Doing Good or Feeling Good? Justice Concerns Predict Online Shaming Via Deservingness and Schadenfreude

Barron, A., Woodyatt, L., et al. (2023).

SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4359608

Abstract

Public shaming has moved from the village square and is now an established online phenomenon. The current paper explores whether online shaming is motivated by a person’s desire to do good (a justice motive); and/or, because it feels good (a hedonic motive), specifically, as a form of malicious pleasure at another’s misfortune (schadenfreude). We examine two key aspects of social media that may moderate these processes: anonymity (Study 1) and social norms (the responses of other users; Studies 2-3). Across three experiments (N = 225, 198, 202) participants were presented with a fabricated news article featuring an instance of Islamophobia and given the opportunity to respond. Participants’ concerns about social justice were not directly positively associated with online shaming and had few consistent indirect effects on shaming via moral outrage. Rather, justice concerns were primarily associated with shaming via participants’ perception that the offender was deserving of negative consequences, and their feelings of schadenfreude regarding these consequences. Anonymity did not moderate this process and there was mixed evidence for the qualifying effect of social norms. Overall, the current studies point to the hedonic motive in general and schadenfreude specifically as a key moral emotion associated with people’s shaming behaviour.

Conclusion

The results from three studies point to perceptions of deservingness and schadenfreude as important predictors of online shaming. Given the exploratory nature of the current work and the paucity of existing research on online shaming, many avenues exist for future research. Social psychology is well placed to understand both individual and group processes that may influence shaming behaviour – in particular, how certain features of the online environment and aspects of the transgressor may interact to influence the nature and severity of online shaming behaviour. As society continues to rely on social media to consume content and connect with others, we are hopeful that future research stimulates a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of online shaming and its consequences. 

Here are some additional key points from the article:

• Online shaming is a form of social punishment that is increasingly common in the digital age.
• There are two main motivations for online shaming: a desire to do good (a justice motive) and a desire to feel good (a hedonic motive).
• The feeling of schadenfreude plays an important role in mediating the relationship between justice concerns and online shaming.

Are Illiberal Acts Unethical? APA’s Ethics Code and the Protection of Free Speech

O'Donohue, W., & Fisher, J. E. (2022). 

American Psychologist, 77(8), 875–886.

https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000995

Abstract

The American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2017b; hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code) does not contain an enforceable standard regarding psychologists’ role in either honoring or protecting the free speech of others, or ensuring that their own free speech is protected, including an important corollary of free speech, the protection of academic freedom. Illiberal acts illegitimately restrict civil liberties. We argue that the ethics of illiberal acts have not been adequately scrutinized in the Ethics Code. Psychologists require free speech to properly enact their roles as scientists as well as professionals who wish to advocate for their clients and students to enhance social justice. This article delineates criteria for what ought to be included in the Ethics Code, argues that ethical issues regarding the protection of free speech rights meet these criteria, and proposes language to be added to the Ethics Code.

Impact Statement

Freedom of speech is a fundamental civil right and currently has come under threat. Psychologists can only perform their duties as scientists, educators, or practitioners if they are not censored or fear censorship. The American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) Ethics Code contains no enforceable ethical standard to protect freedom of speech for psychologists. This article examines the ethics of free speech and argues for amending the APA Ethics Code to more clearly delineate psychologists’ rights and duties regarding free speech. This article argues that such protection is an ethical matter and for specific language to be included in the Ethics Code.

Conclusions

Free speech is central not only within the political sphere but also for the proper functioning of scholars and educators. Unfortunately, the ethics of free speech are not properly explicated in the current version of the American Psychological Association’s Ethics Code and this is particularly concerning given data that indicate a waning appreciation and protection of free speech in a variety of contexts. This article argues for fulsome protection of free speech rights by the inclusion of a clear and well-articulated statement in the Ethics Code of the psychologist’s duties related to free speech. Psychologists are committed to social justice and there can be no social justice without free speech.

