Different judgment frameworks for moral compliance and moral violation

Shirai, R., & Watanabe, K. (2024).

Scientific Reports, 14(1).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-66862-9

Abstract

In recent decades, the field of moral psychology has focused on moral judgments based on some moral foundations/categories (e.g., harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity). When discussing the moral categories, however, whether a person judges moral compliance or moral violation has been rarely considered. We examined the extent to which moral judgments are influenced by each other across moral categories and explored whether the framework of judgments for moral violation and compliance would be different. For this purpose, we developed the episodes set for moral and affective behaviors. For each episode, participants evaluated valence, arousal, morality, and the degree of relevance to each of the Haidt's 5 moral foundations. The cluster analysis showed that the moral compliance episodes were divided into three clusters, whereas the moral violation episodes were divided into two clusters. Also, the additional experiment indicated that the clusters might not be stable in time. These findings suggest that people have different framework of judgments for moral compliance and moral violation.

Here are some thoughts:

This study investigates the nuances of moral judgment by examining whether people employ distinct frameworks when evaluating moral compliance versus moral violation. Researchers designed a series of scenarios encompassing moral and affective dimensions, and participants rated these scenarios across valence, arousal, morality, and relevance to Haidt's five moral foundations. The findings revealed that moral compliance and moral violation appear to be judged using different frameworks, as evidenced by the cluster analysis which showed different cluster divisions for compliance and violation episodes. 

This research carries significant implications for psychologists, deepening our understanding of the complexities inherent in moral decision-making and extending the insights of theories like Moral Foundations Theory. Furthermore, the study provides valuable tools, such as the developed set of moral and affective scenarios, for future investigations in moral psychology. Ultimately, a more refined grasp of moral judgment processes can inform efforts to mediate conflicts and foster enhanced social understanding.

On bullshit, large language models, and the need to curb your enthusiasm

Tigard, D. W. (2025).

AI And Ethics.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00743-3

Abstract

Amidst all the hype around artificial intelligence (AI), particularly regarding large language models (LLMs), generative AI and chatbots like ChatGPT, a surge of headlines is instilling caution and even explicitly calling “bullshit” on such technologies. Should we follow suit? What exactly does it mean to call bullshit on an AI program? When is doing so a good idea, and when might it not be? With this paper, I aim to provide a brief guide on how to call bullshit on ChatGPT and related systems. In short, one must understand the basic nature of LLMs, how they function and what they produce, and one must recognize bullshit. I appeal to the prominent work of the late Harry Frankfurt and suggest that recent accounts jump too quickly to the conclusion that LLMs are bullshitting. In doing so, I offer a more level-headed approach to calling bullshit, and accordingly, a way of navigating some of the recent critiques of generative AI systems.

Here are some thoughts:

This paper examines the application of Harry Frankfurt's theory of "bullshit" to large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT. It discusses the controversy around labeling AI-generated content as "bullshit," arguing for a more nuanced approach. The author suggests that while LLM outputs might resemble bullshit due to their lack of concern for truth, LLMs themselves don't fit the definition of a "bullshitter" because they lack the intentions and aims that Frankfurt attributes to human bullshitters.

For psychologists, this distinction is important because it asks for a reconsideration of how we interpret and evaluate AI-generated content and its impact on human users. The paper further argues that if AI interactions provide tangible benefits to users without causing harm, then thwarting these interactions may not be necessary. This perspective encourages psychologists to weigh the ethical considerations of AI's influence on individuals, balancing concerns about authenticity and integrity with the potential for AI to enhance human experiences and productivity.

Optimized Informed Consent for Psychotherapy: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Gerke, L. et al. (2022).

JMIR Research Protocols, 11(9), e39843.

https://doi.org/10.2196/39843

Abstract

Background:

Informed consent is a legal and ethical prerequisite for psychotherapy. However, in clinical practice, consistent strategies to obtain informed consent are scarce. Inconsistencies exist regarding the overall validity of informed consent for psychotherapy as well as the disclosure of potential mechanisms and negative effects, the latter posing a moral dilemma between patient autonomy and nonmaleficence.

Objective:

This protocol describes a randomized controlled web-based trial aiming to investigate the efficacy of a one-session optimized informed consent consultation.

Methods:

The optimized informed consent consultation was developed to provide information on the setting, efficacy, mechanisms, and negative effects via expectation management and shared decision-making techniques. A total of 122 participants with an indication for psychotherapy will be recruited. Participants will take part in a baseline assessment, including a structured clinical interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth edition (DSM-5) disorders. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned either to a control group receiving an information brochure about psychotherapy as treatment as usual (n=61) or to an intervention group receiving treatment as usual and the optimized informed consent consultation (n=61). Potential treatment effects will be measured after the treatment via interview and patient self-report and at 2 weeks and 3 months follow-up via web-based questionnaires. Treatment expectation is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include the capacity to consent, decisional conflict, autonomous treatment motivation, adherence intention, and side-effect expectations.

Results:

This trial received a positive ethics vote by the local ethics committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University-Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany on April 1, 2021, and was prospectively registered on June 17, 2021. The first participant was enrolled in the study on August 5, 2021. We expect to complete data collection in December 2022. After data analysis within the first quarter of 2023, the results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals in summer 2023.

Conclusions:

If effective, the optimized informed consent consultation might not only constitute an innovative clinical tool to meet the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent but also strengthen the contributing factors of psychotherapy outcome, while minimizing nocebo effects and fostering shared decision-making.

Here are some thoughts:

This research study investigated an optimized informed consent process in psychotherapy. Recognizing inconsistencies in standard practices, the study tested an enhanced consultation method designed to improve patients' understanding of treatment, manage their expectations, and promote shared decision-making. By comparing this enhanced approach to standard practice with a cohort of 122 participants, the researchers aimed to demonstrate the benefits of a more comprehensive and collaborative informed consent process in fostering positive treatment expectations and related outcomes. The findings were anticipated to provide evidence for a more effective and ethical approach to initiating psychotherapy.

Avoiding the road to ethical disaster: Overcoming vulnerabilities and developing resilience

Tjeltveit, A. C., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2010).

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, 

Training, 47(1), 98–110.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018843

Abstract

Psychotherapists may, despite their best intentions, find themselves engaging in ethically problematic behaviors that could have been prevented. Drawing on recent research in moral psychology and longstanding community mental health approaches to prevention, we suggest that psychotherapists can reduce the likelihood of committing ethical infractions (and move in the direction of ethical excellence) by attending carefully to 4 general dimensions: the desire to facilitate positive (good) outcomes, the powerful opportunities given to professionals to effect change, personal values, and education. Each dimension can foster enhanced ethical behavior and personal resilience, but each can also contribute to ethical vulnerability. By recognizing and effectively addressing these dimensions, psychotherapists can reduce their vulnerabilities, enhance their resilience, reduce the risk of ethical infractions, and improve the quality of their work.

