choose not to reveal race and gender information, even when doing so means making suboptimal decisions. Across three experiments (N = 3,621), hiring professionals (and laypeople) were tasked with selecting the best candidate for a position when they could reveal the candidate’s race and gender or avoid it. We further measured how fear for their social image corresponds with their decision, as well as how job applicants perceive such actions. The results supported our predictions, showing that more than 50% did not reveal gender and race information, compared to only 30% who did not reveal situational biasing information, such as the time of day in which the interview was held. Those who did not reveal information expressed higher concerns for their social and self-image than those who decided to reveal. We conclude that decision-makers avoid personal biasing information to maintain a positive image, yet by doing so, they compromise fairness and accuracy alike.

Public significance statements

Blindfolding—ignoring one’s gender and race in selection processes—is a widespread strategy aimed at reducing bias and increasing diversity. Selection tests, however, often unjustly benefit members of certain groups, such as men and white people. In such cases, correcting the bias requires incorporating, rather than ignoring, information about the candidates’ gender and race. The current research shows that decision-makers are reluctant to reveal such information due to their fear of appearing partial. Paradoxically, decision-makers avoid such information, even when fully aware that doing so may perpetuate bias, in order to protect their social image as impartial, but miss out on the opportunity to advance fairness and choose the best candidates.

Here are some thoughts:

This research is critically important to practicing psychologists because it sheds light on the complex interplay between bias, decision-making, and social image concerns in hiring processes. The study demonstrates how well-intentioned practices like "blindfolding"—omitting race or gender information to reduce discrimination—can paradoxically perpetuate systemic biases when selection tools themselves are flawed. Practicing psychologists must understand that ignoring personal attributes does not eliminate bias but can instead obscure its effects, leading to suboptimal and unfair outcomes. By revealing how decision-makers avoid sensitive information out of fear of appearing partial, the research highlights the psychological mechanisms—such as social and self-image concerns—that drive this avoidance. This insight is crucial for psychologists involved in organizational consulting, personnel training, or policy development, as it underscores the need for more nuanced strategies that address bias directly rather than avoiding it.

Additionally, the findings inform interventions aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion by showing that transparency and informed adjustments based on demographic factors may be necessary to achieve fairer outcomes. Ultimately, the research challenges traditional assumptions about neutrality in selection decisions and urges psychologists to advocate for evidence-based approaches that actively correct for bias while considering the broader implications of perceived fairness and merit.

The Psychology of Moral Conviction

Skitka, L. J.,  et al. (2020).

Annual Review of Psychology, 72(1),

347–366.

doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-063020-030612

Abstract

This review covers theory and research on the psychological characteristics and consequences of attitudes that are experienced as moral convictions, that is, attitudes that people perceive as grounded in a fundamental distinction between right and wrong. Morally convicted attitudes represent something psychologically distinct from other constructs (e.g., strong but nonmoral attitudes or religious beliefs), are perceived as universally and objectively true, and are comparatively immune to authority or peer influence. Variance in moral conviction also predicts important social and political consequences. Stronger moral conviction about a given attitude object, for example, is associated with greater intolerance of attitude dissimilarity, resistance to procedural solutions for conflict about that issue, and increased political engagement and volunteerism in that attitude domain. Finally, we review recent research that explores the processes that lead to attitude moralization; we integrate these efforts and conclude with a new domain theory of attitude moralization.

Here are some thoughts:

The article provides valuable insights into how individuals perceive and process attitudes grounded in fundamental beliefs about right and wrong. It distinguishes morally convicted attitudes from other constructs, such as strong but nonmoral attitudes or religious beliefs, by highlighting that moral convictions are viewed as universally and objectively true and are relatively resistant to authority or peer influence. These convictions often lead to significant social and political consequences, including intolerance of differing views, resistance to compromise, increased political engagement, and heightened emotional responses. The article also explores the processes of attitude moralization—how an issue becomes infused with moral significance—and demoralization, offering a domain theory of attitude moralization that suggests different pathways depending on whether the initial attitude is perceived as a preference, convention, or existing moral imperative.

This knowledge is critically important to practicing psychologists because it enhances their understanding of how moral convictions shape behavior, decision-making, and interpersonal dynamics. For instance, therapists working with clients on issues involving conflict resolution, values clarification, or behavioral change must consider the role of moral conviction in shaping resistance to persuasion or difficulty in compromising. Understanding moral conviction can also aid psychologists in navigating cultural differences, addressing polarization in group settings, and promoting tolerance by recognizing how individuals intuitively perceive certain issues as moral. Furthermore, as society grapples with increasingly divisive sociopolitical challenges—such as climate change, immigration, and public health crises—psychologists can use these insights to foster dialogue, reduce moral entrenchment, and encourage constructive engagement. Ultimately, integrating the psychology of moral conviction into practice allows for more nuanced, empathetic, and effective interventions across clinical, organizational, and community contexts.