A pdf is paywalled here.

Catholics' involvement in death penalty killing spree is scandalous

James Keenan & William Montross, Jr.

National Catholic Reporter

Originally published 11 DEC 20

Here is an excerpt:

Study after study demonstrates that the death penalty is infected with racial bias; the federal death penalty is no different. Indeed, in 1994, a mere six years after the implementation of the "modern" federal death penalty, the racial disparities compelled a congressional committee to conclude, "On the federal level, cases selected have almost exclusively involved minority defendants."

We are witnessing this Advent a modern-day lynching.

Each of the defendants in these cases was involved in crimes that resulted in the deaths of others. Some of the crimes were gruesome. But who these people are warrant a closer look.

Bernard was a teenager when he was an accomplice to the murder of a young couple, both youth ministers, on the Fort Hood military reservation in Texas. He did not fire the killing shots — a co-defendant, also sentenced to death and subsequently executed — did.

Bernard, a young black man, was tried in Texas before a jury in which all but one juror was white. His attorneys did not even make an opening statement at his trial and during the penalty phase — where the jury chooses between life and death — the same attorneys offered no witnesses on his behalf.

One of the federal prosecutors who earlier secured Bernard's death sentence later sought to have his life spared. Angela Moore writes that her subsequent "experience with teenagers who have committed violent crimes, especially boys of color, has taught me much about the recklessness and fragility of adolescents, as well as their ability to mature and change."

She also finds "another troubling fact revealed by recent research is that people tend to view Black boys — like Brandon — as more blameworthy than their white counterparts" and that "Black teens like Brandon are systematically denied the 'benefit' of their youth, which is outweighed by their race in the eyes of police, prosecutors, judges and jurors."

The info is here.

Freerolls and binds: making policy when information is missing

Duke, A. & Sunstein, C.

(2020). Behavioural Public Policy, 1-22. 

doi:10.1017/bpp.2020.51

Abstract

When policymakers focus on costs and benefits, they often find that hard questions become easy – as, for example, when the benefits clearly exceed the costs, or when the costs clearly exceed the benefits. In some cases, however, benefits or costs are difficult to quantify, perhaps because of limitations in scientific knowledge. In extreme cases, policymakers are proceeding in circumstances of uncertainty rather than risk, in the sense that they cannot assign probabilities to various outcomes. We suggest that in difficult cases in which important information is absent, it is useful for policymakers to consider a concept from poker: ‘freerolls.’ A freeroll exists when choosers can lose nothing from selecting an option but stand to gain something (whose magnitude may itself be unknown). In some cases, people display ‘freeroll neglect.’ In terms of social justice, John Rawls’ defense of the difference principle is grounded in the idea that, behind the veil of ignorance, choosers have a freeroll. In terms of regulatory policy, one of the most promising defenses of the Precautionary Principle sees it as a kind of freeroll. Some responses to climate change, pandemics and financial crises can be seen as near-freerolls. Freerolls and near-freerolls must be distinguished from cases involving cumulatively high costs and also from faux freerolls, which can be found when the costs of an option are real and significant, but not visible. ‘Binds’ are the mirror-image of freerolls; they involve options from which people are guaranteed to lose something (of uncertain magnitude). Some regulatory options are binds, and there are faux binds as well.

From the Conclusion

In ordinary life, people may be asked whether they want a freeroll, in the form of a good or opportunity from which they will lose nothing, but from which they gain something of value, when the magnitude of the gain cannot be specified. The gain might take the form of the elimination of a risk. More commonly, people are given near-freerolls, because they have to pay something for the option. Often what they have to pay is very low, which makes the deal a good one. The central point here is an asymmetry in what people know. They know the costs, while they have large epistemic gaps with respect to the potential gains. People often fall prey to ‘freeroll neglect.’ When this is so, they do not see pure or near-freerolls; they seek missing information before choosing among options, even though they have no need to do so.