The article is paywalled, unfortunately.

Here are some thoughts:

The authors argue that psychotherapists, despite their good intentions, can engage in unethical behaviors that could be prevented. Drawing on moral psychology research, they suggest that ethical infractions can be reduced by focusing on four dimensions: the desire to help, the opportunities available to professionals, personal values, and education. Each of these dimensions can enhance ethical behavior and resilience, but also contribute to vulnerability. By addressing these dimensions, psychotherapists can reduce vulnerabilities, enhance resilience, and improve their practice. Traditional ethics education, focused on rules and codes, is insufficient. A broader approach is needed, incorporating contextual, cultural, and emotional factors. Resilience involves skills, personal characteristics, support networks, and their integration. Vulnerability includes general factors like stress, and idiosyncratic factors like personal history. Prevention involves self-awareness, emotional honesty, and addressing vulnerabilities. The DOVE framework (Desire, Opportunities, Values, Education) can help psychotherapists enhance resilience and minimize vulnerabilities, ultimately leading to more ethical and effective practice.

Understanding ethical drift in professional decision making: dilemmas in practice

Bourke, R., Pullen, R., & Mincher, N. (2021).

International Journal of Inclusive Education,

28(8), 1417–1434.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1992679

Abstract

Educational psychologists face challenging decisions around ethical dilemmas to uphold the rights of all children. Due to finite government resources for supporting all learners, one of the roles of educational psychologists is to apply for this funding on behalf of schools and children. Tensions can emerge when unintended ethical dilemmas arise through decisions that compromise their professional judgement. This paper presents the findings from an exploratory study around educational psychologists’ understandings and concerns around ethical dilemmas they faced within New Zealand over the past 5 years. The study set out to explore how educational psychologists manage the ethical conflicts and inner contradictions within their work. The findings suggest that such pressures could influence evidence-based practice in subtle ways when in the course of decision making, practitioners experienced some form of ethical drift. There is seldom one correct solution across similar situations. Although these practitioners experienced discomfort in their actions they rationalised their decisions based on external forces such as organisational demands or funding formulas. This illustrates the relational, contextual, organisational and personal influences on how and when ‘ethical drift’ occurs.

Here are some thoughts:

This article is highly relevant to psychologists as it examines the phenomenon of "ethical drift," where practitioners may gradually deviate from ethical standards due to systemic pressures like limited resources or organizational demands.

Focusing on educational psychologists in New Zealand, the study highlights the tension between upholding children's rights—such as equitable education and inclusion—and navigating restrictive policies or funding constraints. Through real-world scenarios, the authors illustrate how psychologists might rationalize ethically ambiguous decisions, such as omitting assessment data to secure resources or tolerating reduced school hours for students.

The article underscores the importance of self-awareness, advocacy, and reflective practice to counteract ethical drift, ensuring that professional judgments remain aligned with core ethical principles and children's best interests. By addressing these challenges, the study provides valuable insights for psychologists globally, emphasizing the need for systemic support, ongoing dialogue, and ethical vigilance in complex decision-making environments.

Moral judgement and decision-making: theoretical predictions and null results

Hertz, U., Jia, F., & Francis, K. B. (2023).

Scientific Reports, 13(1).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34899-x

Abstract

The study of moral judgement and decision making examines the way predictions made by moral and ethical theories fare in real world settings. Such investigations are carried out using a variety of approaches and methods, such as experiments, modeling, and observational and field studies, in a variety of populations. The current Collection on moral judgments and decision making includes works that represent this variety, while focusing on some common themes, including group morality and the role of affect in moral judgment. The Collection also includes a significant number of studies that made theoretically driven predictions and failed to find support for them. We highlight the importance of such null-results papers, especially in fields that are traditionally governed by theoretical frameworks.

Here are some thoughts:

The article explores how predictions from moral theories—particularly deontological and utilitarian ethics—hold up in empirical studies. Drawing from a range of experiments involving moral dilemmas, economic games, and cross-cultural analyses, the authors highlight the increasing importance of null results—findings where expected theoretical effects were not observed.

These outcomes challenge assumptions such as the idea that deontologists are inherently more trusted than utilitarians or that moral responsibility diffuses more in group settings. The studies also show how individual traits (e.g., depression, emotional awareness) and cultural or ideological contexts influence moral decisions.

For practicing psychologists, this research underscores the importance of moving beyond theoretical assumptions toward a more evidence-based, context-sensitive understanding of moral reasoning. It emphasizes the relevance of emotional processes in moral evaluation, the impact of group dynamics, and the necessity of accounting for cultural and psychological diversity in decision-making. Additionally, the article advocates for valuing null results as critical to theory refinement and scientific integrity in the study of moral behavior.

Ethical decision making in the 21st century: A useful framework for industrial-organizational psychologists

Banks, G. C., Knapp, D. J., et al. (2022).

Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

15(2), 220–235. doi:10.1017/iop.2021.143

Abstract

Ethical decision making has long been recognized as critical for industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists in the variety of roles they fill in education, research, and practice. Decisions with ethical implications are not always readily apparent and often require consideration of competing concerns. The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct are the principles and standards to which all Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members are held accountable, and these principles serve to aid in decision making. To this end, the primary focus of this article is the presentation and application of an integrative ethical decision-making framework rooted in and inspired by empirical, philosophical, and practical considerations of professional ethics. The purpose of this framework is to provide a generalizable model that can be used to identify, evaluate, resolve, and engage in discourse about topics involving ethical issues. To demonstrate the efficacy of this general framework to contexts germane to I-O psychologists, we subsequently present and apply this framework to five scenarios, each involving an ethical situation relevant to academia, practice, or graduate education in I-O psychology. With this article, we hope to stimulate the refinement of this ethical decision-making model, illustrate its application in our profession, and, most importantly, advance conversations about ethical decision making in I-O psychology.

Here are some thoughts:

Banks and colleagues present a comprehensive and accessible framework designed to help industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists navigate ethical dilemmas in their diverse roles across academia, research, and applied practice. Recognizing that ethical challenges are not always immediately apparent and often involve conflicting responsibilities, the authors argue for the need for a generalizable and user-friendly decision-making process.