Mindfulness, moral reasoning and responsibility: towards virtue in Ethical Decision-Making.

Small, C., & Lew, C. (2019).

Journal of Business Ethics, 169(1),

103–117.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04272-y

Abstract

Ethical decision-making is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and our understanding of ethics rests on diverse perspectives. While considering how leaders ought to act, scholars have created integrated models of moral reasoning processes that encompass diverse influences on ethical choice. With this, there has been a call to continually develop an understanding of the micro-level factors that determine moral decisions. Both rationalist, such as moral processing, and non-rationalist factors, such as virtue and humanity, shape ethical decision-making. Focusing on the role of moral judgement and moral intent in moral reasoning, this study asks what bearings a trait of mindfulness and a sense of moral responsibility may have on this process. A survey measuring mindfulness, moral responsibility and moral judgement completed by 171 respondents was used for four hypotheses on moral judgement and intent in relation to moral responsibility and mindfulness. The results indicate that mindfulness predict moral responsibility but not moral judgement. Moral responsibility does not predict moral judgement, but moral judgement predicts moral intent. The findings give further insight into the outcomes of mindfulness and expand insights into the models of ethical decision-making. We offer suggestions for further research on the role of mindfulness and moral responsibility in ethical decision-making.

Here are some thoughts:

This research explores the interplay between mindfulness, moral reasoning, and moral responsibility in ethical decision-making. Drawing on Rest’s model of moral reasoning—which outlines four phases (awareness, judgment, intent, and behavior)—the study investigates how mindfulness as a virtue influences these stages, particularly moral judgment and intent, and how it relates to a sense of moral responsibility. Regression analyses revealed that while mindfulness did not directly predict moral judgment, it significantly predicted moral responsibility. Additionally, moral judgment was found to strongly predict moral intent.

For practicing psychologists, this study is important for several reasons. First, it highlights the potential role of mindfulness as a trait linked to moral responsibility, suggesting that cultivating mindfulness may enhance ethical decision-making by fostering a greater sense of accountability toward others. This has implications for ethics training and professional development in psychology, especially in fields where practitioners face complex moral dilemmas. Second, the findings underscore the importance of integrating non-rationalist factors—such as virtues and emotional awareness—into traditional models of moral reasoning, offering a more holistic understanding of ethical behavior. Third, the research supports the use of scenario-based approaches in training professionals to navigate real-world ethical challenges, emphasizing the contextual nature of moral reasoning. Finally, the paper contributes to the broader literature on mindfulness by linking it to prosocial behaviors and ethical outcomes, which can inform therapeutic practices aimed at enhancing clients’ moral self-awareness and responsible decision-making.

Realization of Empathy Capability for the Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Using an MXene(Ti3C2)-Based Memristor

Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., et al. (2024).

Electronics, 13(9), 1632.

https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13091632

Abstract

Empathy is the emotional capacity to feel and understand the emotions experienced by other human beings from within their frame of reference. As a unique psychological faculty, empathy is an important source of motivation to behave altruistically and cooperatively. Although human-like emotion should be a critical component in the construction of artificial intelligence (AI), the discovery of emotional elements such as empathy is subject to complexity and uncertainty. In this work, we demonstrated an interesting electrical device (i.e., an MXene (Ti3C2) memristor) and successfully exploited the device to emulate a psychological model of “empathic blame”. To emulate this affective reaction, MXene was introduced into memristive devices because of its interesting structure and ionic capacity. Additionally, depending on several rehearsal repetitions, self-adaptive characteristic of the memristive weights corresponded to different levels of empathy. Moreover, an artificial neural system was designed to analogously realize a moral judgment with empathy. This work may indicate a breakthrough in making cool machines manifest real voltage-motivated feelings at the level of the hardware rather than the algorithm.

Here are some thoughts:

This research represents a critical step toward endowing machines with human-like emotional capabilities, particularly empathy. Traditionally, AI has been limited to algorithmic decision-making and pattern recognition, lacking the nuanced ability to understand or simulate human emotions. By using an MXene-based memristor to emulate "empathic blame," researchers have demonstrated a hardware-level mechanism that mimics how humans adjust their moral judgments based on repeated exposure to similar situations—an essential component of empathetic reasoning. This breakthrough suggests that future AI systems could be designed not just to recognize emotions but to adaptively respond to them in real time, potentially leading to more socially intelligent machines.

