The relevancy-focused report: An alternative model format for forensic psychological reports

Kukor, T. J., Otto, R. K., & Veltri, M. M. (2024). 

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.

Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000563

Abstract

Traditional report formats commonly employed to summarize forensic mental health evaluations pose several limitations, including that they implicitly encourage inclusion of irrelevant data and only data that are consistent with one’s opinions and discourage writers from explicitly distinguishing between case data, their inferences, and their reasoning. To remedy these issues, we propose a relevancy-focused (RF) report format, which is a findings-based report style developed specifically for use when summarizing results of forensic psychological evaluations. We describe a practical guide to the critical thinking and rhetorical writing embodied in the RF.

Impact Statement

Forensic psychological evaluations play a key role in civil and criminal litigation, as do the reports that summarize them. Reports must accurately and efficiently communicate the assessment process, the data gathered, and the examiner’s opinions and underlying reasoning. Described in this article is a structure for forensic report writing that was designed specifically with these important obligations in mind.

Here are some thoughts:

Traditional forensic mental health reports often suffer from including irrelevant information, failing to clearly distinguish between facts and interpretations, and neglecting to consider alternative explanations.

The article proposes a Relevancy-Focused (RF) report format:

1. This format prioritizes information directly relevant to the legal question.
2. It clearly separates evidence from inferences.
3. It requires explicit consideration of countervailing data.
4. It aims for concise and focused reports.

Benefits of the RF format:

1. Improves clarity and focus for readers (judges, attorneys).
2. Reduces the risk of including irrelevant or harmful information.
3. Enhances the perception of objectivity.
4. May lead to fewer court appearances due to clearer reports and less contested findings.

Mind-reading in AI and neurotechnology: evaluating claims, hype, and ethical implications for neurorights

Gilbert, F., & Russo, I. (2024).

AI And Ethics.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00514-6

Abstract

This paper examines claims that the convergence of AI and neurotechnology applications, known as brain-reading, enables the reading of human minds. The purpose of this examination is to investigate whether the use of the terms “brain-reading” and “mind-reading” to convey current neurotechnological findings carries evidence of hype. We conducted an interpretive content analysis of 1017 academic articles to gain insights into the current state of the art and examine assertions made by academics. Our analysis revealed that up to 91% of the examined articles suggest the possibility of mind-reading through brain-reading. Ethical issues discussed frequently include mental privacy, mental freedom, and personhood. Our study highlights the imprecise and inconsistent usage of the term mind-reading in scientific discourse, which leads to exaggerated claims about AI and BCIs having already achieved capacities beyond their current capabilities—or even reaching capacities that may never be feasible. While our study provides evidence of AI and BCI hype concerning alleged mind-reading capabilities, it also uncovers a hype in AI ethics, specifically pertaining to neurorights. This involves hypothetical scenarios where the fictional prospect of AI-enabled mind-reading calls for the establishment of new protective human rights.

Some thoughts:

The convergence of AI and neurotechnology applications, known as brain-reading, has sparked claims that it enables the reading of human minds. However, an examination of academic discourse reveals that these claims may be exaggerated. Through an interpretive content analysis of 1017 academic articles, it was found that 91% of articles suggest the possibility of mind-reading, with 46% claiming current capabilities and 45% anticipating future potential. Despite this, the usage of the term "mind-reading" is inconsistent, leading to hype surrounding AI and BCI capabilities.

Ethical issues, such as mental privacy, mental freedom, and personhood, are frequently discussed in conjunction with brain-reading and mind-reading. The predominant technology mentioned is fMRI, but AI and BCI citations are increasing sharply. Notably, a decline in hype surrounding fMRI is observed, while AI, BCI, and ANN are entering a rising phase of inflated expectations. This hype is not limited to scientific capabilities but also extends to AI ethics, specifically pertaining to neurorights, with hypothetical scenarios driving calls for new protective human rights.

The paper highlights the need for precise and clear usage of scientific terms, differentiation between brain-reading and mind-reading, and stringent regulations governing AI and BCI advancements. Furthermore, the hype surrounding neurorights associated with mind-reading claims warrants further research to elucidate its implications. Ultimately, it is crucial to separate scientific reality from speculative scenarios to ensure that ethical discussions and research efforts are productive and grounded in fact.

The fable of state self-control

Inzlicht, M., & Roberts, B. W. (2024).

Current Opinion in Psychology, 101848.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101848

Abstract

Trait self-control is highly valued, often equated with moral righteousness and associated with numerous positive life outcomes. This paper challenges the conventional conflation of trait self-control and state self-control. We suggest that while trait self-control is consistently linked to success, state self-control is not the causal mechanism driving these benefits. Trait self-control, sometimes also referred to as conscientiousness, grit, and the ability to delay gratification, predicts better health, wealth, and academic achievement. Conventional wisdom has it that people high in trait self-control reap all these benefits because they engage in more state self-control, defined as the momentary act of resolving conflict between goals and fleeting desires. Despite its intuitive appeal, there are problems with extolling state self-control because of our love for trait self-control. First, empirical evidence suggests that individuals high in trait self-control do not engage in more state self-control but engage it less. Second, changes to state self-control do not reliably and sustainably improve people's outcomes, as least in the long-term. And third, despite the possibility of dramatic improvements in trait self-control, these improvements are often short lived, with people returning to their baseline trait level over longer time horizons. The roots of this problem are numerous: Imprecise and inaccurate naming of our constructs that lead to construct drift and contamination; ignoring the numerous other facets of conscientiousness like orderliness or industriousness; and not appreciating that traits are sometimes not reducible to states. We suggest that the celebrated benefits of trait self-control arise from mechanisms beyond state self-control and highlight the need for a broader conceptualization of self-control in psychological research and practical interventions.

Here are some thoughts:

The concept of self-control is often revered, with individuals who possess high levels of it being viewed as morally righteous. However, research suggests that the effectiveness of state self-control, or willpower, in bringing about sustained change is largely ineffective. Despite its intuitive appeal, state self-control does not reliably improve outcomes in the long term, and changes to state self-control do not necessarily translate to changes in trait self-control.

Instead of focusing on state self-control, researchers suggest exploring other aspects of conscientiousness, such as planfulness and consideration of future consequences, to better understand the mechanisms underlying trait self-control. By shifting the focus away from state self-control and towards more robust and sustainable strategies, individuals can develop skills and habits that promote long-term success and well-being. This new perspective has significant implications for how we approach personal development and goal achievement.

Moving Beyond Statements to Protect Transgender Youth

Santos, M., Zempsky, W. T., & Shmerling, J. (2024).