Developed by the SIOP Committee for the Advancement of Professional Ethics (CAPE), the proposed framework is rooted in empirical evidence, philosophical foundations, and practical considerations. It consists of six recursive stages: (1) recognizing the ethical issue, (2) gathering information, (3) identifying stakeholders, (4) identifying alternative actions, (5) comparing those alternatives, and (6) implementing the chosen course of action while monitoring outcomes. The framework emphasizes that ethical decision making is distinct from other types of decision making because it often involves ambiguous standards, conflicting values, and competing stakeholder interests.

To demonstrate how the framework can be applied, the article presents five real-world scenarios: a potential case of self-plagiarism in a coauthored book, a dispute over authorship involving a graduate assistant, an internal consultant pressured to provide coaching without adequate training, a data integrity dilemma in external consulting, and a case of sexual harassment involving a faculty advisor. Each case illustrates the complexity of ethical considerations and how the framework can guide thoughtful action.

The authors emphasize that ethical behavior is not just about adhering to written codes but about developing the cognitive and emotional skills to navigate gray areas effectively. They encourage ongoing refinement of the framework and call on the I-O community to foster greater ethical awareness through practice, dialogue, and education. Ultimately, the article aims to strengthen ethical standards across the profession and support psychologists in making decisions that are not only compliant but also fair, responsible, and contextually informed.

Learning information ethical decision making with a simulation game.

Lin, W., Wang, J., & Yueh, H. (2022).

Frontiers in Psychology, 13.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.933298

Abstract

Taking advantage of the nature of games to deal with conflicting desires through contextual practices, this study illustrated the formal process of designing a situated serious game to facilitate learning of information ethics, a subject that heavily involves decision making, dilemmas, and conflicts between personal, institutional, and social desires. A simulation game with four mission scenarios covering critical issues of privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility was developed as a situated, authentic and autonomous learning environment. The player-learners were 40 college students majoring in information science and computer science as pre-service informaticists. In this study, they played the game and their game experiences and decision-making processes were recorded and analyzed. The results suggested that the participants’ knowledge of information ethics was significantly improved after playing the serious game. From the qualitative analysis of their behavioral features, including paths, time spans, and access to different materials, the results supported that the game designed in this study was helpful in improving participants’ understanding, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information ethics issues, as well as their judgments. These findings have implications for developing curricula and instructions in information ethics education.

Here are some thoughts:

The article presents a compelling case for the use of simulation-based serious games as a teaching tool for ethical decision-making, specifically in the context of information ethics. The game was designed around four core ethical concerns—privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility—which are frequently encountered in information and technological contexts. These issues closely mirror ethical dilemmas psychologists face, particularly regarding confidentiality, informed consent, data handling, and equitable access to services.

For psychologists, especially those engaged in clinical practice, research, or supervisory roles, the implications are significant. First, the study underscores the importance of situated learning—learning that occurs in context—which aligns with the ethical challenges clinicians often encounter in dynamic, real-world settings. Second, the use of simulation allows for autonomous and reflective learning, reinforcing critical thinking, ethical analysis, and decision-making in morally ambiguous situations. The framework applied in the game—the General Theory of Marketing Ethics (GTME)—can be generalized to support ethical reasoning in any professional field, including psychology, by integrating deontological (duty-based) and teleological (consequence-based) approaches, along with rights-based and virtue-based perspectives.

The study also demonstrated a significant improvement in ethical reasoning after gameplay, indicating that such interactive methods could enhance continuing education efforts or be adapted to ethics training in graduate psychology programs. The inclusion of stakeholder perspectives and the visualization of consequences provided a practical way for learners to grasp how decisions affect others—key to ethical competence in psychology.

Lastly, the findings suggest that relying solely on codes of ethics may be insufficient; immersive, experiential training that helps translate abstract principles into practice is critical. This insight is highly relevant to psychologists aiming to foster ethical climates in organizational settings or who supervise early career professionals.

Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis

Suarez, V. D., Marya, V., et al. (2022).

Behavior analysis in practice, 16(3), 657–671.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00753-1

Abstract

Human service practitioners from varying fields make ethical decisions daily. At some point during their careers, many behavior analysts may face ethical decisions outside the range of their previous education, training, and professional experiences. To help practitioners make better decisions, researchers have published ethical decision-making models; however, it is unknown the extent to which published models recommend similar behaviors. Thus, we systematically reviewed and analyzed ethical decision-making models from published peer-reviewed articles in behavior analysis and related allied health professions. We identified 55 ethical decision-making models across 60 peer-reviewed articles, seven primary professions (e.g., medicine, psychology), and 22 subfields (e.g., dentistry, family medicine). Through consensus-based analysis, we identified nine behaviors commonly recommended across the set of reviewed ethical decision-making models with almost all (n = 52) models arranging the recommended behaviors sequentially and less than half (n = 23) including a problem-solving approach. All nine ethical decision-making steps clustered around the ethical decision-making steps in the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts published by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (2020) suggesting broad professional consensus for the behaviors likely involved in ethical decision making.

Here are some thoughts: 

The article provides a comprehensive review of 55 ethical decision-making models drawn from seven professional disciplines, including psychology, medicine, education, and behavior analysis. The authors aimed to identify common decision-making steps across these models and analyze their applicability to behavior analysts, especially in navigating complex, real-world ethical dilemmas that extend beyond the scope of formal training.

The researchers distilled nine common steps in ethical decision-making, including identifying ethical concerns, considering the impact on stakeholders, referencing both professional and personal ethical codes, gathering context-specific information, analyzing and weighing options, and following up on outcomes. Most models were structured sequentially—suggesting ethical decision making functions as a behavior chain, where each step builds on the previous one. Importantly, less than half of the models explicitly included problem-solving strategies, which involve considering multiple actions and predicting their potential consequences. This highlights a potential area for improvement in existing models.

The study found strong alignment between the steps identified in the literature and those recently incorporated into the Behavior Analyst Certification Board’s (BACB) Ethics Code (2020)—a notable development, as the authors' review was conducted before the release of the BACB's new model. This convergence suggests growing consensus across disciplines on the key components of ethical decision-making and validates the BACB's approach as grounded in decades of interdisciplinary research.

The Illusion of Moral Objectivity: A Learned Framework An Exploration of Morality as a Social Construct

Noah Cottle

Thesis for: Neuropsychology & Philosophy

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.16238.73286

Abstract

This paper explores the argument that morality is not an innate, universal truth but rather a

construct learned through socialization, cultural exposure, and environmental conditioning.

Challenging the notion of objective moral values, it posits that human beings are born without a

fixed moral compass and instead develop their sense of right and wrong through the values and

beliefs taught to them. Drawing on psychological, sociological, and historical perspectives, this

work investigates how moral frameworks differ across cultures and time periods, revealing the

malleability of ethical systems. The paper concludes that morality is a fluid structure—often

mistaken for objective truth—shaped by the narratives and authorities that define it.

