What Are The Real Effects Of Cyberbullying?

DNews
Originally published on Oct 31, 2014

Cyberbullying is a serious issue, and the effects it can have on a person can last a lifetime. Join Trace as he discusses the extent of the negative effects.




The three-minute segment is video worth watching.  It includes issues related to kids as well as adults.

Artists and Health Insurance Survey

Taking the pulse of the artist community

Kristin Thomson & Jean Cook, Future of Music Coalition
Originally published October 15, 2013

Here is an excerpt:

This most recent survey confirms what many arts service organizations have known anecdotally for years: the US-based artist community is less likely to be insured than the general population, with cost and affordability as the prevailing factors.

Even more troubling is the finding that those respondents who spend more time or derive
more income from being an artist are less likely to be insured.

• The more workweek hours spent on art, the less likely respondents are to have health insurance. 
• The greater percentage of personal income derived from art, the less likely respondents are to have health insurance. 

The findings underscore the conditions experienced by artists; as self-employed or freelance workers with variable incomes, many are simultaneously not eligible for employer-based coverage and have difficulty affording individual health insurance purchased on the open market.

This was an important moment to take a snapshot of artists’ access to health insurance. In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Health Care Act (ACA), which instituted a number of new protections, tax credits and safety nets for citizens. But, because of this law, health insurance is no longer an option; most Americans will need to secure coverage by 2014.

The entire survey can be accessed here.

Thanks to Deborah Derrickson Kossmann for this survey.

More transparency into government requests

By Dorothy Chou

Google Senior Policy Analyst

Originally posted June 17, 2012

About two years ago, we launched our interactive Transparency Report. We started by disclosing data about government requests. Since then, we’ve been steadily adding new features, like graphs showing traffic patterns and disruptions to Google services from different countries. And just a couple weeks ago, we launched a new section showing the requests we get from copyright holders to remove search results.

(cut)

This is the fifth data set that we’ve released. And just like every other time before, we’ve been asked to take down political speech. It’s alarming not only because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests come from countries you might not suspect—Western democracies not typically associated with censorship.

(cut)

We’ve rounded up some additional interesting facts in the annotations section of the Transparency Report. We realize that the numbers we share can only provide a small window into what’s happening on the web at large. But we do hope that by being transparent about these government requests, we can continue to contribute to the public debate about how government behaviors are shaping our web.

The entire blog post is here.

Thanks to Ed Zuckerman for this lead.

How Should Psychologists Respond to Hateful Comments?

Samuel Knapp, Ed.D., ABPP

Director of Professional Affairs

Conventional words for ethnic groups vary over time, and what is acceptable for a group in one period of time would be viewed as offensive in another time or context. However, at times patients will use words or comments directed at others because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation that clearly offend standards of decency. How should psychologists respond in such situations? Should they ignore the comment or directly confront the patient about the terms that were used?

Discretion is needed to determine when a word is intended as offensive or not. For example, Hawaiians refer to European American residents of Hawaii as haole (pronounced “howlee”). At times it is delivered as a factual statement, “He is a haole” (a white person who lives in Hawaii), and European American residents of Hawaii commonly refer to themselves as haole. However, it could be used as an insult if it were combined with certain adjectives, voice intonations, or hand gestures (Rare storm, 2011).

The conduct of psychologists in addressing hurtful speech, as in other aspects of professional behavior, should be guided by adherence to overarching ethical standards. So, when a patient makes an ethnic slur, the response of the psychologist should be guided by the principles of beneficence (acting to promote the well-being of the patient), nonmaleficence (acting to avoid harming the patient), general beneficence (acting to promote the welfare of the public in general), or other ethical principles.

The context of the comment may be relevant. It is important to know if the comment is related to the patient’s presenting problem, or activated as a function of the perceived characteristics of the therapist (Bartoli & Pyati, 2009). However, I am aware of a few situations where patients have made such intense hate-filled and vitriolic comments (addressed towards groups represented by the psychologist) that a decision was made to refer the patient elsewhere.

In some situations the principle of beneficence (welfare of the patient) may be operative. For example, a young person may use an ethnic term in a manner that an adult considers offensive. Here it is most likely appropriate for correction or feedback because the person might not understand the implications or ways in which the words come across. An educational or non-judgmental exchange could help the young person understand the implications of this speech and how it might impair their social relationships in the future.

The overarching ethical principle of general beneficence holds that psychologists should act to protect the public in general. Consequently, it would seem that, according to this principle, psychologists should address hate-filled comments. However, this ethical principle should be balanced with concerns about beneficence or the welfare of the patient. One patient of mine made a derogatory comment about an ethnic group which I corrected, with as much tact as I could manage. The patient was embarrassed, apologized, and corrected himself. However, if the comment were made in the context of a psychotic episode, disclosure of suicidal intent, or other indication of serious emotional crisis, I probably would have ignored the comment altogether and focused entirely on the patient’s well-being. If the patient had made the comment in response to a particularly upsetting or stressful event, I might have deferred addressing the issue to a time when the patient could get more perspective on the situation.

It is often best to avoid assuming that there will always be a false dichotomy between general beneficence and beneficence. Except in extreme circumstances when patient welfare is at stake or when the hateful comments represent extreme social deviance, psychologists can often find a way to address the issue without harming the therapeutic relationship. Anger and judgmental attitudes should be avoided. Patients are more likely to respond positively to comments made in a calm and direct manner (e.g., “let’s use another word, it makes you come across as prejudiced”).

References

Bartoli, E., & Pyati, A. (2009). Addressing clients’ racism and racial prejudice in individual psychotherapy: Therapeutic considerations. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 46, 145-157.

Rare storm over races ruffles a mixed society. (2011). New York Times. Retrieved from here.