Listening to bridge societal divides

Santoro, E., & Markus, H. R. (2023).

Current opinion in psychology, 54, 101696.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101696

Abstract

The U.S. is plagued by a variety of societal divides across political orientation, race, and gender, among others. Listening has the potential to be a key element in spanning these divides. Moreover, the benefits of listening for mitigating social division has become a culturally popular idea and practice. Recent evidence suggests that listening can bridge divides in at least two ways: by improving outgroup sentiment and by granting outgroup members greater status and respect. When reviewing this literature, we pay particular attention to mechanisms and to boundary conditions, as well as to the possibility that listening can backfire. We also review a variety of current interventions designed to encourage and improve listening at all levels of the culture cycle. The combination of recent evidence and the growing popular belief in the significance of listening heralds a bright future for research on the many ways that listening can diffuse stereotypes and improve attitudes underlying intergroup division.

The article is paywalled, which is not really helpful in spreading the word.  This information can be very helpful in couples and family therapy.  Here are my thoughts:

The idea that listening can help bridge societal divides is a powerful one. When we truly listen to someone from a different background, we open ourselves up to understanding their perspective and experiences. This can help to break down stereotypes and foster empathy.

Benefits of Listening:

• Reduces prejudice: Studies have shown that listening to people from different groups can help to reduce prejudice. When we hear the stories of others, we are more likely to see them as individuals, rather than as members of a stereotyped group.
• Builds trust: Listening can help to build trust between people from different groups. When we show that we are willing to listen to each other, we demonstrate that we are open to understanding and respecting each other's views.
• Finds common ground: Even when people disagree, listening can help them to find common ground. By focusing on areas of agreement, rather than on differences, we can build a foundation for cooperation and collaboration.

Challenges of Listening:

It is important to acknowledge that listening is not always easy. There are a number of challenges that can make it difficult to truly hear and understand someone from a different background. These challenges include:

• Bias: We all have biases, and these biases can influence the way we listen to others. It is important to be aware of our own biases and to try to set them aside when we are listening to someone else.
• Distraction: In today's world, there are many distractions that can make it difficult to focus on what someone else is saying. It is important to create a quiet and distraction-free environment when we are trying to have a meaningful conversation with someone.
• Discomfort: Talking about difficult topics can be uncomfortable. However, it is important to be willing to listen to these conversations, even if they make us feel uncomfortable.

Tips for Effective Listening:

• Pay attention: Make eye contact and avoid interrupting the speaker.
• Be open-minded: Try to see things from the speaker's perspective, even if you disagree with them.
• Ask questions: Ask clarifying questions to make sure you understand what the speaker is saying.
• Summarize: Briefly summarize what you have heard to show that you were paying attention.
• By practicing these tips, we can become more effective listeners and, in turn, help to bridge the divides that separate us.

The Relative Importance of Target and Judge Characteristics in Shaping the Moral Circle

Jaeger, B., & Wilks, M. (2021). 

Cognitive Science. 

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/46kws

Abstract

People's treatment of others (humans, nonhuman animals, or other entities) often depends on whether they think the entity is worthy of moral concern. Recent work has begun to investigate which entities are included in a person's moral circle, examining how certain target characteristics (e.g., species category, perceived intelligence) and judge characteristics (e.g., empathy, political orientation) shape moral inclusion. However, the relative importance of target and judge characteristics in predicting moral inclusion remains unclear. When predicting whether a person will deem an entity worthy of moral consideration, how important is it to know who is making the judgment (i.e., characteristics of the judge), who is being judged (i.e., characteristics of the target), and potential interactions between the two factors? Here, we address this foundational question by conducting a variance component analysis of the moral circle. In two studies with participants from the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia (N = 836), we test how much variance in judgments of moral concern is explained by between-target differences, between-judge differences, and by the interaction between the two factors. We consistently find that all three components explain substantial amounts of variance in judgments of moral concern. Our findings provide two important insights. First, an increased focus on interactions between target and judge characteristics is needed, as these interactions explain as much variance as target and judge characteristics separately. Second, any theoretical account that aims to provide an accurate description of moral inclusion needs to consider target characteristics, judge characteristics, and their interaction.

Here is my take:

The authors begin by reviewing the literature on the moral circle, which is the group of beings that people believe are worthy of moral consideration. They note that both target characteristics (e.g., species category, perceived intelligence) and judge characteristics (e.g., empathy, political orientation) have been shown to influence moral inclusion. However, the relative importance of these two types of characteristics remains unclear.