For psychologists, this research raises profound questions about the nature of empathy, its role in moral judgment, and whether artificially created systems can truly embody these traits or merely imitate them. The ability to program empathy into AI could change how we conceptualize machine sentience and emotional intelligence, blurring the lines between biological and artificial cognition. Furthermore, as AI becomes more integrated into social, therapeutic, and even judicial contexts, understanding how machines might "feel" or interpret human suffering becomes increasingly relevant. The study also opens up new interdisciplinary dialogues between neuroscience, ethics, and AI development, emphasizing the importance of considering psychological principles in the design of emotionally responsive technologies. Ultimately, this work signals a shift from purely functional AI toward systems capable of engaging with humans on a deeper, more emotionally resonant level.

The Advantages of Human Evolution in Psychotherapy: Adaptation, Empathy, and Complexity

Gavazzi, J. (2025, May 24).

On Board with Professional Psychology.

American Board of Professional Psychology.

Issues 5.

Here is a link to the article.

Abstract

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has generated significant concern among psychologists regarding potential impacts on therapeutic practice. 

This paper examines the evolutionary advantages that position human psychologists as irreplaceable in psychotherapy, despite technological advances. Human evolution has produced sophisticated capacities for genuine empathy, social connection, and adaptive flexibility that are fundamental to effective therapeutic relationships. These evolutionarily-derived abilities include biologically-rooted emotional understanding, authentic empathetic responses, and the capacity for nuanced, context-dependent decision-making. In contrast, LLMs lack consciousness, genuine emotional experience, and the evolutionary framework necessary for deep therapeutic insight. While LLMs can simulate empathetic responses through linguistic patterns, they operate as statistical models without true emotional comprehension or theory of mind. The therapeutic alliance, cornerstone of successful psychotherapy, depends on authentic human connection and shared experiential understanding that transcends algorithmic processes. Human psychologists demonstrate adaptive complexity in understanding attachment styles, trauma responses, and individual patient needs that current AI cannot replicate.

The paper concludes that while LLMs serve valuable supportive roles in documentation, treatment planning, and professional reflection, they cannot replace the uniquely human relational and interpretive aspects essential to psychotherapy. Psychologists should integrate these technologies as resources while maintaining focus on the evolutionarily-grounded human capacities that define effective therapeutic practice.

Neural Processes Linking Interoception to Moral Preferences Aligned with Group Consensus

Kim, J., & Kim, H. (2025).

Journal of Neuroscience, e1114242025.

https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1114-24.2025

Abstract

Aligning one’s decisions with the prevailing norms and expectations of those around us constitutes a fundamental facet of moral decision-making. When faced with conflicting moral values, one adaptive approach is to rely on intuitive moral preference. While there has been theoretical speculation about the connection between moral preference and an individual’s awareness of introspective interoceptive signals, it has not been empirically examined. This study examines the relationships between individuals’ preferences in moral dilemmas and interoception, measured with self-report, heartbeat detection task, and resting-state fMRI. Two independent experiments demonstrate that both male and female participants’ interoceptive awareness and accuracy are associated with their moral preferences aligned with group consensus. In addition, the fractional occupancies of the brain states involving the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the precuneus during rest mediate the link between interoceptive awareness and the degree of moral preferences aligned to group consensus. These findings provide empirical evidence of the neural mechanism underlying the link between interoception and moral preferences aligned with group consensus.

Significance statement

We investigate the intricate link between interoceptive ability to perceive internal bodily signals and decision-making when faced with moral dilemmas. Our findings reveal a significant correlation between the accuracy and awareness of interoceptive signals and the degree of moral preferences aligned with group consensus. Additionally, brain states involving the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and precuneus during rest mediate the link between interoceptive awareness and moral preferences aligned with group consensus. These findings provide empirical evidence that internal bodily signals play a critical role in shaping our moral intuitions according to others’ expectations across various social contexts.

Here are some thoughts:

A recent study highlighted that our moral decisions may be influenced by our body's internal signals, particularly our heartbeat. Researchers found that individuals who could accurately perceive their own heartbeats tended to make moral choices aligning with the majority, regardless of whether those choices were utilitarian or deontological. This implies that bodily awareness might unconsciously guide us toward socially accepted norms. Brain scans supported this, showing increased activity in areas associated with evaluation and judgment, like the medial prefrontal cortex, in those more attuned to their internal signals. While the study's participants were exclusively Korean college students, limiting generalizability, the findings open up intriguing possibilities about the interplay between bodily awareness and moral decision-making.

Whistle-blowers – morally courageous actors in health care?