JAMA.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.10196

The care of transgender and nonbinary youth (aged 18 years or younger) has been scrutinized and politicized, heightening stress for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) youth. These external forces have led to increased mental health concerns for this group. The statistics for LGBTQ+ youth from the Trevor Project’s 2023 US National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ Young People,1 which included more than 28 000 respondents, is startling: more than 40% of respondents considered attempting suicide over the past year, less than 40% reported their homes to be LGBTQ+ affirming, and 53% reported verbal harassment at school. In addition, 67% and 54% of respondents reported symptoms of anxiety and depression, respectively. The statistics focused specifically on transgender and nonbinary youth are even more disheartening: more than 50% of respondents considered suicide over the past year and 75% and 60% reported increased symptoms of anxiety and depression, respectively. Notably, more than half of LGBTQ+ youth who wanted counseling from a mental health professional did not receive it.

The article is paywalled here.

Here is my summary:

The care of transgender and nonbinary youth has become a highly politicized and scrutinized issue, leading to increased stress and mental health concerns for this vulnerable population. Recent statistics from the Trevor Project's 2023 US National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ Young People reveal alarming rates of suicide ideation, anxiety, and depression among LGBTQ+ youth, with even higher rates among transgender and nonbinary individuals. Despite the controversy surrounding gender-affirming care, major medical organizations and research confirm its lifesaving necessity.

Children's hospitals are uniquely positioned to make a positive impact on the lives of transgender and nonbinary youth and their families. However, simply offering statements of support is no longer sufficient. Families are fearful about accessing care, particularly in states that have banned gender-affirming services. Children's hospitals must take action to counteract the harm caused by this cultural war. This includes establishing resource centers to connect families with care, providing evidence-based education to counter misinformation, increasing care capacity to reduce waiting lists, ensuring safety and support for LGBTQ+ healthcare workers, and convening legal experts to protect staff and maintain care access.

By taking these steps, children's hospitals can help address the medical and psychological needs of transgender and nonbinary youth, ultimately saving lives. The article concludes with a call to action, emphasizing the need for collaborative efforts to support vulnerable families and healthcare workers. As the situation remains critical, with a transgender youth attempting suicide every few minutes, it is imperative that children's hospitals take immediate action to provide comprehensive support and care.

People Reject Free Money and Cheap Deals Because They Infer Phantom Costs

Vonasch, A. J., Mofradidoost, R., & Gray, K. (2024).

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0(0).

https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241235687

Abstract

If money is good, then shouldn’t more money always be better? Perhaps not. Traditional economic theories suggest that money is an ever-increasing incentivizer. If someone will accept a job for US$20/hr, they should be more likely to accept the same job for US$30/hr and especially for US$250/hr. However, 10 preregistered, high-powered studies (N = 4,205, in the United States and Iran) reveal how increasing incentives can backfire. Overly generous offers lead people to infer “phantom costs” that make them less likely to accept high job wages, cheap plane fares, and free money. We present a theory for understanding when and why people imagine these hidden drawbacks and show how phantom costs drive judgments, impact behavior, and intersect with individual differences. Phantom costs change how we should think about “economic rationality.” Economic exchanges are not merely about money, but instead are social interactions between people trying to perceive (and deceive) each others’ minds.

Significance Statement

This article introduces the concept of “phantom costs,” which explain why incentives backfire. This effect is important for any situation in which incentives are offered, ranging from jobs to governmental policies. The standard model in economics assumes people respond rationally to incentives—for example, people are more likely to accept offers for more money than less money. However, this reveals that people spontaneously appreciate the social context of financial offers—especially overly generous offers. Phantoms costs reveal an important change from the standard model beyond standard heuristics and biases. Phantom costs also provide a framework to make sense of other seemingly paradoxical effects of money and provide an important bridge between behavioral economics and social cognition.

Why is this important for clinical psychologists and mental health professionals?

1. It provides insights into irrational decision-making and cognitive biases that can contribute to mental health issues like anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and depression. Understanding these biases can help clinicians better conceptualize and treat certain disorders.
2. The findings relate to how people evaluate costs/benefits, which is relevant for motivational issues in psychotherapy. Clinicians could apply these concepts to enhance patient motivation by framing treatment recommendations in ways that reduce perceived "phantom costs."
3. It highlights the role of emotions and intuitive judgments in decision-making, which is important for clinical psychologists to understand when working with patients to modify maladaptive thought patterns and behaviors.
4. The study touches on consumer psychology, which has applications in areas like health behavior change. Clinicians could use similar framing effects to promote healthier choices by patients.
5. More broadly, it demonstrates how psychological research can yield counterintuitive insights that challenge assumptions, which is valuable for clinical practice rooted in empirical evidence rather than intuition alone.

Gun laws lower firearm-related suicides among youth, study shows

Sara Chernikoff

USA Today

Originally posted 20 July 24

New research out of Duke University found that some gun laws can prevent firearm suicides' among children and teens. States with safe storage laws and mandatory waiting periods had lower rates of suicide deaths among children 18 and younger.

These same laws did not decrease the risk of kids being murdered by a firearm, the research found.

Lead researcher Dr. Krista Haines is an assistant professor of surgery and population health sciences at Duke University School of Medicine in North Carolina. Haines told USA TODAY there there was a surge in firearm fatalities across the nation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"There's not a lot of interventions out there that we found that worked." said Haines "Looking at what legislation is out there that does actually work, we thought would be a good first start."

The article is here.

Here is a summary:

Researchers at Duke University have found that certain gun laws can help prevent firearm suicides among children and teens. A study analyzing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 2009 and 2020 revealed that states with safe storage laws, mandatory waiting periods, and child access prevention laws had lower rates of suicide deaths among children 18 and younger. However, these laws did not decrease the risk of firearm homicides among this age group. The study's lead researcher, Dr. Krista Haines, emphasizes the need for effective interventions to address the surge in firearm fatalities during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research suggests that implementing laws controlling access to guns among children and teens can help prevent suicides, which are a leading cause of death among this age group in the US.

When and why people conceal their identities

Le Forestier, J.M., Lewis, N.A.

Nat Rev Psychol 3, 489–498 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-024-00324-x

Abstract

Many people conceal identities as a strategy for managing the impressions others have of them. They do so because they believe that managing those impressions can be consequential for their ability to pursue their goals. However, the scope of when people engage in identity concealment, and the process by which that concealment unfolds, are unclear. In this Perspective, we review the literature on identity concealment and synthesize it into a model of concealment that specifies the conditions under which people conceal identities. This model advances theory by explicitly modelling the role of concealability (including differences in concealability attributable to identities, individuals, contexts and interactions between them), accounting for multiple motives for concealment that are related to different levels of the ecological systems in which people are embedded (including goals beyond stigma management), and specifying the social-cognitive process by which these abilities and goals result in concealment.

A pdf is here.

Here are some thoughts:

Many individuals strategically conceal aspects of their identity to navigate social interactions and achieve goals. The dynamic identity concealment model proposes that people carefully consider when and how to reveal or hide personal information based on various factors, including social context, personal motivations, and perceived risks. This framework challenges traditional views of identity as fixed and observable, highlighting the complex interplay between individuals and their environments. By expanding the scope of identity concealment research beyond marginalized groups, we can gain valuable insights into self-presentation and interpersonal dynamics.