To address this question, the authors conducted two studies with participants from the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. In each study, participants were asked to rate how much moral concern they felt for a variety of targets, including humans, animals, and robots. Participants were also asked to complete a questionnaire about their own moral values and beliefs.

The authors' analysis revealed that both target and judge characteristics explained significant amounts of variance in judgments of moral concern. However, they also found that the interaction between target and judge characteristics was just as important as target and judge characteristics separately. This means that the moral circle is not simply a function of either target or judge characteristics, but rather of the complex interaction between the two.

The authors' findings have important implications for our understanding of the moral circle. They show that moral inclusion is not simply a matter of whether or not a target possesses certain characteristics (e.g., sentience, intelligence). Rather, it also depends on the characteristics of the judge, as well as the interaction between the two.

The authors' findings also have important implications for applied ethics. For example, they suggest that ethicists should be careful to avoid making generalizations about the moral status of entire groups of beings. Instead, they should consider the individual characteristics of both the target and the judge when making moral judgments.

Fallen Soldier Insults Give Trump a Lot to Fear

Cass Sunstein
bloomberg.com
Originally published 6 Sept 20

Here is an excerpt:

Building on Haidt’s work, Harvard economist Benjamin Enke has studied the rhetoric of numerous recent presidential candidates, and found that one has done better than all others in emphasizing loyalty, authority and sanctity: Trump. On the same scales, Hillary Clinton was especially bad. (Barack Obama was far better.) Enke also found that Trump’s emphasis on these values mattered to many voters, and attracted them to his side.

This framework helps sort out what many people consider to be a puzzle: Trump avoided military service, has been married three times, and has not exactly been a paragon of virtue in his personal life. Yet many people focused on patriotism, religious faith and traditional moral values have strongly supported him. A key reason is that however he has lived his life, he speaks their language — and indeed does so at least as well as, and probably better than, any presidential candidate they have heard before.

That’s why his reported expressions of contempt and disrespect for American soldiers threaten to be uniquely damaging — far more so than other outrageous comments he has made. When he said that Mexico is sending rapists to the U.S., made fun of the looks of prominent women, mocked disabled people, or said that protesters should be roughed up, people might have nodded or cringed, or laughed or been appalled.

As a matter of pure politics, though, saying that soldiers are “losers” or “suckers” is much worse for Trump because it attacks the foundation of his appeal: However he lives his life, at least he expresses deep love for this country and reverence for those who fight for it, and at least he speaks out for traditional moral values.

There are strong lessons here for both Trump and his Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden. Through both word and deed, the president needs to do whatever he can to make it clear that he respects and supports American soldiers.

The info is here.

Suicide attempt survivors’ recommendations for improving mental health treatment for attempt survivors.

Melanie A. Hom and others
Psychological Services. 
Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000415

Abstract

Research indicates that connection to mental health care services and treatment engagement remain challenges among suicide attempt survivors. One way to improve suicide attempt survivors’ experiences with mental health care services is to elicit suggestions directly from attempt survivors regarding how to do so. This study aimed to identify and synthesize suicide attempt survivors’ recommendations for how to enhance mental health treatment experiences for attempt survivors. A sample of 329 suicide attempt survivors (81.5% female, 86.0% White/Caucasian, mean age = 35.07 ± 12.18 years) provided responses to an open-ended self-report survey question probing how treatment might be improved for suicide attempt survivors. Responses were analyzed utilizing both qualitative and quantitative techniques. Analyses identified four broad areas in which mental health treatment experiences might be improved for attempt survivors: (a) provider interactions (e.g., by reducing stigma of suicidality, expressing empathy, and using active listening), (b) intake and treatment planning (e.g., by providing a range of treatment options, including nonmedication treatments, and conducting a thorough assessment), (c) treatment delivery (e.g., by addressing root problems, bolstering coping skills, and using trauma-informed care), and (d) structural issues (e.g., by improving access to care and continuity of care). Findings highlight numerous avenues by which health providers might be able to facilitate more positive mental health treatment experiences for suicide attempt survivors. Research is needed to test whether implementing the recommendations offered by attempt survivors in this study might lead to enhanced treatment engagement, retention, and outcomes among suicide attempt survivors at large.