Wiisak, J., Suhonen, R., & Leino-Kilpi, H. (2022).

Nursing Ethics, 29(6), 1415–1429.

https://doi.org/10.1177/09697330221092341

Abstract

Background

Moral courage means courage to act according to individual’s own ethical values and principles despite the risk of negative consequences for them. Research about the moral courage of whistle-blowers in health care is scarce, although whistleblowing involves a significant risk for the whistle-blower.

Objective

To analyse the moral courage of potential whistle-blowers and its association with their background variables in health care.

Research design

Was a descriptive-correlational study using a questionnaire, containing Nurses Moral Courage Scale©, a video vignette of the wrongdoing situation with an open question about the vignette, and several background variables. Data were analysed statistically and inductive content analysis was used for the narratives.

Participants and research context

Nurses as healthcare professionals (including registered nurses, public health nurses, midwives, and nurse paramedics) were recruited from the membership register of the Nurses’ Association via email in 2019. A total of 454 nurses responded. The research context was simulated using a vignette.

Ethical considerations

Good scientific inquiry guidelines were followed. Permission to use the Nurses’ Moral Courage Scale© was obtained from the copyright holder. The ethical approval and permission to conduct the study were obtained from the participating university and the Nurses’ Association.

Findings

The mean value of potential whistle-blowers’ moral courage on a Visual Analogue Scale (0–10) was 8.55 and the mean score was 4.34 on a 5-point Likert scale. Potential whistle-blowers’ moral courage was associated with their socio-demographics, education, work, personality and social responsibility related background variables.

Discussion and conclusion

In health care, potential whistle-blowers seem to be quite morally courageous actors. The results offer opportunities for developing interventions, practices and education to support and encourage healthcare professionals in their whistleblowing. Research is needed for developing a theoretical construction to eventually increase whistleblowing and decrease and prevent wrongdoing.

Here are some thoughts:

This study investigates the moral courage of healthcare professionals in whistleblowing scenarios. Utilizing a descriptive-correlational design, the researchers surveyed 454 nurses—including registered nurses, public health nurses, midwives, and nurse paramedics—using the Nurses' Moral Courage Scale, a video vignette depicting a wrongdoing situation, and open-ended questions. Findings revealed a high level of moral courage among participants, with an average score of 8.55 on a 0–10 Visual Analogue Scale and 4.34 on a 5-point Likert scale. The study identified associations between moral courage and various background factors such as socio-demographics, education, work experience, personality traits, and social responsibility. The authors suggest that these insights can inform the development of interventions and educational programs to support and encourage whistleblowing in healthcare settings, ultimately aiming to reduce and prevent unethical practices

An Update on Psychotherapy for the Treatment of PTSD

Rothbaum, B. O., & Watkins, L. E. (2025).

American Journal of Psychiatry, 182(5), 424–437.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20250110

Abstract

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms are part of the normal response to trauma. Most trauma survivors will recover over time without intervention, but a significant minority will develop chronic PTSD, which is unlikely to remit without intervention. Currently, only two medications, sertraline and paroxetine, are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat PTSD, and the combination of brexpiprazole and sertraline and MDMA-assisted therapy have FDA applications pending. These medications, and the combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, are not recommended as first-line treatments in any published PTSD treatment guidelines. The only interventions recommended as first-line treatments are trauma-focused psychotherapies; the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense PTSD treatment guideline recommends prolonged exposure (PE), cognitive processing therapy (CPT), and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and the American Psychological Association PTSD treatment guideline recommends PE, CPT, cognitive therapy, and trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy. Although published clinical trials of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy have not incorporated evidence-based PTSD psychotherapies, they have achieved greater response rates than other trials of combination treatment, and there is some enthusiasm about combining psychedelic medications with evidence-based psychotherapies. The state-of-the-art PTSD psychotherapies are briefly reviewed here, including their effects on clinical and neurobiological measures.

The article is paywalled, unfortuantely.

Here is a summary and some thoughts.

In the evolving landscape of PTSD treatment, Rothbaum and Watkins reaffirm a crucial truth: trauma-focused psychotherapies remain the first-line, evidence-based interventions for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), outperforming pharmacological approaches in both efficacy and durability.

The State of PTSD Treatment

While most individuals naturally recover from trauma, a significant minority develop chronic PTSD, which typically requires intervention. Current FDA-approved medications for PTSD—sertraline and paroxetine—offer only modest relief, and recent psychedelic-assisted therapy trials, though promising, have not yet integrated evidence-based psychotherapy approaches. As such, expert guidelines consistently recommend trauma-focused psychotherapies as first-line treatments.