Research on identity concealment provides invaluable insights for clinical psychologists. By understanding the motivations and strategies people employ to hide aspects of themselves, clinicians can better comprehend client behavior, identify underlying psychological issues, and build stronger therapeutic relationships. This knowledge also informs assessment, diagnosis, and the development of effective interventions. Furthermore, by recognizing the influence of social and cultural factors on identity concealment, clinicians can better serve clients from diverse backgrounds. Ultimately, this research enhances psychologists' ability to support clients in their journey towards well-being.

The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making

Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., et al. (2024).

PNAS Nexus, 3(6).

https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae191

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to both exacerbate and ameliorate existing socioeconomic inequalities. In this article, we provide a state-of-the-art interdisciplinary overview of the potential impacts of generative AI on (mis)information and three information-intensive domains: work, education, and healthcare. Our goal is to highlight how generative AI could worsen existing inequalities while illuminating how AI may help mitigate pervasive social problems. In the information domain, generative AI can democratize content creation and access but may dramatically expand the production and proliferation of misinformation. In the workplace, it can boost productivity and create new jobs, but the benefits will likely be distributed unevenly. In education, it offers personalized learning, but may widen the digital divide. In healthcare, it might improve diagnostics and accessibility, but could deepen pre-existing inequalities. In each section, we cover a specific topic, evaluate existing research, identify critical gaps, and recommend research directions, including explicit trade-offs that complicate the derivation of a priori hypotheses. We conclude with a section highlighting the role of policymaking to maximize generative AI's potential to reduce inequalities while mitigating its harmful effects. We discuss strengths and weaknesses of existing policy frameworks in the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, observing that each fails to fully confront the socioeconomic challenges we have identified. We propose several concrete policies that could promote shared prosperity through the advancement of generative AI. This article emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary collaborations to understand and address the complex challenges of generative AI.

Here are some thoughts:

Generative AI stands to radically reshape society, yet its ultimate impact hinges on our choices. This powerful technology offers immense potential for improving information access, education, and healthcare. However, it also poses significant risks, including job displacement, increased inequality, and the spread of misinformation. To fully harness AI's benefits while mitigating its drawbacks, we must urgently address critical research questions and develop a robust regulatory framework. The decisions we make today about AI will have far-reaching consequences for generations to come.

A Self-Righteous, Not a Virtuous, Circle: Proposing a New Framework for Studying Media Effects on Knowledge and Political Participation in a Social Media Environment

Lee, S., & Valenzuela, S. (2024).

Social Media + Society, 10(2).

https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241257953

Abstract

To explain the participatory effects of news exposure, communication scholars have long relied upon the “virtuous circle” framework of media use and civic participation. That is, news consumption makes people more knowledgeable, and trustful toward institutions and political processes, making them active and responsible citizens, which then leads them to engage in various political activities. In a social media environment, however, the applicability of the “virtuous circle” is increasingly dubious. A mounting body of empirical research indicates that news consumption via social media does not necessarily yield actual information gains. Instead, it often fosters a false perception of being well-informed and politically competent, thereby stimulating political engagement. Furthermore, selective information consumption and interaction within like-minded networks on social media frequently exacerbate animosity toward opposing political factions, which can serve as a catalyst for political involvement. In light of these findings, we propose replacing the “virtuous circle” framework for a “self-righteous” one. In this new model, social media news users develop a heightened sense of confidence in their knowledge, regardless of its accuracy, and consequently become more inclined to engage in politics by reinforcing the perception that the opposing side is inherently wrong and that achieving victory is imperative.

Here are some thoughts:

Political participation is widely recognized as a fundamental indicator of a healthy democracy, and the role of news media in fostering this participation has been extensively studied. Traditionally, exposure to news has been associated with increased political knowledge and participation, forming a "virtuous circle" where informed citizens engage more actively in democratic processes. However, recent changes in the political landscape, such as the rise of populism, misinformation, and deepening partisan divides, challenge the applicability of this framework. The study proposes a shift from the "virtuous circle" to a "self-righteous cycle" of news consumption and political participation, particularly in the context of social media.

This new model suggests that political participation driven by social media news consumption often stems from users feeling informed, despite being misinformed, and from increased animosity toward opposing political groups. The study highlights the role of partisan selective exposure on social media, which fosters political engagement through heightened emotions and animosity rather than through trust and informed understanding. This shift underscores the need for a revised theoretical model to better understand the contemporary media and political environment, emphasizing the importance of critical scrutiny and accurate information in fostering genuine political knowledge and participation.

AI models fed AI-generated data quickly spew nonsense

Elizabeth Gibney

nature.com

News: July 24, 24

Training artificial intelligence (AI) models on AI-generated text quickly leads to the models churning out nonsense, a study has found. This cannibalistic phenomenon, termed model collapse, could halt the improvement of large language models (LLMs) as they run out of human-derived training data and as increasing amounts of AI-generated text pervade the Internet.

“The message is, we have to be very careful about what ends up in our training data,” says co-author Zakhar Shumaylov, an AI researcher at the University of Cambridge, UK. Otherwise, “things will always, provably, go wrong”. he says.” The team used a mathematical analysis to show that the problem of model collapse is likely to be universal, affecting all sizes of language model that use uncurated data, as well as simple image generators and other types of AI.

The researchers began by using an LLM to create Wikipedia-like entries, then trained new iterations of the model on text produced by its predecessor. As the AI-generated information — known as synthetic data — polluted the training set, the model’s outputs became gibberish. The ninth iteration of the model completed a Wikipedia-style article about English church towers with a treatise on the many colours of jackrabbit tails (see ‘AI gibberish’).

The info is here.

Here are some thoughts:

This article highlights a concerning phenomenon known as model collapse, which occurs when artificial intelligence (AI) models are trained on text generated by other AI models. This recursive training leads to a degradation in the quality of outputs, ultimately resulting in nonsensical responses. Researchers demonstrated that as AI-generated content increasingly permeates the internet, the reliance on this synthetic data could stifle the advancement of large language models (LLMs) due to a lack of high-quality human-derived training data. The study revealed that even before complete collapse, models trained on AI-generated texts tend to forget less frequent information, which poses significant risks for fair representation of marginalized groups.

Said differently: AI garbage in, AI garbage out.

An investigation of big life decisions

Camilleri, A. R. (2023).

Judgment and Decision Making, 18, e32.

doi:10.1017/jdm.2023.30

Abstract

What are life’s biggest decisions? In Study 1, I devised a taxonomy comprising 9 decision categories, 58 decision types, and 10 core elements of big decisions. In Study 2, I revealed people’s perceptions of and expectations for the average person’s big life decisions. In the flagship Study 3, 658 participants described their 10 biggest past and future decisions and rated each decision on a variety of decision elements. This research reveals the characteristics of a big life decision, which are the most common, most important, and most positively evaluated big life decisions, when such decisions happen, and which factors predict ‘good’ decisions. This research contributes to knowledge that could help people improve their lives through better decision-making and living with fewer regrets.