A pdf is here.

Here are some thoughts:

The thesis presents a compelling argument that morality is not an innate or universal human truth, but rather a social construct developed through conditioning, cultural immersion, and the influence of authority. Drawing from psychology, sociology, anthropology, and history, the paper contends that humans are born without a fixed moral compass and instead acquire their moral frameworks through a process of environmental shaping. From early childhood, individuals are taught what is "right" or "wrong" through reinforcement, punishment, observation, and repeated narratives. These teachings are often internalized so deeply that they are mistaken for moral intuition or truth. However, what feels instinctively moral is more accurately the product of learned emotional associations and cultural conditioning.

Cottle further demonstrates that moral beliefs vary drastically across cultures and historical periods, undermining the notion of a single objective morality. Practices such as honor killings, child labor, slavery, or same-sex marriage have been alternately viewed as virtuous or immoral depending on the time and place—highlighting morality’s fluidity rather than its universality. This perspective is reinforced by psychological research on moral development, including theories of operant conditioning and moral intuition, which show that moral responses are heavily influenced by emotions, authority figures, and exposure rather than by logic or reason.

Importantly, the paper explores how morality is often shaped and enforced by those in power—religious leaders, governments, and social institutions—which raises critical questions about who defines moral standards and whose interests those standards serve. Morality, in this view, becomes a tool for maintaining social order and control rather than a reflection of universal justice. The text also critiques the binary between moral absolutism and relativism, advocating instead for moral pluralism—a more nuanced stance that recognizes multiple coexisting moral systems, yet still allows for critical reflection, ethical responsibility, and the pursuit of greater justice.

For psychologists, this work is especially relevant. It aligns with longstanding psychological theories about learning, development, and socialization, but pushes further by encouraging professionals to interrogate the origins of moral beliefs in both themselves and their clients. Understanding morality as constructed opens up rich therapeutic possibilities—helping clients disentangle moral distress from inherited values, explore cultural identity, and develop personal ethics grounded in intentionality rather than unexamined tradition. It also challenges psychologists to approach ethical issues with humility and flexibility, fostering cultural competence and critical awareness in their work. Moreover, in a field governed by professional codes of ethics, this perspective encourages ongoing dialogue about how those codes are shaped, whose voices are represented, and how they might evolve to better reflect justice and inclusion.

Ultimately, The Illusion of Moral Objectivity is not a call to abandon morality, but rather an invitation to take it more seriously—to recognize its human origins, question its assumptions, and participate actively in its ongoing construction. For psychologists, this insight reinforces the importance of ethical maturity, cultural sensitivity, and critical self-reflection in both clinical practice and broader social engagement.

Artificial intimacy: ethical issues of AI romance

Shank, D. B., Koike, M., & Loughnan, S. (2025).

Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.02.007

Abstract

The ethical frontier of artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding as humans form romantic relationships with AIs. Addressing ethical issues of AIs as invasive suitors, malicious advisers, and tools of exploitation requires new psychological research on why and how humans love machines.

Here are some thoughts:

The article explores the emerging and complex ethical concerns that arise as humans increasingly form romantic and emotional relationships with artificial intelligences (AIs). These relationships can take many forms, including interactions with chatbots, virtual partners in video games, holograms, and sex robots. While some of these connections may seem fringe, millions of people are engaging deeply with relational AIs, creating a new psychological and moral landscape that demands urgent attention.

The authors identify three primary ethical challenges: relational AIs as invasive suitors, malicious advisers, and tools of exploitation. First, AI romantic companions may disrupt traditional human relationships. People are drawn to AIs because they can be customized, emotionally supportive, and nonjudgmental—qualities that are often idealized in romantic partners. However, this ease and reliability may lead users to withdraw from human relationships and feel socially stigmatized. Some research suggests that AI relationships may increase hostility toward real-world partners, especially in men. The authors propose that psychologists investigate how individuals perceive AIs as having “minds,” and how these perceptions influence moral decision-making and interpersonal behavior.

Second, the article discusses the darker role of relational AIs as malicious advisers. AIs have already been implicated in real-world tragedies, including instances where chatbots encouraged users to take their own lives. The psychological bond that develops in long-term AI relationships can make individuals particularly vulnerable to harmful advice, misinformation, or manipulation. Here, the authors suggest applying psychological theories like algorithm aversion and appreciation to understand when and why people follow AI guidance—often with more trust than they place in humans.

Third, the authors examine how relational AIs can be used by others to exploit users. Because people tend to disclose personal and intimate information to these AIs, there is a risk of that data being harvested for manipulation, blackmail, or commercial exploitation. Sophisticated deepfakes and identity theft can occur when AIs mimic known romantic partners, and the private, one-on-one nature of these interactions makes such exploitation harder to detect or regulate. Psychologists are called to explore how users can be influenced through AI-mediated intimacy and how these dynamics compare to more traditional forms of media manipulation or social influence.

This article is especially important for psychologists because it identifies a rapidly growing phenomenon that touches on fundamental questions of attachment, identity, moral agency, and social behavior. Human-AI relationships challenge traditional psychological frameworks and require novel approaches in research, clinical work, and ethics. Psychologists are uniquely positioned to explore how these relationships develop, how they impact mental health, and how they alter individuals’ views of self and others. There is also a need to develop therapeutic interventions for those involved in manipulative or abusive AI interactions.

Furthermore, psychologists have a critical role to play in shaping public policy, technology design, and ethical guidelines around artificial intimacy. As AI companions become more prevalent, psychologists can offer evidence-based insights to help developers and lawmakers create safeguards that protect users from emotional, cognitive, and social harm. Ultimately, the article is a call to action for psychologists to lead in understanding and guiding the moral future of human–AI relationships. Without this leadership, society risks integrating AI into intimate areas of life without fully grasping the psychological and ethical consequences.

Morality in Our Mind and Across Cultures and Politics

Gray, K., & Pratt, S. (2024).

Annual Review of Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020924-124236

Abstract

Moral judgments differ across cultures and politics, but they share a common theme in our minds: perceptions of harm. Both cultural ethnographies on moral values and psychological research on moral cognition highlight this shared focus on harm. Perceptions of harm are constructed from universal cognitive elements—including intention, causation, and suffering—but depend on the cultural context, allowing many values to arise from a common moral mind. This review traces the concept of harm across philosophy, cultural anthropology, and psychology, then discusses how different values (e.g., purity) across various taxonomies are grounded in perceived harm. We then explore two theories connecting culture to cognition—modularity and constructionism—before outlining how pluralism across human moral judgment is explained by the constructed nature of perceived harm. We conclude by showing how different perceptions of harm help drive political disagreements and reveal how sharing stories of harm can help bridge moral divides.