Here is an excerpt from the Discussion:

On this point, this study revealed numerous recommendations for how providers might be able to improve their interactions with attempt survivors. Suggestions in this domain aligned with prior studies on treatment experiences among suicide attempt survivors. For instance, recommendations that providers not stigmatize attempt survivors and, instead, empathize with them, actively listen to them, and humanize them, are consistent with aforementioned studies (Berglund et al., 2016; Frey et al., 2016; Shand et al., 2018; Sheehan et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2009). This study’s findings regarding the importance of a collaborative therapeutic relationship are also consistent with previous work (Shand et al., 2018). Though each of these factors has been identified as salient to treatment engagement efforts broadly (see Barrett et al., 2008, for review), several suggestions that emerged in this study were more specific to attempt survivors. For example, ensuring that patients feel comfortable openly discussing suicidal thoughts and behaviors and taking disclosures of suicidality seriously are suggestions specifically applicable to the care of at-risk individuals. These recommendations not only support research indicating that asking about suicidality is not iatrogenic (see DeCou & Schumann, 2018, for review), but they also underscore the importance of considering the unique needs of attempt survivors. Indeed, given that most participants provided a recommendation in this area, the impact of provider-related factors should not be overlooked in the provision of care to this group.

The Tricky Ethics of Google's Project Nightingale Effort

Cason Schmit
nextgov.com
Originally posted 3 Dec 19

The nation’s second-largest health system, Ascension, has agreed to allow the software behemoth Google access to tens of millions of patient records. The partnership, called Project Nightingale, aims to improve how information is used for patient care. Specifically, Ascension and Google are trying to build tools, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, “to make health records more useful, more accessible and more searchable” for doctors.

Ascension did not announce the partnership: The Wall Street Journal first reported it.

Patients and doctors have raised privacy concerns about the plan. Lack of notice to doctors and consent from patients are the primary concerns.

As a public health lawyer, I study the legal and ethical basis for using data to promote public health. Information can be used to identify health threats, understand how diseases spread and decide how to spend resources. But it’s more complicated than that.

The law deals with what can be done with data; this piece focuses on ethics, which asks what should be done.

Beyond Hippocrates

Big-data projects like this one should always be ethically scrutinized. However, data ethics debates are often narrowly focused on consent issues.

In fact, ethical determinations require balancing different, and sometimes competing, ethical principles. Sometimes it might be ethical to collect and use highly sensitive information without getting an individual’s consent.

The info is here.

Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies

Oliver Scott Curry, Daniel Austin Mullins, and Harvey Whitehouse
Current Anthropology
The paper is here.

Abstract

What is morality? And to what extent does it vary around the world? The theory of “morality-as-cooperation” argues that morality consists of a collection of biological and cultural solutions to the problems of cooperation recurrent in human social life. Morality-as-cooperation draws on the theory of non-zero-sum games to identify distinct problems of cooperation and their solutions, and it predicts that specific forms of cooperative behavior—including helping kin, helping your group, reciprocating, being brave, deferring to superiors, dividing disputed resources, and respecting prior possession—will be considered morally good wherever they arise, in all cultures. To test these predictions, we investigate the moral valence of these seven cooperative behaviors in the ethnographic records of 60 societies. We find that the moral valence of these behaviors is uniformly positive, and the majority of these cooperative morals are observed in the majority of cultures, with equal frequency across all regions of the world. We conclude that these seven cooperative behaviors are plausible candidates for universal moral rules, and that morality-as-cooperation could provide the unified theory of morality that anthropology has hitherto lacked.

Bringing back professionalism in the practice of law is key

Samuel C. Stretton
The Legal Intelligencer
Originally published October 4, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

All lawyers ought to review the Pennsylvania Rules of Civility. Although these rules do not have disciplinary consequences, they set forth the aspirations all lawyers should achieve in the legal profession. Perhaps lawyers have to understand what it means to be a professional. To have the privilege of being admitted to practice law in a state is a wonderful opportunity. The lawyer being admitted becomes part of the legal profession which has a long and historic presence. The legal profession can take great credit for the evolving law and for the democratic institutions which populate this country. Lawyers through vigorous advocacy and through much involvement in the community and in the political offices have help to create a society by law where fairness and justice are the ideals. Once admitted to practice, each and every lawyer becomes part of this wonderful profession and has a duty to uphold the ideals not only in terms of representing clients as vigorously and as honestly as they can, but also in terms of insuring involvement in the community and in society. Each generation of lawyers help to reinterpret the constitution and make it a living document to adjust to the modern problems of every generation. It is a wonderful and great honor to be part of this profession and perhaps one of the greatest privileges any lawyer can have. This privilege allows a lawyer to participate fully in the third branch of public. This privilege allows a lawyer to become part of the public life of their community and of the country in terms of representation and in terms of legal and judicial changes.

The information is here.

The Revised Declaration of Geneva

Ramin Walter Parsa-Parsi
JAMA. 2017;318(20):1971-1972.