Introduction

Life is filled with decisions. Most decisions are small and quickly forgotten but others have long-lasting consequences. The commercial success of popular books dedicated to help readers improve their decision-making (e.g., Duke, Reference Duke2020) highlights our desire to choose better. However, not every decision can be carefully researched and reflected on, nor should it. Such cognitive effort should be reserved for the most important decisions; those that are most likely to be consequential to one’s life—the ‘big’ decisions.

In the still-popular board game The Game of Life—originally created in 1860 by the renowned Milton Bradley—players simulate life by making a series of big decisions about college, jobs, marriage, children, and retirement. Does the game accurately reflect reality? What are life’s biggest decisions? What makes them so big? When do they occur? How can we make a good one? Which of them lead to happiness? Can we accurately predict any of these answers? Given that big decisions are often directly responsible for our health, wealth, and happiness, it is surprising how little attention has been given to understand how people tend to approach them (see Galotti, 2007 for an exception). The assumption that small consequential or big hypothetical decisions studied in the lab are good models for real big life decisions seems dubious given that no lab study can replicate all of the relevant factors nor the substantial consequences (Galotti, 2005).

(cut)

Conclusions

How your life turns out depends critically on a handful of decisions. Given their vital importance for health, wealth, and happiness, surprisingly little attention has been directed to understanding the broad nature of such big life decisions. A better understanding will allow us to be better prepared to make them. This research has taken us some steps forward on that path.

Here are some thoughts:

Psychologists need to understand big life decisions because these decisions critically influence a patient's health, wealth, and overall happiness. This research highlights the significance of these decisions by categorizing and analyzing them, revealing the common characteristics and factors that predict positive outcomes. By understanding how people approach these significant choices, psychologists can better assist patients in improving their decision-making processes. This understanding can help people lead better lives with fewer regrets by making informed decisions that enhance their well-being and satisfaction. Importantly, psychologists are not to make decisions for patients, as that tramples on the patient's autonomy and may be a form of intrusive advocacy, which may harm the patient.

What would qualify an artificial intelligence for moral standing?

Ladak, A.

AI Ethics 4, 213–228 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00260-1

Abstract

What criteria must an artificial intelligence (AI) satisfy to qualify for moral standing? My starting point is that sentient AIs should qualify for moral standing. But future AIs may have unusual combinations of cognitive capacities, such as a high level of cognitive sophistication without sentience. This raises the question of whether sentience is a necessary criterion for moral standing, or merely sufficient. After reviewing nine criteria that have been proposed in the literature, I suggest that there is a strong case for thinking that some non-sentient AIs, such as those that are conscious and have non-valenced preferences and goals, and those that are non-conscious and have sufficiently cognitively complex preferences and goals, should qualify for moral standing. After responding to some challenges, I tentatively argue that taking into account uncertainty about which criteria an entity must satisfy to qualify for moral standing, and strategic considerations such as how such decisions will affect humans and other sentient entities, further supports granting moral standing to some non-sentient AIs. I highlight three implications: that the issue of AI moral standing may be more important, in terms of scale and urgency, than if either sentience or consciousness is necessary; that researchers working on policies designed to be inclusive of sentient AIs should broaden their scope to include all AIs with morally relevant interests; and even those who think AIs cannot be sentient or conscious should take the issue seriously. However, much uncertainty about these considerations remains, making this an important topic for future research.

Here are some thoughts:

This article explores the criteria for artificial intelligence (AI) to be considered morally significant. While sentience is often seen as a requirement, the author argues that some non-sentient AIs might qualify too. The paper examines different viewpoints and proposes that AIs with complex goals or consciousness, even without sentience, could be morally relevant. This perspective suggests the issue might be broader and more pressing than previously thought. It also highlights the need for AI policies to consider a wider range of AI and for those skeptical of AI sentience to still acknowledge the moral questions it raises. Further research is needed due to the remaining uncertainties.

Missing out by pursuing rewarding outcomes: Why initial biases can lead to persistent suboptimal choices.

Harris, C.,  et al. (2023).

Motivation Science, 9(4), 288–297.

https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000302

Abstract

While there are abundant reasons that might lead us to form wrong first impressions, further interaction (sampling) opportunities should allow us to attenuate such initial biases. Sometimes, however, theses biases persist despite repeated sampling opportunities, such as in superstitions or stereotypes. In two studies (Ns = 100), we investigate this phenomenon. We demonstrate that in a task in which participants could repeatedly choose between two options to gain rewards, erroneous initial impressions about yielded outcomes can lead to persisting biases toward a clearly inferior option. We argue that a premature focus on reward pursuit (exploitation) rather than exploration is the cause of these biases, which persist despite plenty of opportunities and a presumed motivation to overcome them. By focusing on a supposedly best option, participants never give themselves the chance to sufficiently try out alternatives and thereby overcome their initial biases. We conclude that going for the money is not always the best strategy. 

The research is paywalled.

Here are some thoughts:

The study's findings paint a clear picture of how initial impressions can bias our decision-making and lead us down suboptimal paths. In the experiments, participants who developed a preference for one option early on exhibited a persistent tendency to stick with it, even when presented with a demonstrably superior alternative. This bias was further strengthened when the initially chosen option provided more frequent positive outcomes, even if the overall probability of reward was slightly lower. This frequent but slightly less rewarding reinforcement appeared to create a cycle that solidified the initial preference and led participants to make suboptimal choices

Interestingly, the researchers found that increasing the difference in reward probabilities between the two options could nudge some participants to switch to the better choice. However, this was not a foolproof solution. Those who had formed a strong initial bias in favor of the inferior option still struggled to overcome it, highlighting the tenacity of these biases.

The study's results suggest that these biases may stem from how our initial choices shape the evidence we encounter. By favoring a particular option, we limit our exposure to potentially better alternatives, hindering our ability to learn and adapt our decision-making as we gather more information.

Political censorship feels acceptable when ideas seem harmful and false

Kubin, E., Von Sikorski, C., & Gray, K. (2024).

Political Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13011

Abstract

People seem willing to censor disagreeable political and moral ideas. Five studies explore why people engage in political censorship and test a potential route to decreasing censorship. While Americans report being generally supportive of free speech and against censorship (Study 1), we find that people censor material that seems harmful and false (Study 2), which are often ideas from political opponents (Study 3). Building on work demonstrating the perceived truth of harmful experiences (i.e., experiences of victimization), we test an experience-sharing intervention to reduce censorship. Among college students, the intervention indirectly decreased students' willingness to censor controversial campus speakers' ideas, through reducing beliefs that these speakers were sharing harmful and false ideas related to gun policy (Study 4). We also find benefits of sharing harmful experiences related to the abortion debate. Americans were less willing to censor and report the social media posts of opponents who base their views on experiences of victimization rather than scientific findings (Study 5).