Freerolls are mirrored by binds, in which people are given an option from which they can only lose, even though they do not know how much they might lose. To know that binds are undesirable, the chooser need not have full knowledge about the range of possible downside outcomes. Nor need the chooser know anything about the shape of the distribution of those outcomes.

Justice without Retribution: An Epistemic Argument against Retributive Criminal Punishment

Gregg D. Caruso (2020)
Neuroethics ​13(1): 13-28.

Abstract

Within the United States, the most prominent justification for criminal punishment is retributivism. This retributivist justification for punishment maintains that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified for the reason that she deserves something bad to happen to her just because she has knowingly done wrong—this could include pain, deprivation, or death. For the retributivist, it is the basic desert attached to the criminal’s immoral action alone that provides the justification for punishment. This means that the retributivist position is not reducible to consequentialist considerations nor in justifying punishment does it appeal to wider goods such as the safety of society or the moral improvement of those being punished. A number of sentencing guidelines in the U.S. have adopted desert as their distributive principle, and it is increasingly given deference in the “purposes” section of state criminal codes, where it can be the guiding principle in the interpretation and application of the code’s provisions. Indeed, the American Law Institute recently revised the Model Penal Code so as to set desert as the official dominate principle for sentencing. And courts have identified desert as the guiding principle in a variety of contexts, as with the Supreme Court’s enthroning retributivism as the “primary justification for the death penalty.” While retributivism provides one of the main sources of justification for punishment within the criminal justice system, there are good philosophical and practical reasons for rejecting it. One such reason is that it is unclear that agents truly deserve to suffer for the wrongs they have done in the sense required by retributivism. In the first section, I explore the retributivist justification of punishment and explain why it is inconsistent with free will skepticism. In the second section, I then argue that even if one is not convinced by the arguments for free will skepticism, there remains a strong epistemic argument against causing harm on retributivist grounds that undermines both libertarian and compatibilist attempts to justify it. I maintain that this argument provides sufficient reason for rejecting the retributive justification of criminal punishment. I conclude in the third section by briefly sketching my public health-quarantine model, a non-retributive alternative for addressing criminal behavior that draws on the public health framework and prioritizes prevention and social justice. I argue that the model is not only consistent with free will skepticism and the epistemic argument against retributivism, it also provides the most justified, humane, and effective way of dealing with criminal behavior.

The info is here.

Ethical guidelines for social justice in psychology

Hailes, H. and others
Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice

Abstract

As the field of psychology increasingly recognizes the importance of engaging in work that advances social justice and as social justice-focused training and practice in the field grows, psychologists need ethical guidelines for this work. The American Psychological Association’s ethical principles include “justice” as a core principle but do not expand extensively upon its implications. This article provides a proposed set of ethical guidelines for social justice work in psychology. Within the framework of 3 domains of justice—interactional (about relational dynamics), distributive (about provision for all), and procedural (about just processes) justice—this article outlines 7 guidelines for social justice ethics: (1) reflecting critically on relational power dynamics; (2) mitigating relational power dynamics; (3) focusing on empowerment and strengths-based approaches; (4) focusing energy and resources on the priorities of marginalized communities; (5) contributing time, funding, and effort to preventive work; (6) engaging with social systems; and (7) raising awareness about system impacts on individual and community well-being. Vignettes of relevant ethical dilemmas are presented and implications for practice are discussed.

This article explores the need for a set of ethical standards to guide psychologists’ social justice-oriented work. It conceptualizes social justice as having three components, focused on relational dynamics, provision for all, and just processes. Additionally, it outlines and provides examples of seven proposed standards for social justice ethics in psychology.

The article is here.

Ethics and Governance AI Fund funnels $7.6M to Harvard, MIT and independent research efforts

Devin Coldewey
Tech Crunch
Originally posted July 11, 2017

A $27 million fund aimed at applying artificial intelligence to the public interest has announced the first targets for its beneficence: $7.6 million will be split unequally between MIT’s Media Lab, Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center and seven smaller research efforts around the world.

The Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Fund was created by Reid Hoffman, Pierre Omidyar and the Knight Foundation back in January; the intention was to ensure that “social scientists, ethicists, philosophers, faith leaders, economists, lawyers and policymakers” have a say in how AI is developed and deployed.

To that end, this first round of fundings supports existing organizations working along those lines, as well as nurturing some newer ones.

The lion’s share of this initial round, $5.9 million, will be split by MIT and Harvard, as the initial announcement indicated. Media Lab is, of course, on the cutting edge of many research efforts in AI and elsewhere; Berkman Klein focuses more on the legal and analysis side of things.

The fund’s focuses are threefold:

• Media and information quality – looking at how to understand and control the effects of autonomous information systems and “influential algorithms” like Facebook’s news feed.

• Social and criminal justice – perhaps the area where the bad influence of AI-type systems could be the most insidious; biases in data and interpretation could be baked into investigative and legal systems, giving them the illusion of objectivity. (Obviously the fund seeks to avoid this.)

• Autonomous cars – although this may seem incongruous with the others, self-driving cars represent an immense social opportunity. Mobility is one of the most influential social-economic factors, and its reinvention offers a chance to improve the condition of nearly everyone on the planet — great potential for both advancement and abuse.

The article is here.

What is a moral epigenetic responsibility?

Charles Dupras & Vardit Ravitsky
BMJ Blog
Originally posted August 23, 2016

Epigenetics is a recent yet promising field of scientific research. It explores the influence of the biochemical environment (food, toxic pollutants) and the social environment (stress, child abuse, socio-economic status) on the expression of genes, i.e. on whether and how they will switch ‘on’ or ‘off’. Epigenetic modifications can have a significant impact on health and disease later in life. Most surprisingly, it was suggested that some epigenetic variants (or ‘epi-mutations’) acquired during one’s life could be transmitted to offspring, thus having long-term effects on the health of future generations.

Epigenetics is increasingly capturing the attention of social scientists and ethicists, because it brings attention to the importance of environmental exposure for the developing foetus and child as a risk factor for common diseases such as cardiovascular, diabetes, obesity, allergies and cancers. Scholars such as Hannah Landecker, Mark Rothstein and Maurizio Meloni have argued that epigenetics may be used to promote various arguments in ongoing debates on environmental and social justice, as well as intergenerational equity. Some even suggested that epigenetics could lead to novel ways of thinking about moral responsibilities for health.

The blog post is here.

Moral Psychology Is Relationship Regulation: Moral Motives for Unity, Hierarchy, Equality, and Proportionality

By Tage Shakti Rai and Alan Page Fiske
Psychological Review
2011, Vol. 118, No. 1, 57–75

Abstract

Genuine moral disagreement exists and is widespread. To understand such disagreement, we must examine the basic kinds of social relationships people construct across cultures and the distinct moral obligations and prohibitions these relationships entail. We extend relational models theory (Fiske, 1991) to identify 4 fundamental and distinct moral motives. Unity is the motive to care for and support the integrity of in-groups by avoiding or eliminating threats of contamination and providing aid and protection based on need or empathic compassion. Hierarchy is the motive to respect rank in social groups where superiors are entitled to deference and respect but must also lead, guide, direct, and protect subordinates. Equality is the motive for balanced, in-kind reciprocity, equal treatment, equal say, and equal opportunity. Proportionality is the motive for rewards and punishments to be proportionate to merit, benefits to be calibrated to contributions, and judgments to be based on a utilitarian calculus of costs and benefits. The 4 moral motives are universal, but cultures, ideologies, and individuals differ in where they activate these motives and how they implement them. Unlike existing theories (Haidt, 2007; Hauser, 2006; Turiel, 1983), relationship regulation theory predicts that any action, including violence, unequal treatment, and “impure” acts, may be perceived as morally correct depending on the moral motive employed and how the relevant social relationship is construed. This approach facilitates clearer
understanding of moral perspectives we disagree with and provides a template for how to influence moral motives and practices in the world.