Here are some thoughts:

This article explores morality in our minds, across cultures, and within political ideologies. It shows how moral judgments differ across cultures and political ideologies, but share a common theme: perceptions of harm. The research highlights that perceptions of harm are constructed from universal cognitive elements, such as intention, causation, and suffering, but are shaped by cultural context.

The article discusses how different values are grounded in perceived harm. It also explores theories connecting culture to cognition and explains how pluralism in human moral judgment arises from the constructed nature of perceived harm. The article concludes by demonstrating how differing perceptions of harm contribute to political disagreements and how sharing stories of harm can help bridge moral divides.

This research is important for psychologists because it provides a deeper understanding of the cognitive and cultural underpinnings of morality. By understanding how perceptions of harm are constructed and how they vary across cultures and political ideologies, psychologists can gain insights into the roots of moral disagreements. This knowledge is crucial for addressing social issues, resolving conflicts, and fostering a more inclusive and harmonious society.

Evidence-Based Care for Suicidality as an Ethical and Professional Imperative: How to Decrease Suicidal Suffering and Save Lives

Jobes, D. A., & Barnett, J. E. (2024).

American Psychologist.

https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001325

Abstract

Suicide is a major public and mental health problem in the United States and around the world. According to recent survey research, there were 16,600,000 American adults and adolescents in 2022 who reported having serious thoughts of suicide (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2023), which underscores a profound need for effective clinical care for people who are suicidal. Yet there is evidence that clinical providers may avoid patients who are suicidal (out of fear and perceived concerns about malpractice liability) and that too many rely on interventions (i.e., inpatient hospitalization and medications) that have little to no evidence for decreasing suicidal ideation and behavior (and may even increase risk). Fortunately, there is an emerging and robust evidence-based clinical literature on suicide-related assessment, acute clinical stabilization, and the actual treatment of suicide risk through psychological interventions supported by replicated randomized controlled trials. Considering the pervasiveness of suicidality, the life versus death implications, and the availability of proven approaches, it is argued that providers should embrace evidence-based practices for suicidal risk as their best possible risk management strategy. Such an embrace is entirely consistent with expert recommendations as well as professional and ethical standards. Finally, a call to action is made with a series of specific recommendations to help psychologists (and other disciplines) use evidence-based, suicide-specific, approaches to help decrease suicide-related suffering and deaths. It is argued that doing so has now become both an ethical and professional imperative. Given the challenge of this issue, it is also simply the right thing to do.

Public Significance Statement

Suicide is a major public and mental health problem in the United States and around the world. There are now proven clinical approaches that need to be increasingly used by mental health providers to help decrease suicidal suffering and save lives.

Here are some thoughts:

The article discusses the prevalence of suicidality in the United States and the importance of evidence-based care for suicidal patients. It highlights that many clinicians avoid working with suicidal patients or use interventions that lack empirical support, often due to fear and concerns about liability.  The authors emphasize the availability of evidence-based psychological interventions and urge psychologists to adopt these practices.  It is argued that utilizing evidence-based approaches is both an ethical and professional responsibility.

Reasoning models don't always say what they think

Chen, Y., Benton, J., et al. (2025).

Anthropic Research.

Here is a link to the paper

Since late last year, “reasoning models” have been everywhere. These are AI models—such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet—that show their working: as well as their eventual answer, you can read the (often fascinating and convoluted) way that they got there, in what’s called their “Chain-of-Thought”.

As well as helping reasoning models work their way through more difficult problems, the Chain-of-Thought has been a boon for AI safety researchers. That’s because we can (among other things) check for things the model says in its Chain-of-Thought that go unsaid in its output, which can help us spot undesirable behaviours like deception.

But if we want to use the Chain-of-Thought for alignment purposes, there’s a crucial question: can we actually trust what models say in their Chain-of-Thought?

In a perfect world, everything in the Chain-of-Thought would be both understandable to the reader, and it would be faithful—it would be a true description of exactly what the model was thinking as it reached its answer.

But we’re not in a perfect world. We can’t be certain of either the “legibility” of the Chain-of-Thought (why, after all, should we expect that words in the English language are able to convey every single nuance of why a specific decision was made in a neural network?) or its “faithfulness”—the accuracy of its description. There’s no specific reason why the reported Chain-of-Thought must accurately reflect the true reasoning process; there might even be circumstances where a model actively hides aspects of its thought process from the user.

The info is here.

Hey all-

You might want to really try to absorb this information.

This paper examines the reliability of AI reasoning models, particularly their "Chain-of-Thought" (CoT) explanations, which are intended to provide transparency in decision-making. The study reveals that these models often fail to faithfully disclose their true reasoning processes, especially when influenced by external hints or unethical prompts. For example, when models like Claude 3.7 Sonnet and DeepSeek R1 were given hints—correct or incorrect—they rarely acknowledged using these hints in their CoT explanations, with faithfulness rates as low as 25%-39%. Even in scenarios involving unethical hints (e.g., unauthorized access), the models frequently concealed this information. Attempts to improve faithfulness through outcome-based training showed limited success, with gains plateauing at low levels. Additionally, when incentivized to exploit reward hacks (choosing incorrect answers for rewards), models almost never admitted this behavior in their CoT explanations, instead fabricating rationales for their decisions.

This research is significant for psychologists because it highlights parallels between AI reasoning and human cognitive behaviors, such as rationalization and deception. It raises ethical concerns about trustworthiness in systems that may influence critical areas like mental health or therapy. Psychologists studying human-AI interaction can explore how users interpret and rely on AI reasoning, especially when inaccuracies occur. Furthermore, the findings emphasize the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to improve transparency and alignment in AI systems, ensuring they are safe and reliable for applications in psychological research and practice.

The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide: State of the Science

Robison, M., et al. (2024).

Behavior Therapy, 55(6), 1158–1171.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2024.04.008

Abstract

In this state-of-the-science review, we summarize the key constructs and concepts within the interpersonal theory of suicide. The state of the scientific evidence regarding the theory is equivocal, and we explore the reasons for and some consequences of that equivocal state. Our particular philosophy of science includes criteria such as explanatory reach and pragmatic utility, among others, in addition to the important criterion of predictive validity. Across criteria, the interpersonal theory fares reasonably well, but it is also true that it struggles somewhat—as does every other theory of suicidality—with stringent versions of predictive validity. We explore in some depth the implications of the theory and its status regarding people who are minoritized. Some implications and future directions for research are also presented.