Here are some thoughts:

This research explores the psychological underpinnings of political censorship and offers insights into when and why people engage in it.

Americans generally oppose censorship, but there are situations where they find it more acceptable. The key factors driving censorship are perceptions of ideas being harmful and false. People are more likely to endorse censoring their political opponents because they believe these individuals are likely to share harmful and untrue information.

While censorship is often associated with extreme content like hate speech, this research reveals that people are also willing to censor ideas they perceive as harmful and untrue, even if they may not actually be (e.g., opposing views on gun policy).

The study tested a "harmful experience intervention" to reduce political censorship. This intervention shifts perceptions of harm and falsity, making opponents' ideas seem less false and harmful, thereby reducing the inclination to censor. The effects were observed in both college campus settings and social media contexts.

Psychology Trainees’ & Professionals’ Perceived Importance of & Engagement in Advocacy for Marginalized Groups

Forestieri, K. J., et al. (2024).

Professional Psychology, Research and Practice.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000543

Abstract

The recent sociopolitical climate necessitates psychology professionals advocating for their clients under a social justice framework. However, research on the prevalence of advocacy by psychology trainees and professionals for marginalized groups (e.g., people of color, immigrants, refugees, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, asexual+ individuals, and unhoused individuals) and causes (e.g., police-community relations, and criminal justice reform) is sparse. Data for the present study were gathered as part of a larger research project conducted in 2018. A total of 165 participants began the survey, with only 104 completing all questions. The study aimed to understand psychology trainees’ and professionals’ attitude toward advocacy for others, frequency and type of advocacy behaviors that they engage in, and potential barriers to advocacy work. Results showed a large discrepancy between participants’ highly self-reported beliefs in the importance of advocacy and low actual engagement in advocacy behaviors. Contrary to the original hypotheses, barriers to advocacy were not the most salient predictors of lack of engagement in advocacy; instead, it appears that a less positive attitude toward advocacy and conservative political affiliation may play more of an integral role. Implications for remedying this discrepancy among psychology trainees and professionals are discussed (e.g., training), as well as strengths and limitations of the present study.

Public Significance Statement

Psychology trainees and professionals endorse advocacy for marginalized groups as important, but infrequently engage in such behaviors. A less positive attitude toward advocacy and conservative political affiliation may play more of an integral role in predicting advocacy behavior.

Here are some thoughts:

The recent sociopolitical climate has highlighted the need for psychology professionals to advocate for their clients within a social justice framework. However, research on the prevalence of advocacy by psychology trainees and professionals for marginalized groups and causes is limited. This study, conducted in 2018, aimed to understand psychology trainees' and professionals' attitudes toward advocacy, their engagement in advocacy behaviors, and potential barriers to advocacy work.

The study revealed a significant discrepancy between participants' self-reported beliefs in the importance of advocacy and their actual engagement in advocacy behaviors. Contrary to initial hypotheses, barriers to advocacy were not the most salient predictors of lack of engagement. Instead, a less positive attitude toward advocacy and conservative political affiliation appeared to play a more significant role.

Across all groups and causes, working directly on changing legislative policies was the least endorsed actionable step, while attending protests and donating money were among the most endorsed behaviors. Educating oneself and others were the most frequently reported educational steps. The study found that barriers such as lack of awareness of issues and disinterest in advocacy resulted in less participation in advocacy behaviors.

Interestingly, political affiliation emerged as a significant predictor of engagement in advocacy for certain groups, with more conservative-identifying participants less likely to advocate for people of color, women's issues, and LGBTQIA+ individuals. The study suggests that low levels of engagement in advocacy may be due to training deficits, lack of time, a micro-level focus on clients rather than systems, and insufficient knowledge about advocacy opportunities and methods.

The researchers propose that addressing advocacy training in psychology programs could help bolster engagement. This includes exploring political affiliation in training programs to understand the discrepancy in advocacy engagement between self-identifying liberals and conservatives, and framing advocacy from an empathetic, social justice lens. The study acknowledges limitations, including the timing of data collection in 2018, prior to recent significant sociopolitical events.

Navigating the Challenges of Conservators or Adult Guardians in Psychiatric Practice

Dike, C. C. (2024).

Psychiatric News, 59(07).

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2024.07.7.48

An inpatient psychiatrist and her team are caught in a quandary. A hospitalized patient with chronic respiratory compromise is demanding to receive a COVID vaccination, but his conservator of person, also known as adult guardian in some states, is refusing to consent to the vaccination. Staff members suspect that the conservator’s refusal to approve the vaccination was driven by the conservator’s religious and spiritual beliefs. They also believe the patient’s best interest will be better served by getting the vaccination, given the patient’s underlying serious medical condition.

A different scenario is playing out in a sister hospital. A medically compromised patient admitted for psychiatric treatment is refusing the recommended COVID vaccination, but her conservator is insisting the psychiatrist should proceed with the injection, including holding or strapping down the patient to administer it. The psychiatrist is reluctant to do so over the patient’s objection but is worried about disregarding the request of the patient’s conservator.

Examples such as these—in which conserved patients’ requests are disapproved by their conservator—are common in psychiatric practice. Areas of conflicts include refusal to provide funds for cigarettes, certain food items, phones or computers, and alcoholic beverages and decisions regarding where to live. Often, the treating psychiatrist is caught in the middle.

The entire article is here.

Here are some thoughts:

This article wrestles with the ethical tightrope mental health professionals walk when treating patients with conservators. Balancing patient autonomy and their best interests is complex. While conservators are meant to protect those unable to care for themselves, the system can infringe on patient choice. The article emphasizes respecting patients' wishes whenever possible, and that mental health professionals must be vigilant for potential conservator abuse.  Ultimately, mental health professionals must act as patient advocates, focusing on their well-being (and in court if necessary). Even when court decisions go against the patient's wishes, the mental health professional's ethical duty remains - to support the patient through the situation (aka patient autonomy).

State Abortion Policy and Moral Distress Among Clinicians Providing Abortion After the Dobbs Decision

Rivlin, K., Bornstein, M., et al. (2024).

JAMA Network Open, 7(8), e2426248.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.26248

Abstract

Importance

Moral distress occurs when individuals feel powerless to do what they think is right, including when clinicians are prevented from providing health care they deem necessary. The loss of federal protections for abortion following the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision may place clinicians providing abortion at risk of experiencing moral distress, as many could face new legal and civil penalties for providing care in line with professional standards and that they perceive as necessary.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Using descriptive statistics and unadjusted and adjusted negative binomial regression models, the association between self-reported moral distress on the Moral Distress Thermometer (MDT), a validated psychometric tool that scores moral distress from 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible), and state abortion policy was examined.