Here is an excerpt:

The most notable difference between the Declaration of Geneva and other key ethical documents, such as the WMA’s Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and the Declaration of Taipei on Ethical Considerations Regarding Health Databases and Biobanks, was determined to be the lack of overt recognition of patient autonomy, despite references to the physician’s obligation to exercise respect, beneficence, and medical confidentiality toward his or her patient(s). To address this difference, the workgroup, informed by other WMA members, ethical advisors, and other experts, recommended adding the following clause: “I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient.” In addition, to highlight the importance of patient self-determination as one of the key cornerstones of medical ethics, the workgroup also recommended shifting all new and existing paragraphs focused on patients’ rights to the beginning of the document, followed by clauses relating to other professional obligations.

To more explicitly invoke the standards of ethical and professional conduct expected of physicians by their patients and peers, the clause “I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity” was augmented to include the wording “and in accordance with good medical practice.”

The article and the Declaration can be found here.

How Doctors Deal With Racist Patients

Sumathi Reddy
The Wall Street Journal
Originally published January 22, 2018

Her is an excerpt:

Patient discrimination against physicians and other health-care providers is an oft-ignored topic in a high-stress job where care always comes first. Experts say patients request another physician based on race, religion, gender, age and sexual orientation.

No government entity keeps track of such incidents. Neither do most hospitals. But more trainees and physicians are coming forward with stories and more hospitals and academic institutions are trying to address the issue with new guidelines and policies.

The examples span race and religion. A Korean-American doctor’s tweet about white nationalists refusing treatment in the emergency room went viral in August.

A trauma surgeon at a hospital in Charlotte, N.C., published a piece on KevinMD, a website for physicians, last year detailing his own experiences with discrimination given his Middle Eastern heritage.

Penn State College of Medicine adopted language into its patient rights policy in May that says patient requests for providers based on gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation won’t be honored. It adds that some requests based on gender will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The article is here.

Unconscious Patient With 'Do Not Resuscitate' Tattoo Causes Ethical Conundrum at Hospital

George Dvorsky
Gizmodo
Originally published November 30, 2017

When an unresponsive patient arrived at a Florida hospital ER, the medical staff was taken aback upon discovering the words “DO NOT RESUSCITATE” tattooed onto the man’s chest—with the word “NOT” underlined and with his signature beneath it. Confused and alarmed, the medical staff chose to ignore the apparent DNR request—but not without alerting the hospital’s ethics team, who had a different take on the matter.

But with the “DO NOT RESUSCITATE” tattoo glaring back at them, the ICU team was suddenly confronted with a serious dilemma. The patient arrived at the hospital without ID, the medical staff was unable to contact next of kin, and efforts to revive or communicate with the patient were futile. The medical staff had no way of knowing if the tattoo was representative of the man’s true end-of-life wishes, so they decided to play it safe and ignore it.

The article is here.

Navigating Political Talk at Work

David W. Ballard
Harvard Business Review
Originally posted March 2, 2017

Here is an excerpt:

Managers should recognize that the current political environment could be having an effect on people, especially if they’re talking about it in the office. Be aware of employees’ stress levels, share information about benefits and resources that are available to help support them, and encourage appropriate use of your company’s employee assistance program, mental health benefits, flexible work arrangements, and workplace wellness activities that can help people stay healthy and functioning at their best.

Senior leaders and supervisors can communicate a powerful message by modeling the behavior and actions they’re trying to promote in the organization. By demonstrating civility and respect, actively using available support resources, participating in organizational activities, and managing their own stress levels in healthy ways, business leaders can back their words with actions that show they are serious about creating a healthy work environment.

Focusing on common goals and shared values is another way to bring people together despite their differences. As a manager, set clear goals for your team and focus people on working together toward common objectives. When political turmoil is creating tension and distraction, focusing on the work and accomplishing something together may be a welcome reprieve.

Finally, step in if things get too heated. If the current political climate is negatively affecting an employee’s job performance, address the issue before it creates a bigger problem. Provide the necessary feedback, work with the employee to create a plan, and point them to available resources that might help. When tensions turn into conflicts between coworkers, counsel employees on any relevant policies related to harassment or incivility, help them find ways to work together, and involve human resources as needed.

The article is here.