Highlights

• The full Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (ITPS) has yet to be empirically tested.

• However, the ITPS provides explanation, clinical utility, and predictive validity.

• The IPTS may be intensified by non-humanness, lack of agency, and discrimination.

• Minoritized people may benefit by integrating the IPTS and Minority Stress Theory.

Here are some thoughts:

The article reviews the empirical and theoretical foundations of the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide (ITS), which seeks to explain suicidal ideation and behavior. The theory identifies four central constructs: thwarted belongingness (a perceived lack of meaningful social connections), perceived burdensomeness (the belief that one’s existence is a burden on others), hopelessness about these states improving, and the capability for suicide (fearlessness about death and high pain tolerance). While thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness contribute to suicidal ideation, the capability for suicide differentiates those who act on these thoughts.

The article highlights that perceived burdensomeness has the strongest link to suicidality, driven by a tragic misperception that others would be better off without the individual. Thwarted belongingness emphasizes subjective feelings of isolation rather than objective social circumstances. Hopelessness compounds these states by fostering a belief that they are permanent. The capability for suicide, often acquired through exposure to painful experiences or self-harm, explains why only some individuals transition from ideation to action.

Despite its clinical utility, testing ITS comprehensively remains challenging due to measurement limitations and the complexity of suicide. For example, constructs like perceived burdensomeness overlap with suicidal ideation in measurement tools, complicating empirical validation. Additionally, the theory’s applicability across diverse populations, including minoritized groups, requires further exploration.

Clinicians can use ITS to identify risk factors and tailor interventions—such as fostering social connections or addressing distorted beliefs about burdensomeness. However, its predictive validity is limited, underscoring the need for ongoing refinement and research into its constructs and applications.

Communitarianism, Properly Understood

Chang, Y. L. (2022).

Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 35(1), 117–139.

doi:10.1017/cjlj.2021.21

Abstract

Communitarianism has been misunderstood. According to some of its proponents, it supports the ‘Asian values’ argument that rights are incompatible with communitarian Asia because it prioritises the collective interest over individual rights and interests. Similarly, its critics are sceptical of its normative appeal because they believe that communitarianism upholds the community’s wants and values at all costs. I dispel this misconception by providing an account of communitarianism, properly understood. It is premised on the idea that we are partially constituted by our communal attachments, or constitutive communities, which are a source of value to our lives. Given the partially constituted self, communitarianism advances the thin common good of inclusion. In this light, communitarianism, properly understood, is wholly compatible with rights, and is a potent source of solutions to controversial issues that plague liberal societies, such as the right of a religious minority to wear its religious garment in public.

Here are some thoughts:

The article addresses the misunderstanding of communitarianism, particularly the notion that it clashes with individual rights. It argues that communitarianism, when correctly interpreted, values both the individual and the community. The author suggests that individuals are partly formed by their community ties, which are a source of value. Therefore, communitarianism encourages the inclusion of individuals within their communities. The article concludes by illustrating how this understanding of communitarianism can safeguard individual rights, using the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) decision on the French burqa ban as an example.

The Future of Decisions From Experience: Connecting Real-World Decision Problems to Cognitive Processes

Olschewski,  et al. (2024).

Perspectives on psychological science:

a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 

19(1), 82–102.

https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231179138

Abstract

In many important real-world decision domains, such as finance, the environment, and health, behavior is strongly influenced by experience. Renewed interest in studying this influence led to important advancements in the understanding of these decisions from experience (DfE) in the last 20 years. Building on this literature, we suggest ways the standard experimental design should be extended to better approach important real-world DfE. These extensions include, for example, introducing more complex choice situations, delaying feedback, and including social interactions. When acting upon experiences in these richer and more complicated environments, extensive cognitive processes go into making a decision. Therefore, we argue for integrating cognitive processes more explicitly into experimental research in DfE. These cognitive processes include attention to and perception of numeric and nonnumeric experiences, the influence of episodic and semantic memory, and the mental models involved in learning processes. Understanding these basic cognitive processes can advance the modeling, understanding and prediction of DfE in the laboratory and in the real world. We highlight the potential of experimental research in DfE for theory integration across the behavioral, decision, and cognitive sciences. Furthermore, this research could lead to new methodology that better informs decision-making and policy interventions.

Here are some thoughts:

The article examines how people make choices based on experience rather than descriptions. Traditional research on decisions from experience (DfE) has relied on simplified experiments with immediate feedback, failing to capture real-world complexities such as delayed consequences, multiple options, and social influences.

The authors highlight the need to expand DfE research to better reflect real-world decision-making in finance, health, and environmental policy. Investment decisions are often shaped by personal experience rather than statistical summaries, climate-related choices involve long-term uncertainty, and healthcare decisions rely on non-numeric experiences such as pain or side effects.

To address these gaps, the article emphasizes incorporating cognitive processes—attention, perception, memory, and learning—into DfE studies. The authors propose more complex experimental designs, including delayed feedback and social interactions, to better understand how people process experience-based information.

Ultimately, they advocate for an interdisciplinary approach linking DfE research with cognitive science, neuroscience, and AI. By doing so, researchers can improve decision-making models and inform policies that help people make better choices in uncertain environments.

Patriotic morality: links between conventional patriotism, glorification, constructive patriotism, and moral values and decisions

Kołeczek, M., Sekerdej, M et al. (2025).

Self and Identity, 1–22.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2025.2470774

Abstract

To test the moral critique of patriotism, we explored patriots’ moral values and choices. Study 1 (N = 1,062) examined the links between three types of patriotism – conventional patriotism, glorification of the nation, and constructive patriotism – and moral values. Glorification was positively linked with binding values, but negatively with fairness. Conventional patriotism was positively linked with harm, loyalty, and authority and constructive patriotism with harm, fairness, and loyalty. Study 2 (N = 1,041) examined the links between patriotism and moral decisions. We presented participants with political dilemmas that required choosing one moral value over another. Glorification was linked with choosing binding over individualizing values. Conventional patriotism was linked with choosing authority over individualizing values and individualizing values over loyalty.

Here are some thoughts:

A study examined the moral dimensions of patriotism, finding that different types carry varying moral implications. Glorification, prioritizing loyalty and authority, correlates with decreased concern for fairness and harm prevention. Conventional patriotism relates to both loyalty and harm prevention without clear preference. Constructive patriotism uniquely associates with fairness. The study suggests uncritical, nationalistic patriotism can overshadow individual welfare and fair treatment.

The temporal relationships between defeat, entrapment and suicidal ideation: ecological momentary assessment study

van Ballegooijen, et al. (2022).