Conclusions and Relevance 

In this purposive national survey study of clinicians providing abortion, moral distress was elevated among all clinicians and more than twice as high among those practicing in states that restrict abortion compared with those in states that protect abortion. The findings suggest that structural changes addressing bans on necessary health care, such as federal protections for abortion, are needed at institutional, state, and federal policy levels to combat widespread moral distress.

Here are some thoughts:

A national survey of 310 abortion clinicians found that those practicing in states with abortion restrictions experience more moral distress than those in states that protect abortion. This study found that clinicians in restrictive states reported moral distress scores that were more than double those in protective states. The study's authors suggest that structural changes at the state, federal, and institutional levels are needed to address this moral distress, such as federal protections for abortion.

Moral distress can occur when people feel powerless to do what they believe is right, such as when clinicians are prevented from providing care they consider necessary. High levels of moral distress can lead to burnout, errors in patient care, and clinician attrition. In restrictive states, these issues could worsen provider shortages and lead to poor patient outcomes. 

However, some clinicians have found ways to cope with moral distress. For example, one participant said they felt more empowered to provide abortion care after the Dobbs decision, while another described feeling motivated by the support of their team. 

People believe political opponents accept blatant moral wrongs, fueling partisan divides

Puryear, C., et al. (2024).

PNAS Nexus, 3(7).

https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae244

Abstract

Efforts to bridge political divides often focus on navigating complex and divisive issues, but eight studies reveal that we should also focus on a more basic misperception: that political opponents are willing to accept basic moral wrongs. In the United States, Democrats, and Republicans overestimate the number of political outgroup members who approve of blatant immorality (e.g. child pornography, embezzlement). This “basic morality bias” is tied to political dehumanization and is revealed by multiple methods, including natural language analyses from a large social media corpus and a survey with a representative sample of Americans. Importantly, the basic morality bias can be corrected with a brief, scalable intervention. Providing information that just one political opponent condemns blatant wrongs increases willingness to work with political opponents and substantially decreases political dehumanization.

Significance Statement

The United States is witnessing historic levels of political hostility and gridlock. This animosity is partly grounded in misperceptions of opponents’ political beliefs, but we find many Americans overestimate political opponents’ willingness to accept even the most basic moral wrongs. These findings suggest individuals and practitioners working to foster cross-partisan interaction might first correct this basic morality bias. Specifically, we show that learning a single opponent condemns basic moral wrongs increases behavioral engagement with political opponents and decreases dehumanization of the entire political outgroup.

The research is here.

Here are some thoughts:

Political divides in the US are fueled by a surprising misunderstanding: people believe their opponents are okay with terrible things like child pornography or embezzlement. This isn't true, but many people think it is, and this perception makes them dislike and dehumanize the other side. There's good news though - we can fix this misunderstanding. Studies show that simply reminding people that their opponents share basic moral values, like opposing these awful acts, can lead them to be more willing to work together and see each other as human. This approach seems even more effective than just giving people facts about the other side's beliefs. There are still questions about how long this positive effect lasts and if it works outside the US, but correcting this basic morality bias holds promise for bridging the political divide and fostering more productive conversations.

Racial Stress, Racial Trauma, and Evidence-Based Strategies for Coping and Empowerment

Holmes, S. C., et al. (2024).

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 20(1).

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081122-020235

Abstract

Racial stress and racial trauma refer to psychological, physiological, and behavioral responses to race-based threats and discriminatory experiences. This article reviews the evidence base regarding techniques for coping with racial stress and trauma. These techniques include self-care, self-compassion, social support, mindfulness, cognitive restructuring, cognitive defusion, identity-affirming practices and development of racial/ethnic identity, expressive writing, social action and activism, and psychedelics. These strategies have shown the potential to mitigate psychological symptoms and foster a sense of empowerment among individuals affected by racial stress and trauma. While the ultimate goal should undoubtedly be to address the root cause of racism, it is imperative to acknowledge that until then, implementing these strategies can effectively provide much-needed support for individuals affected by racism.

The article is here.

Here are some thoughts:

This article explores coping mechanisms for racial stress and trauma, acknowledging the ongoing need to dismantle racism itself.  It reviews various strategies including self-care, mindfulness, and social support, all showing promise in reducing negative mental health effects. The research also highlights the importance of tailoring these strategies. While expressive writing and activism can be helpful, cultural factors and access to social support can influence their effectiveness. The article suggests a potential benefit to building foundational coping skills like self-compassion before engaging in more challenging strategies. This staged approach aligns with existing trauma recovery models, emphasizing safety and self-care before delving into deeper emotional processing.

Spain passes law allowing anyone over 16 to change registered gender

Sam Jones

The Irish Times

Originally posted 16 Feb 23

Spain’s parliament has approved new legislation that will allow anyone over 16 to change their legally registered gender, ease abortion limits for those aged 16 and 17 and make the country the first in Europe to introduce paid menstrual leave.

The new transgender law – which was passed despite protests from feminist groups, warnings from opposition parties, and amid tensions between different wings of the Socialist-led coalition government – means that anyone aged over 16 will be able to change their gender on official documents without medical supervision.

However, a judge will need to authorise the change for minors aged 12-14, while those aged 14-16 will need the consent of their parents or guardians. No such changes will be available to those under the age of 12.

The law will also see a ban on conversion therapy – punishable by hefty fines – and an end to public subsidies for groups that “incite or promote LGBTIphobia”.

The information is here.

Some thoughts:

Spain's transgender laws are important to know from a multicultural competence perspective.

Familiarity with such laws enhances our cultural competence, allowing us to better serve diverse populations, including transgender individuals from various backgrounds. Moreover, knowledge of pioneering laws like Spain's enables us to advocate for similar reforms in our own country, promoting inclusivity and human rights. Furthermore, understanding the legal recognition of transgender rights in countries like Spain encourages us to reflect on our own ethical practices, ensuring respect, empathy, and non-discrimination in our work.

Physician Specialty Differences in Unprofessional Behaviors Observed & Reported by Coworkers

Cooper, W. O., et al. (2024).

JAMA Network Open, 7(6), e2415331.

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.15331

Abstract

Importance  Because unprofessional behaviors are associated with patient complications, malpractice claims, and well-being concerns, monitoring concerns requiring investigation and individuals identified in multiple reports may provide important opportunities for health care leaders to support all team members.

Objective  To examine the distribution of physicians by specialty who demonstrate unprofessional behaviors measured through safety reports submitted by coworkers.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This retrospective cohort study was conducted among physicians who practiced at the 193 hospitals in the Coworker Concern Observation Reporting System (CORS), administered by the Vanderbilt Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy. Data were collected from January 2018 to December 2022.