Evidence-Based Therapies at the Core

The VA/DoD and APA guidelines converge on recommending prolonged exposure (PE) and cognitive processing therapy (CPT), with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), cognitive therapy, and trauma-focused CBT also strongly supported.

PE helps patients systematically confront trauma memories and triggers to promote extinction learning. Its efficacy is unmatched, with robust support from meta-analyses and neurobiological studies.

CPT targets maladaptive beliefs that develop after trauma, helping patients reframe distorted thoughts through cognitive restructuring.

EMDR, though somewhat controversial, remains a guideline-supported approach and continues to show effectiveness in trials.

Neurobiological Insights

Modern neuroscience supports these therapies: PTSD involves hyperactivation of fear and salience networks (e.g., amygdala) and underactivation of emotion regulation circuits (e.g., prefrontal cortex). Successful treatment—especially exposure-based therapy—enhances extinction learning and improves functional connectivity in these circuits. Moreover, cortisol patterns, genetic markers, and cardiovascular reactivity are emerging as potential predictors of treatment response.

Innovations and Expansions

Therapists are increasingly utilizing massed formats (e.g., daily sessions over 2 weeks), virtual reality exposure therapy, and early interventions in emergency settings. These models show high completion rates and comparable outcomes to traditional weekly formats.

One particularly innovative direction involves MDMA-assisted psychotherapy. Although still investigational, trials show higher remission rates when MDMA is paired with psychotherapy. The METEMP protocol (MDMA-enhanced PE) offers a translational model that integrates the strengths of both approaches.

Addressing Clinical Challenges

High dropout rates (27–50%) remain a concern, largely due to avoidance—a core PTSD symptom. Massed therapy formats have demonstrated improved retention. Additionally, comorbid conditions (e.g., depression, TBI, substance use) generally do not impede response to trauma-focused care and can be concurrently treated using integrated protocols like COPE (Concurrent Treatment of PTSD and Substance Use Disorders Using PE).

Toward Greater Access and Remission

Despite strong evidence, access to high-quality trauma-focused therapy remains limited outside military and VA systems. Telehealth, stepped care models, and broader dissemination of evidence-based practices are key to closing this gap.

Finally, Rothbaum and Watkins argue that remission—not just symptom reduction—must be the treatment goal. With renewed scientific rigor and integrative innovations like MDMA augmentation, the field is inching closer to more effective and enduring treatments.

Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task

Kosmyna, N. K. et al. (2025).

ArXiv.org

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.08872

Abstract

This study explores the neural and behavioral consequences of LLM-assisted essay writing. Participants were divided into three groups: LLM, Search Engine, and Brain-only (no tools). Each completed three sessions under the same condition. In a fourth session, LLM users were reassigned to Brain-only group (LLM-to-Brain), and Brain-only users were reassigned to LLM condition (Brain-to-LLM). A total of 54 participants took part in Sessions 1-3, with 18 completing session 4. We used electroencephalography (EEG) to assess cognitive load during essay writing, and analyzed essays using NLP, as well as scoring essays with the help from human teachers and an AI judge. Across groups, NERs, n-gram patterns, and topic ontology showed within-group homogeneity. EEG revealed significant differences in brain connectivity: Brain-only participants exhibited the strongest, most distributed networks; Search Engine users showed moderate engagement; and LLM users displayed the weakest connectivity. Cognitive activity scaled down in relation to external tool use. In session 4, LLM-to-Brain participants showed reduced alpha and beta connectivity, indicating under-engagement. Brain-to-LLM users exhibited higher memory recall and activation of occipito-parietal and prefrontal areas, similar to Search Engine users. Self-reported ownership of essays was the lowest in the LLM group and the highest in the Brain-only group. LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work. While LLMs offer immediate convenience, our findings highlight potential cognitive costs. Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels. These results raise concerns about the long-term educational implications of LLM reliance and underscore the need for deeper inquiry into AI's role in learning.

A pdf is here.

Here are some thoughts:

This research is important for psychologists because it provides empirical evidence on how using large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, traditional search engines, or relying solely on one’s own cognition affects cognitive engagement, neural connectivity, and perceived ownership during essay writing tasks. The study used EEG to measure brain activity and found that participants who wrote essays unaided (Brain-only group) exhibited the highest neural connectivity and cognitive engagement, while those using LLMs showed the weakest. Notably, repeated LLM use led to reduced memory recall, lower perceived ownership of written work, and diminished ability to quote from their own essays, suggesting a measurable cognitive cost and potential decrease in learning skills. The findings highlight that while LLMs can provide immediate benefits, their use may undermine deeper learning and engagement, which has significant implications for educational practices and the integration of AI tools in learning environments.