The entire article is here.

Capitalism is killing our morals, our future

By Paul B. Farrell
The Wall Street Journal
Originally published April 29, 2013


Yes, capitalism is working ... for the Forbes 1,000 Global Billionaires whose ranks swelled from 322 in 2000 to 1,426 recently. Billionaires control the vast majority of the world’s wealth, while the income of American workers stagnated.

For the rest of the world, capitalism is not working: A billion live on less than two dollars a day. With global population exploding to 10 billion by 2050, that inequality gap will grow, fueling revolutions, wars, adding more billionaires and more folks surviving on two bucks a day.

Over the years we’ve explored the reasons capitalism blindly continues on its self-destructive path. Recently we found someone who brilliantly explains why free-market capitalism is destined to destroy the world, absent a historic paradigm shift: That is Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel, author of the new best-seller, “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets,” and his earlier classic, “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?”

For more than three decades Sandel’s been explaining how capitalism is undermining America’s moral values and why most people are in denial of the impact. His classes are larger than a thousand although you can take his Harvard “Justice” course online. Sandel recently summarized his ideas about capitalism in the Atlantic. In “What Isn’t for Sale?” he writes:

“Without being fully aware of the shift, Americans have drifted from having a market economy to becoming a market society ... where almost everything is up for sale ... a way of life where market values seep into almost every sphere of life and sometimes crowd out or corrode important values, non-market values.”

Sandel should be required reading for all Wall Street insiders as well as America’s 95 million Main Street investors. Here’s a condensed version:

In one generation, market ideology consumed America’s collective spirit

“The years leading up to the financial crisis of 2008 were a heady time of market faith and deregulation — an era of market triumphalism,” says Sandel. “The era began in the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher proclaimed their conviction that markets, not government, held the key to prosperity and freedom.”

And in the 1990s with the “market-friendly liberalism of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, who moderated but consolidated the faith that markets are the primary means for achieving the public good.”

Today “almost everything can be bought and sold.” Today “markets, and market values, have come to govern our lives as never before. We did not arrive at this condition through any deliberate choice. It is almost as if it came upon us,” says Sandel.

The entire article is here.

You can find Harvard University's Justice with Michael Sandel here.

'Shameful' failure to tackle slavery and human trafficking in the UK

Inquiry outlines 80 recommendations, including appointing an independent commissioner and new legislation to protect victims

By Toby Helm and Mark Townsend
The Guardian/The Observer
Originally published on March 9, 2013

Ministers, the police and social workers have been accused of a "shocking" failure to prevent the spread of modern slavery in the UK, leading to sexual exploitation, forced labour and the domestic servitude of adults and children from across the world.

Describing government ministers as "clueless" in their response to tackling human trafficking, both into and within the UK, the most exhaustive inquiry yet conducted into the phenomenon concludes that the approach to eradicating modern slavery is fundamentally wrong-headed. Instead of helping vulnerable victims who are trapped into forms of slavery after being trafficked from overseas, the legal system prosecutes many for immigration offences.

The major study by the Centre for Social Justice, which will be published on Monday, says that political indifference and ignorance alongside a leadership vacuum in Whitehall has meant that the country that led the way in abolishing slavery in the 19th century is now a "shameful shadow" of its former self as the practice makes a comeback in a contemporary guise.

The entire story is here.

UChicago Professor Helps Uncover Lost Lectures by French Philosopher Foucault

University of Chicago News Release
Originally released on February 7, 2013


More than 30 years ago, French philosopher Michel Foucault gave a landmark series of seven lectures at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium In them, Foucault linked his early and late work—exploring the role of confession in the determination of truth and justice from the time of the Greeks forward to the 1970s.