Exposure  Submitted reports concerning communication, professional responsibility, medical care, and professional integrity.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Physicians’ total number and categories of CORS reports. The proportion of physicians in each specialty (nonsurgeon nonproceduralists, emergency medicine physicians, nonsurgeon proceduralists, and surgeons) who received at least 1 report and who qualified for intervention were calculated; logistic regression was used to calculate the odds of any CORS report.

Conclusions and Relevance  In this cohort study, less than 10% of physicians ever received a coworker report with a concern about unprofessional behavior. Monitoring reports of unprofessional behaviors provides important opportunities for health care organizations to identify and intervene as needed to support team members.

The study is here.

Here are some thoughts:

A recent study found that unprofessional behavior reports from coworkers were more common for certain physician specialties. Surgeons had the highest percentage of reports (13.8%), followed by nonsurgical proceduralists (12.0%) and emergency medicine physicians (10.9%). Conversely, nonsurgical non-proceduralists, like hospitalists, had the lowest rate (5.6%). Interestingly, focusing on pediatrics within a specialty didn't significantly affect the likelihood of being reported. This research highlights the importance of reporting systems for unprofessional behavior. By identifying physicians who may need intervention, healthcare organizations can create a safer and more positive work environment for everyone.

Transmission of social bias through observational learning

Schultner, D. T., et al. (2024).

Science Advances, 10(26).

https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adk2030

Abstract

People often rely on social learning—learning by observing others’ actions and outcomes—to form preferences in advance of their own direct experiences. Although typically adaptive, we investigated whether social learning may also contribute to the formation and spread of prejudice. In six experiments (n = 1550), we demonstrate that by merely observing interactions between a prejudiced actor and social group members, observers acquired the prejudices of the actor. Moreover, observers were unaware of the actors’ bias, misattributing their acquired group preferences to the behavior of group members, despite identical behavior between groups. Computational modeling revealed that this effect was due to value shaping, whereby one’s preferences are shaped by another’s actions toward a target, in addition to the target’s reward feedback. These findings identify social learning as a potent mechanism of prejudice formation that operates implicitly and supports the transmission of intergroup bias.

Here are some thoughts:

Summary

This research investigates the role of social learning in the formation and spread of prejudice. Across six experiments involving 1,550 participants, it was found that individuals could acquire prejudices simply by observing interactions between a prejudiced actor and social group members. Notably, observers were unaware of the actor’s bias and misattributed their acquired group preferences to the behavior of the group members, even though the behavior of the groups was identical. The studies identified that this effect was due to value shaping, where an observer's preferences are influenced by another's actions toward a target, in addition to the target’s reward feedback. Computational modeling confirmed that observers integrated the demonstrator’s biased actions with the behavior of group members when forming their own preferences.

Importance to Mental Health Professionals

Understanding that prejudice can be acquired implicitly through observation is crucial for mental health professionals. It highlights the need to recognize and address unconscious biases that may develop in their clients. These insights are essential for developing effective interventions that mitigate the transmission of prejudice by making individuals aware of potential biases in observed behaviors.

Therapists can leverage this knowledge to help clients identify and understand the sources of their prejudices, which may stem from observed interactions rather than direct experiences. By integrating these findings into counseling and therapy approaches, mental health professionals can foster greater self-awareness and promote unbiased attitudes.

Additionally, these findings underscore the importance of educational programs aimed at communities. Educating people about the implicit nature of prejudice transmission can create environments that encourage unbiased and positive intergroup interactions. Preventive strategies can be developed to work with organizations and communities to design programs that prevent the spread of prejudice by promoting exposure to unbiased information and diverse perspectives.

By understanding the mechanisms of prejudice formation and transmission, mental health professionals can better support individuals and communities in reducing and preventing intergroup biases. This comprehensive approach will contribute to more inclusive and equitable social structures.

Moral Humility Reduces Political Divisions

Vallabha, S., & Brandt, M. J. (2024, April 5).

PsyArXiv

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5r6fw

Abstract

Political and intergroup conflicts are often rooted in moral differences. People claim their side to be morally superior and derogate moral outgroups. Therefore, we propose that moral humility, a domain-specific form of humility, might serve as one antidote to such morally fueled conflicts. We test this in the context of political polarization in the USA. Across 3 studies involving diverse national and student samples (N = 2766), we found higher moral humility to be linked to reduced political animosity, increased support for political compromise and pluralistic norms, greater empathy and respect for the political outgroup, greater perceptions of the political group as moral and non-threatening, amongst others. Importantly, these effects persisted after accounting for domain-general intellectual humility, moral relativism, political identity and extremity, and other controls. This research demonstrates moral humility’s relevance for understanding political polarization, and points the way for a strength-based approach to addressing conflicts.

Here are some thoughts:

This research explores the concept of moral humility and its potential to reduce political polarization and intergroup conflicts. The study found that individuals with higher moral humility demonstrated reduced political animosity, increased support for political compromise and pluralistic norms, greater empathy and respect for political outgroups, and improved perceptions of political outgroups as moral and non-threatening. These effects persisted even after controlling for factors like intellectual humility, moral relativism, and political identity.

This research is important to mental health professionals for several reasons. Understanding moral humility can help therapists develop strategies to address the psychological impacts of political polarization on their clients and improve interpersonal relationships. The findings suggest that cultivating moral humility could help individuals navigate conflicts more effectively in both personal and professional settings. Mental health professionals can use insights from this research to help clients develop greater empathy and respect for those with differing viewpoints, as well as recognize and mitigate their own biases and moral righteousness, leading to more balanced thinking.

Understanding moral humility can help prevent individuals from engaging in harmful behaviors justified by moral superiority. Encouraging moral humility can support clients in their journey of self-improvement and moral development. Furthermore, mental health professionals can apply these findings to develop interventions that promote constructive dialogue and reduce societal tensions. By incorporating the concept of moral humility into their practice, mental health professionals can better equip their clients to navigate the complexities of modern social and political landscapes while fostering personal growth and improved interpersonal relationships.

Doctors’ union will ‘critique’ Cass Review after criticising puberty blocker ban

Aine Fox

Independent

Originally posted 1August 24

The doctors’ union is to “critique” the Cass Review into children’s gender services and make recommendations to improve a healthcare system which it said has “failed transgender patients”.

The British Medical Association (BMA) said its evaluation of the review will “pay particular attention” to the methodology used to underpin the report’s recommendations.

Published in April and first commissioned in 2020, the report concluded that gender care is currently an area of “remarkably weak evidence” and young people have been caught up in a “stormy social discourse”.

Research by the University of York, carried out alongside the report, found evidence to be severely lacking on the impact of puberty blockers and hormone treatments, while the majority of clinical guidelines were found not to have followed international standards.

The review made 32 recommendations on how to ensure young people get a high standard of care which meets their needs in a way that is “safe, holistic and effective”.

The info is here.