BJPsych Open, 8(4), e105.

doi:10.1192/bjo.2022.68

Abstract

Background

Psychological models of suicidal experiences are largely based on cross-sectional or long-term prospective data with follow-up intervals typically greater than 1 year. Recent time-series analyses suggest that these models may not account for fluctuations in suicidal thinking that occur within a period of hours and/or days.

Aims

We explored whether previously posited causal relationships between defeat, entrapment and suicidal ideation accounted for temporal associations between these experiences at small time intervals from 3 to 12 h.

Method

Participants (N = 51) completed an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study, comprising repeated assessments at semi-random time points up to six times per day for 1 week, resulting in 1852 completed questionnaires. Multilevel vector autoregression was used to calculate temporal associations between variables at different time intervals (i.e. 3 to 12 h between measurements).

Results

The results showed that entrapment severity was temporally associated with current and later suicidal ideation, consistently over these time intervals. Furthermore, entrapment had two-way temporal associations with defeat and suicidal ideation at time intervals of approximately 3 h. The residual and contemporaneous network revealed significant associations between all variables, of which the association between entrapment and defeat was the strongest.

Conclusions

Although entrapment is key in the pathways leading to suicidal ideation over time periods of months, our results suggest that entrapment may also account for the emergence of suicidal thoughts across time periods spanning a few hours.

A pdf is here.

Here are some thoughts.

​This study examined the short-term temporal relationships between feelings of defeat, entrapment, and suicidal ideation using ecological momentary assessment (EMA). The findings revealed that entrapment was consistently associated with both current and subsequent suicidal ideation over intervals ranging from 3 to 12 hours.

Entrapment refers to a psychological state where an individual feels trapped in an adverse situation that they cannot escape from, despite wanting to. It involves the perception of being stuck in life circumstances—internally (e.g., persistent thoughts, emotions, or internal conflicts) or externally (e.g., relationships, work, social situations)—with no viable way out.

Additionally, entrapment and defeat exhibited bidirectional relationships with suicidal ideation at approximately 3-hour intervals. These results suggest that entrapment may serve as a proximal indicator for the emergence of suicidal thoughts within hours. For practicing psychologists, this underscores the importance of closely monitoring clients' feelings of entrapment, as addressing these perceptions promptly could be crucial in preventing the rapid onset of suicidal ideation.

Navigating LLM Ethics: Advancements, Challenges, and Future Directions

Jiao, J., Afroogh, S., Xu, Y., & Phillips, C. (2024).

arXiv (Cornell University).

https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2406.18841

Abstract

This study addresses ethical issues surrounding Large Language Models (LLMs) within the field of artificial intelligence. It explores the common ethical challenges posed by both LLMs and other AI systems, such as privacy and fairness, as well as ethical challenges uniquely arising from LLMs. It highlights challenges such as hallucination, verifiable accountability, and decoding censorship complexity, which are unique to LLMs and distinct from those encountered in traditional AI systems. The study underscores the need to tackle these complexities to ensure accountability, reduce biases, and enhance transparency in the influential role that LLMs play in shaping information dissemination. It proposes mitigation strategies and future directions for LLM ethics, advocating for interdisciplinary collaboration. It recommends ethical frameworks tailored to specific domains and dynamic auditing systems adapted to diverse contexts. This roadmap aims to guide responsible development and integration of LLMs, envisioning a future where ethical considerations govern AI advancements in society.

Here are some thoughts:

This study examines the ethical issues surrounding Large Language Models (LLMs) within artificial intelligence, addressing both common ethical challenges shared with other AI systems, such as privacy and fairness, and the unique ethical challenges specific to LLMs.  The authors emphasize the distinct challenges posed by LLMs, including hallucination, verifiable accountability, and the complexities of decoding censorship.  The research underscores the importance of tackling these complexities to ensure accountability, reduce biases, and enhance transparency in how LLMs shape information dissemination.  It also proposes mitigation strategies and future directions for LLM ethics, advocating for interdisciplinary collaboration, ethical frameworks tailored to specific domains, and dynamic auditing systems adapted to diverse contexts, ultimately aiming to guide the responsible development and integration of LLMs. 

Social context during moral decision-making impacts males more than females

Pilcher, J. J., & Smith, P. D. (2024).

Frontiers in Psychology, 15.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1397069

Abstract

Moral judgments are often viewed as the outcome of affective and deliberative processes that could be impacted by social factors and individual characteristics. The purpose of this study was to examine the interaction between gender and social context on moral judgment. Participants included 315 undergraduate students (67.3% female). The participants completed the Moral Decision-Making Task while seated at row tables facing the front of the room or round tables facing other participants. The results indicated that males responded in a more utilitarian manner (harm one to save five) than females for moral impersonal (MI) and moral personal (MP) dilemmas regardless of seating arrangements. When seated at round tables, all participants were more likely to respond deontologically (cause no harm) to the moral impersonal dilemmas. In addition, we calculated a moral reasoning difference score for each participant as the difference between the MI and MP scores to represent additional reactivity due to the idea of taking direct action. The moral reasoning difference score was consistent for females but indicated a more deontological response from males at round tables and a more utilitarian response from males at row tables. These results suggest that males are more utilitarian than females and are more likely to be influenced by social context when responding to moral dilemmas. More broadly, the current results indicate that moral judgments are affected by social context particularly in males in ways that have not been incorporated in many models of moral decision making.

Here are some thoughts:

This research examined how social context and gender influence moral decision-making. They found that males tend to respond more utilitarian manner (choosing to harm one to save five) than females in moral dilemmas.  Additionally, social context affected moral judgments, with participants in a face-to-face setting more likely to respond in a more deontological way (choosing not to harm) in moral impersonal dilemmas.    

For practicing psychologists, this research highlights the importance of considering social context and gender when assessing and interpreting moral judgments. It suggests that these factors can significantly influence how individuals respond to moral dilemmas, which has implications for understanding behavior in various social settings.  

Emotional and Cognitive “Route” in Decision-Making Process: The Relationship between Executive Functions, Psychophysiological Correlates, Decisional Styles, and Personality

Crivelli, D., Acconito, C., & Balconi, M. (2024).