Replacing the Moral Foundations: An Evolutionary-Coalitional Theory of Liberal-Conservative Differences

Jeffrey S. Sinn, Matthew W. Hayes
Political Psychology
First published: August 2016

Abstract

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) explains liberal-conservative differences as arising from different moral intuitions, with liberals endorsing “individualizing” foundations (Harm and Fairness) and conservatives also endorsing “binding” foundations (Authority, Respect, and Purity). We argue these labels misconstrue ideological differences and propose Evolutionary-Coalitional Theory (ECT) as an alternative, explaining how competitive dynamics in the ancestral social environment could produce the observed ideological differences. We test ECT against MFT across three studies. Study 1 shows the so-called “binding” orientation entails the threat-sensitivity and outgroup antagonism predicted by ECT; that is, an authoritarian motive. Similarly, Study 2 shows the so-called “individualizing” orientation is better described as a universalizing motive, one reflecting a broader set of moral commitments (e.g., to nature) and a broader sociality than the egocentrism implied by MFT. Study 3 provides a factor analysis reducing “binding” to authoritarianism and “individualizing” to universalism, with the latter loading against social dominance orientation (SDO). A hierarchical regression then provides additional evidence for ECT, showing this dominating motive (SDO) accounts for variance in conservatism that MFT leaves unexplained. Collectively, these three studies suggest that ECT offers a more accurate and precise explanation of the key psychological differences between liberals and conservatives.

The article is here.

Only two sexes?

By Sarah Graham
The Independent
Originally posted October 17, 2015

Here is an excerpt:

It’s not surprising so many people are ignorant about us intersex people: Our very existence has been erased since the Roman Empire. It continued in the 20th century, as doctors got their scalpels out to “normalise” our bodies. In the last fifteen years, since some of us started finding our dissident voices and protesting, doctors have tried to rebrand us and said we have “Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs)” - to legitimize their paternalism and on-going annihilation of our beings.

This is all to keep you - the public - in the dark. And to rigidly enforce the pink and blue boxes: the boring binary, straight-laced order. But let me bring you up-to-speed. There are not only the two sexes of male and female. This is an absolute barefaced lie. Nature produces bodies on a spectrum; a continuum of possibilities.

You have met one of us somewhere, for sure. As many as 1 in 1,500 babies is born visibly intersex, while many more are born not so obviously unique and interesting to the eye.

The entire article is here.

Modernizing Human Subjects Research Protections: Informed Consent for Genetic Research

Written by Nicolle Strand
blog.bioethics.gov
September 24, 2015

Here is an excerpt:

Despite these challenges, the Commission emphasized the importance of obtaining fully informed consent from all participants. Being asked to provide informed consent about the use of their data, the Commission argued, conveys respect to participants, separate and apart from their interest in preventing the unauthorized use or disclosure of their data. In other words—there is value to informed consent in and of itself, as it respects autonomy and personhood.

The entire blog post is here.

Note: The blog posts are short.  These are excellent resources from the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues.

A Simplified Account of Kant's Ethics

By Onora O'Neill

From Matters of Life and Death, ed. Tom Regan
Copyright 1986, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Excerpted in Contemporary Moral Problems, ed. James E. White
Copyright 1994, West Publishing Company

Kant's moral theory has acquired the reputation of being forbiddingly difficult to understand and, once understood, excessively demanding in its requirements. I don't believe that this reputation has been wholly earned, and I am going to try to undermine it.... I shall try to reduce some of the difficulties.... Finally, I shall compare Kantian and utilitarian approaches and assess their strengths and weaknesses.

The main method by which I propose to avoid some of the difficulties of Kant's moral theory is by explaining only one part of the theory. This does not seem to me to be an irresponsible approach in this case. One of the things that makes Kant's moral theory hard to understand is that he gives a number of different versions of the principle that he calls the Supreme Principle of Morality, and these different versions don't look at all like one another. They also don't look at all like the utilitarians' Greatest Happiness Principle. But the Kantian principle is supposed to play a similar role in arguments about what to do.

To learn the short version of Kant, read on here.

Rethinking Hospital Restraints

Thousands of patients are physically restrained every day for their own safety—but evidence suggests that the practice may be ineffective and even harmful.

By Ravi Parikh
The Atlantic
Originally published August 18, 2014

Here is an excerpt:

Most of us who have been hospitalized have never seen physical restraints, as they are rarely used outside the ICU. Examples include wrist and ankle belts, vests, mitts, and full-length side rails attached to the bed. According to Medicare guidelines, restraints should only be used to ensure the safety of patients and staff and should be removed as early as possible. There are only a handful of situations where Medicare and other physician groups recommend using restraints, including patient violence towards himself or others and a threat of a patient disrupting his or her life-saving therapy, such as a breathing tube.

The entire article is here.