Here is a summary:

The British Medical Association (BMA) has announced plans to "critique" the Cass Review, a report on children's gender services, and make recommendations to improve healthcare for transgender patients. The BMA has expressed concerns about the report's methodology and is calling for the implementation of its recommendations to be paused while the union carries out its evaluation, which is expected to take the rest of the year to complete. However, the NHS has rejected this suggestion, stating that it has "full confidence" in the report and will soon publish a plan to bring in its recommendations.

The BMA's evaluation will focus on several key areas, including the methodology used to underpin the report's recommendations, the impact of puberty blockers and hormone treatments (which was found to have severely lacking evidence), and clinical guidelines (most of which were found not to follow international standards). The union is also advocating for transgender patients to continue receiving specialist healthcare regardless of age and is calling for more research to form a solid evidence base for children's care. The BMA's critique will be shared with its UK council in January 2025.

The decision to evaluate the Cass Review comes after the report concluded that gender care is currently an area of "remarkably weak evidence" and that young people have been caught up in a "stormy social discourse". The report made 32 recommendations on how to ensure young people get a high standard of care that meets their needs in a way that is "safe, holistic and effective". The BMA's chairman of council, Professor Philip Banfield, emphasized the importance of getting this work right, stating that it is a highly specialized area of healthcare for children and young adults with complex needs.

Health Behaviors are Moralized when they Seem to Cause Harm

Pratt, S., Rosenfeld, D. L., et al. (2024, May 28).

PsyArXiv Preprints

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mqpu2

Abstract

People readily moralize health, whether by denigrating smokers or treating exercise as noble. Drawing from the theory of dyadic morality, we theorized that people moralize health most strongly when they perceive poor health as a source of harm and suffering. Through four studies (total N = 1,694), we document a positive relationship between perceived harm and moralizations of health. We identified three types of harm—personal, interpersonal, and collective—that people perceive as relevant to health and evaluated the psychometric properties of a 15-item measure to capture each type. Perceived interpersonal harm reliably predicted moralizations of health, whether health was conceived broadly as a concept or specifically as a concrete health issue (e.g., smoking, eating healthfully, infectious disease prevention). These findings outline a research agenda for studying moralization in the health domain. We suggest that targeting moral cognition has potential to explain and perhaps change health behaviors.

The research is here.

Here are some thoughts on this research:

This research can help therapists understand why patients might resist adopting healthy behaviors. Often, moral judgments play a major role in such resistance. This research highlights the concept of perceived harm – the types of harm patients associate with certain health behaviors. Therapists can use this knowledge to identify these specific concerns. By pinpointing these anxieties, therapists can tailor interventions that directly address them, increasing the chances of successful behavior change.

Secondly, the research sheds light on the issue of stigma surrounding certain health conditions. Moralization can contribute to the stigmatization of conditions like obesity or mental illness. Therapists can leverage this understanding to explore how these perceptions arise in patients. By identifying the root causes of stigma, therapists can develop strategies to challenge them and promote acceptance.

Furthermore, the research offers insights into how therapists can communicate more effectively with their patients about health. By understanding the role of perceived harm in moralization, therapists can tailor their communication to resonate with patients' values. This could involve framing health discussions in terms of preventing harm to loved ones, for example. This approach can foster more open and productive conversations about behavior change, ultimately leading to better health outcomes.

Finally, this research can be valuable in navigating the complexities of politicized health issues.  Health topics can become battlegrounds for opposing ideologies, leading to moral divides. Therapists can use this research to help patients understand the role of moral judgments in these situations and develop strategies for navigating them in a healthy way. This could involve fostering critical thinking skills to help patients separate fact from opinion, or promoting open-mindedness when encountering opposing viewpoints.

In conclusion, this research on the moralization of health offers mental health professionals valuable insights into the way people think about health and health behaviors. By understanding these moral dimensions, therapists can be more effective in supporting their patients to make positive and sustainable changes.

Artificial Morality: Differences in Responses to Moral Choices by Human and Artificial Agents

Armbruster, D., Mandl, S., Zeiler, A., & Strobel, A.

(2024, June 4).

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5vdfw

Abstract

A consensus on moral "rights" and "wrongs" is essential for ensuring societal functioning. Moral decision-making has been investigated for decades focusing on human agents. More recently, research has started into how humans evaluate artificial moral agents. With increasing presence of artificial intelligence (AI) in society, this question becomes ever more relevant. We investigated responses from a third-party perspective to moral judgments of human and artificial agents in high-stakes and low-stakes dilemmas. High-stakes dilemmas describe life-or-death scenarios while low-stakes dilemmas do not have lethal albeit nevertheless substantial negative consequences. In two online studies, participants responded to the actions resp. inactions of human and artificial agents in four high-stakes scenarios (N1 = 491) and four low-stakes dilemmas (N2 = 490). In line with previous research, agents received generally more blame in high-stakes scenarios and actions resulted overall in more blame than inactions. While there was no effect of scenario type on trust, agents were more trusted when they did not act. Although humans, on average, were blamed more than artificial agents they were nevertheless also more trusted. The most important predictor for blame and trust was whether participants agreed with the moral choice of an agent and considered the chosen course of action as morally appropriate – regardless of the nature of the agent. Religiosity emerged as further predictor for blaming both human and artificial agents, while trait psychopathy was associated with more blame of and less trust in human agents. Additionally, negative attitudes towards robots predicted blame and trust in artificial agents.

The preprint is here.

Here are some thoughts:

This study on moral judgments of human and artificial agents in high and low-stakes dilemmas offers valuable insights for in terms of ethics education and ethical decision-making. The research reveals that while there were no overall differences in perceived appropriateness of actions between human and artificial agents, gender differences emerged in high-stakes scenarios. Women were less likely to endorse harmful actions for the greater good when performed by human agents, but more likely to approve such actions when performed by artificial agents. This gender disparity in moral judgments highlights the need to be aware of potential biases in ethical reasoning.

The study also found that blame and trust were affected by dilemma type and decision type, with actions generally resulting in higher blame and reduced trust compared to inactions. This aligns with previous research on omission bias and emphasizes the complexity of moral decision-making. Additionally, the research identified several individual differences that influenced moral judgments, blame attribution, and trust. Factors such as religiosity, psychopathy, and negative attitudes towards robots were found to be predictors of blame and trust in both human and artificial agents. These findings underscore the importance of considering individual differences in ethical decision-making processes and when interpreting clients' moral reasoning.

Furthermore, the study touched on the role of Need for Cognition (NFC) in moral judgments, suggesting that cognitive abilities and motivation may contribute to differences in processing moral problems. This is particularly relevant for clinical psychologists when assessing clients' decision-making processes and designing interventions to improve ethical reasoning. The research also highlighted cultural differences in attitudes towards robots and AI, which is crucial for clinical psychologists working in diverse settings or with multicultural populations. As AI becomes more prevalent in healthcare, including mental health, understanding how people perceive and trust artificial agents in moral decision-making is essential for clinical psychologists considering the implementation of AI-assisted tools in their practice.