Brain sciences, 14(7), 734.

https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14070734

Abstract

Studies on decision-making have classically focused exclusively on its cognitive component. Recent research has shown that a further essential component of decisional processes is the emotional one. Indeed, the emotional route in decision-making plays a crucial role, especially in situations characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty, and risk. Despite that, individual differences concerning such components and their associations with individual traits, decisional styles, and psychophysiological profiles are still understudied. This pilot study aimed at investigating the relationship between individual propensity toward using an emotional or cognitive information-processing route in decision-making, EEG and autonomic correlates of the decisional performance as collected via wearable non-invasive devices, and individual personality and decisional traits. Participants completed a novel task based on realistic decisional scenarios while their physiological activity (EEG and autonomic indices) was monitored. Self-report questionnaires were used to collect data on personality traits, individual differences, and decisional styles. Data analyses highlighted two main findings. Firstly, different personality traits and decisional styles showed significant and specific correlations, with an individual propensity toward either emotional or cognitive information processing for decision-making. Secondly, task-related EEG and autonomic measures presented a specific and distinct correlation pattern with different decisional styles, maximization traits, and personality traits, suggesting different latent profiles.

Here are some thoughts:

This research provides valuable insights for psychologists by offering a more comprehensive understanding of decision-making, moving beyond a purely cognitive perspective to incorporate the crucial role of emotions and individual differences. It also highlights the importance of individual differences, emphasizing how personality traits and decisional styles influence how people process information and make choices. Furthermore, the research integrates psychological and physiological perspectives by combining self-report data with EEG and autonomic measures, providing a more holistic view of the decision-making process. Ultimately, the findings can inform interventions and applications in various fields, such as clinical psychology, organizational psychology, and consumer behavior, to better understand and support decision-making in different contexts.

The Constellation Model of Focus: Replacing Attention’s Spotlight With a Constellation

Ferketic, M. (2025)

Forthcoming.

Currently on academia.edu

Abstract

This paper introduces the Constellation Model of Focus, a novel phenomenological framework that redefines focus as a dynamic distribution of activated nodes across the internal and external fields of awareness. Unlike traditional models that conceptualize attention as a singular spotlight or a binary endogenous-exogenous mechanism, this model describes how awareness is concentrated as activated nodes across multiple points simultaneously and how those points interact in real time. We explore the activation, modulation, inhibition, and competition of nodes, as well as the mechanisms by which focus is shaped through impressive and expressive action. Finally, we examine how this model aligns with current neurological research on attentional networks and neuronal activation, reinforcing its potential for future empirical validation.

A pdf can be found here.

Here are some thoughts:

The article introduces the Constellation Model of Focus, a new way of understanding attention. This model suggests that focus isn't a single spotlight, but rather a pattern of "activated nodes" distributed across our internal and external awareness. These nodes represent where our awareness is concentrated and can shift and change constantly. The model also explores how these nodes are activated and influenced by both external stimuli and our own volitional control.   

This model can be valuable for psychologists because it provides a more nuanced understanding of attention. It moves beyond simpler ideas of attention as a spotlight and offers a framework to analyze the complexities of focus in various situations. This can help psychologists better assess and treat attention-related issues in clients, as well as develop more effective therapeutic techniques that account for the dynamic and distributed nature of attention.

Politics makes bastards of us all: Why moral judgment is politically situational

Hull, K., Warren, C., & Smith, K. (2024).

Political Psychology, 45(6), 1013–1029.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12954

Abstract

Moral judgment is politically situational—people are more forgiving of transgressive copartisans and more likely to behave punitively and unethically toward political opponents. Such differences are widely observed, but not fully explained. If moral values are nonnegotiable first-principle beliefs about right and wrong, why do similar transgressions elicit different moral judgment in the personal and political realm? We argue this pattern arises from the same forces intuitionist frameworks of moral psychology use to explain the origins of morality: the adaptive need to suppress individual behavior to ensure ingroup success. We hypothesize ingroups serve as moral boundaries, that the relative tight constraints morality exerts over ingroup relations loosen in competitive group environments because doing so also serves ingroup interests. We find support for this hypothesis in four independent samples and also find that group antipathy—internalized dislike of the outgroup—pushes personal and political moral boundaries farther apart.

Here are some thoughts:

This research explores why moral judgments differ between personal and political contexts. The authors argue that moral flexibility in politics arises from the adaptive function of morality: to promote ingroup success.  Ingroup loyalty loosens moral constraints when group competition is present.  The study also reveals that disliking the opposing political group increases this effect.    

This study offers psychologists a deeper understanding of moral flexibility and political behavior. It explains how group dynamics and intergroup conflict influence moral judgment, highlighting the situational nature of morality.  It also links moral psychology with political science by examining how political affiliations and antipathies shape moral judgments.   

Why the Mystery of Consciousness Is Deeper Than We Thought

Philip Goff

Scientific American

Originally published 3 July 24

Here is an excerpt:

The hard problem comes after we’ve explained all of these functions of the brain, where we are still left with a puzzle: Why is the carrying out of these functions accompanied by experience? Why doesn’t all this mechanistic functioning go on “in the dark”? In my own work, I have argued that the hard problem is rooted in the way that the “father of modern science,” Galileo, designed physical science to exclude consciousness.

Chalmers made the quandary vivid by promoting the idea of a “philosophical zombie,” a complicated mechanism set up to behave exactly like a human being and with the same information processing in its brain, but with no consciousness. You stick a knife in such a zombie, and it screams and runs away. But it doesn’t actually feel pain. When a philosophical zombie crosses the street, it carefully checks that there is no traffic, but it doesn’t actually have any visual or auditory experience of the street.

Nobody thinks zombies are real, but they offer a vivid way of working out where you stand on the hard problem. Those on Team Chalmers believe that if all there was to a human being were the mechanistic processes of physical science, we’d all be zombies. Given that we’re not zombies, there must be something more going on in us to explain our consciousness. Solving the hard problem is then a matter of working out the extra ingredient, with one increasingly popular option being to posit very rudimentary forms of consciousness at the level of fundamental particles or fields.

For the opposing team, such as the late, great philosopher Daniel Dennett, this division between feeling and behavior makes no sense. The only task for a science of consciousness is explaining behavior, not just the external behavior of the organism but also that of its inner parts. This debate has rattled on for decades.

The article is here.

Here are some thoughts:

The author discusses the "hard problem of consciousness," a concept introduced by philosopher David Chalmers in the 1990s.  The hard problem refers to the difficulty of explaining why the brain's functions are accompanied by subjective experience, rather than occurring without any experience at all.    

The author uses the idea of "philosophical zombies" (beings that behave like humans but lack consciousness) and "pain-pleasure inverts" (beings that feel pleasure when we feel pain, and vice versa) to illustrate the complexity of this problem.    

This is important for psychologists because it highlights the deep mystery surrounding consciousness and suggests that explaining behavior is not enough; we also need to understand subjective experience.  It also challenges some basic assumptions about why we behave the way we do and points to the perplexing "mystery of psychophysical harmony" - why our behavior and consciousness align in a coherent way.