While the lectures had been mythic among Foucault scholars, only a partial, poorly transcribed account had survived. Recently rediscovered, details of the lectures have been published in a new book co-edited by Prof. Bernard E. Harcourt.

“These 1981 lectures form a crucial link between Foucault’s earlier work on surveillance in society, the prison and neoliberal governmentality during the 1970s, and his later work on subjectivity and the care of the self in the 1980s,” said Harcourt, co-editor of Mal faire, dire vrai: La fonction de l’aveu en justice [Wrong-Doing, Truth-Telling: The Function of Avowal in Justice], which Louvain and the University of Chicago Press recently released in French.

“A lot of people still cling to the idea that there was a fundamental transition in his interests, but one can identify all his later themes much earlier on, as illustrated by the continuity revealed in these lectures,” added Harcourt, chair and professor of Political Science and the Julius Kreeger Professor of Law and Criminology.

Foucault particularly delved into how the process of confession affects the way we think about ourselves, and who we are, according to Arnold Davidson, renowned Foucault scholar and the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor.

The entire story is here.

Narrative, Poststructuralism, and Social Justice Current Practices in Narrative Therapy

By Gene Combs and Jill Freedman
The Counseling Psychologist

doi: 10.1177/0011000012460662
The Counseling Psychologist October 2012 vol. 40 no. 7 1033-1060


Abstract

This paper is a review of current practice in narrative therapy with a focus on how it is attractive and useful for therapists who wish to work for social justice. The authors describe narrative therapy’s roots in poststructuralist philosophy and social science. They illustrate its major theoretical constructs, including the narrative metaphor, Foucault’s notion of “modern power,” and narrative therapy’s emphasis on problems as separate from people. The authors then describe specific practices: narrative questions, externalizing conversations, utilizing the “absent but implicit,” the development and “thickening” of preferred stories, the documentation of preferred stories, outsider witness practices, and practices for connecting people around shared purposes. After reviewing research that supports narrative therapy as useful and effective, the authors specifically address the ways narrative therapy deals with issues of social justice, showing how its focus on the discourses of modern power helps therapists be especially attuned to these issues.

Contact information: Gene Combs, NorthShore University HealthSystem, 2050 Pfingsten Rd., Glenview, IL, 60026, USA

Psychology and Social Justice: Why We Do What We Do

By Vasquez, Melba J. T.
American Psychologist, Vol 67(5), Jul-Aug 2012, 337-346. 

Abstract

Much of psychological science and knowledge is significantly relevant to social justice, defined here as the goal to decrease human suffering and to promote human values of equality and justice. A commitment to social justice has evolved as a more important value in the last few decades for psychology, including for the American Psychological Association (APA). The mission, vision, goals, Ethics Code, and strategic plan of APA all provide a rationale for psychologists' involvement in systematic and visible ways of applying our knowledge to social issues. Although psychology has not been immune to the application of psychological knowledge in destructive ways, overall, psychology, many psychologists, and APA have demonstrated a commitment to social justice. This article provides a brief review of the key proponents, debates, and controversies involved in applying psychological science and knowledge to complex societal problems. Psychologists often find themselves in conflict and honest disagreement when the association addresses complex and controversial issues. An important goal is that we continue to find ways to agree or disagree in a respectful manner regardless of where each of us stands on the various positions that APA takes.

The entire story is here and a member benefit of APA.

Actress urges action against human trafficking

By Andres Gonzalez
The Associated Press
Originally published July 17, 2012

Jada Pinkett Smith

Actress and activist Jada Pinkett Smith urged Congress on Tuesday to step up the fight against human trafficking in the U.S. and abroad.

The actress testified during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that she plans to launch a campaign to raise awareness and spur action against human trafficking and slavery. She said the "old monster" of slavery "is still with us," almost 150 years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the U.S.

"Fighting slavery doesn't cost a lot of money. The costs of allowing it to exist in our nation and abroad are much higher," the actress said. "It robs us of the thing we value most, our freedom."

The entire story is here.

Human trafficking: Modern day slavery

Women's Psych-E Newsletter
March 2012

On February 1, 2012, the APA Women’s Programs Office, the Graduate and Postgraduate Education and Training Office and the Neighborhood Opportunities for Volunteer Activities (NOVA) Committee hosted a brown bag lunch for APA staff in recognition of January as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month featuring Tina Frundt, Founder and Executive Director of Courtney’s House.

Frundt, also a survivor of domestic sex trafficking, discussed the importance of providing programs and services for domestic victims. “Trafficking of American children is often not heard about. The focus is often on foreign trafficking, she says. Due to a lack of funding for programs for trafficking victims, minors are all too often arrested, charged with child prostitution and placed in juvenile detention centers which are unsafe.” She is currently working to get legislation that will prevent children from being arrested and charged with child prostitution and to will allow them to receive services. Dr. Marsha Liss, PhD, member of the newly formed APA Task Force on Trafficking of Women and Girls, also in attendance, emphasized the importance of services and supports that prevent survivors from being sent into situations where they're at risk.

The entire article can be found here.

Identifying Perceived Personal Barriers to Public Policy Advocacy Within Psychology

The authors are Amy E. Heinowitz, Kelly R. Brown, Leah C. Langsam, Steven J. Arcidiacono, Paige L. Baker, Nadimeh H. Badaan, Nancy I. Zlatkin, & Ralph E. (Gene) Cash.
Professional Psychology: Research & Practice

There is an urgent and growing need for professional and social justice advocacy within the psychological community (Ratts & Hutchins, 2009; Kiselica & Robinson, 2001; Ratts, D'Andrea, & Arredondo, 2004; Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006).  Psychology, as a field as well as a profession, aims to reduce negative treatment outcomes and to enhance personal wellbeing through research and practice (Council of Specialties in Professional Psychology, 2009; American Psychological Association, 2010b).  The viability of the profession and its capacity to provide fundamental and essential services are directly affected by legislation and regulations (Barnett, 2004).  As a result, advocacy is integral to the roles of all psychologists, with the future and success of their profession and careers depending on their incorporation of advocacy into their professional identity (Burney et al., 2009).

(cut)

The findings presented in this study carry valuable implications for efforts aimed at enhancing participation in advocacy. Lating et al. (2009) suggest that the continued separation of professional and educational agendas in the training of psychologists may contribute to the profession's deficient involvement in advocacy. Specifically, psychology is the only major health profession to maintain an academic training model despite the creation of professional training programs. The lack of advocacy training appears to contribute to the development and maintenance of barriers such as lack of awareness of and lack of perceived competence in discussing public policy issues.

Efforts to increase psychologists' participation in public policy advocacy must begin early on and be integrated throughout their curricula. Pertinent public policy issues fit well into courses on ethics, diversity, assessment, and even intervention. Similarly, discussion about and training in the advocacy role may be reinforced through clinical training and supervision. In addition to incorporated teaching lessons, specific coursework in public policy advocacy might aid students in developing skills used to advocate, while increasing comfort, enhancing familiarity, and expanding knowledge of current issues.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.

Catholic nuns group 'stunned' by Vatican scolding for 'radical feminist' ideas

By Reuters
Originally published April 20, 2012

The Vatican

A prominent U.S. Catholic nuns group said it was "stunned" that the Vatican reprimanded it for spending too much time on poverty and social justice concerns and not enough on abortion and gay marriage.

In a stinging report on Wednesday, the Vatican said the Leadership Conference of Women Religious had been "silent on the right to life" and had failed to make the "Biblical view of family life and human sexuality" a central plank in its agenda. It accused the group of promoting "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

It also reprimanded American nuns for expressing positions on political issues that differed, at times, from views held by American bishops. Public disagreement with the bishops -- "who are the church's authentic teachers of faith and morals" -- is unacceptable, the report said.

The entire story is here.