Core communitarian values for community practice: human development, empowerment, and social justice

James Anderson. (2024).

Technology Journal of Management,

Accounting and Economics, 12(4).

Link Here.

Abstract

Values are conceptions of good which enlighten and guide human analysis and action. Discounting noteworthy exceptions, community psychology has neglected making explicit and openly discussing its ethical and value dimensions. My aim in this paper to partially remedy such neglect by posing new sustantive values and approaches suitable for community practice. I suggest first changes in the deontological values to adapt them to the complexity and dynamism of community work. So I put forward shared or collective autonomy, that extends self-direction to the whole community, to substitue for individual disolving autonomy. I also introduce self-care (legitimate self-beneficence) to guarantee psychological and moral integrity of the practitioner as well as long term sustainability of communiy action. I describe, secondly, some core communitarian values. Human development which includes interaction and social bonding besides self-direction. Empowerment, an instrumental value, made of subjective consciousness, communication, and effective social action. Social justice, the main socio-communitarian value, consist of three components: a vital universal minimum, fair distribution of material and psychosocial goods and resources produced by society, and igualitarian personal treatment and relationship.

Here are some thoughts: 

The article explores core communitarian values essential for effective community psychology practice, emphasizing the need to move beyond traditional deontological ethics toward a more socially grounded framework. It argues that community psychology has historically neglected explicit ethical discourse despite its intrinsic moral dimensions. To address this gap, the author proposes redefining autonomy as shared or collective autonomy , extending self-direction to the entire community rather than focusing solely on individuals. Additionally, self-care is introduced as a crucial value to sustain practitioners' psychological and moral integrity. The paper outlines three central socio-community values: human development , empowerment , and social justice . Human development integrates personal growth with social bonding, empowerment focuses on increasing individual and group capacity through awareness and action, and social justice is framed around three pillars—ensuring a vital minimum for all, equitable distribution of resources, and relational fairness. These values are intended to guide both ethical reflection and practical interventions in community settings.

How Does Therapy Harm? A Model of Adverse Process Using Task Analysis in the Meta-Synthesis of Service Users' Experience

Curran, J., Parry, G. D.,  et al. (2019).

Frontiers in Psychology, 10.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00347

Abstract

Background: Despite repeated discussion of treatment safety, there remains little quantitative research directly addressing the potential of therapy to harm. In contrast, there are numerous sources of qualitative evidence on clients' negative experience of psychotherapy, which they report as harmful.

Objective: To derive a model of process factors potentially leading to negative or harmful effects of therapy, from the clients' perspective, based on a systematic narrative synthesis of evidence on negative experiences and effects of psychotherapy from (a) qualitative research findings and (b) participants' testimony.

Method: We adapted Greenberg (2007) task analysis as a discovery-oriented method for the systematic synthesis of qualitative research and service user testimony. A rational model of adverse processes in psychotherapy was empirically refined in two separate analyses, which were then compared and incorporated into a rational-empirical model. This was then validated against an independent qualitative study of negative effects.

Results: Over 90% of the themes in the rational-empirical model were supported in the validation study. Contextual issues, such as lack of cultural validity and therapy options together with unmet client expectations fed into negative therapeutic processes (e.g., unresolved alliance ruptures). These involved a range of unhelpful therapist behaviors (e.g., rigidity, over-control, lack of knowledge) associated with clients feeling disempowered, silenced, or devalued. These were coupled with issues of power and blame.

Conclusions: Task analysis can be adapted to extract meaning from large quantities of qualitative data, in different formats. The service user perspective reveals there are potentially harmful factors at each stage of the therapy journey which require remedial action. Implications of these findings for practice improvement are discussed.

Here are some thoughts:

The article offers important insights for psychologists into the often-overlooked negative impacts of psychotherapy. It emphasizes that, while therapy generally leads to positive outcomes, it can sometimes result in unintended harm such as increased emotional distress, symptom deterioration, or damage to self-concept and relationships. These adverse effects often arise from ruptures in the therapeutic alliance, misattunement, or a lack of responsiveness to clients’ feedback. The study highlights the importance of maintaining a strong, collaborative therapeutic relationship and recommends that therapists actively seek client input throughout the process. Regular supervision and training are also essential for helping clinicians recognize and address early signs of harm. Informed consent should include discussion of potential risks, and routine outcome monitoring can serve as an early detection system for negative therapy responses. Ultimately, this research underscores the ethical responsibility of psychologists to remain vigilant, self-reflective, and client-centered in order to prevent harm and ensure therapy remains a safe and effective intervention.

Relationship between empathy and burnout as well as potential affecting and mediating factors from the perspective of clinical nurses: a systematic review

Zhou H. (2025).

BMC nursing, 24(1), 38.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-02701-0

Abstract

Background

Burnout is prevalent in healthcare professionals, especially among nurses. This review aims to examine the correlation between empathy and burnout as well as the variables that influence and mediate them.

Methods

This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, to present a systematic evaluation of literature. A literature search of four electronic databases including CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE, PubMed, and Google Scholar was conducted from 2014 to 2024. A total of 1081 articles were identified in the initial search. After screening the title, abstract, and context of these articles, 16 eligible articles were finally included in this review.

Results

This review identified a number of factors related to empathy and burnout levels. The included studies showed consistent results that empathy and burnout were generally negatively related. When considering the different components of empathy or burnout independently, as well as the mediating factors involved, relations between empathy and burnout may alter.

Conclusions

This study provided an excellent summary of some important research on the mediating and affecting factors associated with burnout and empathy. These results can facilitate further

Here are some thoughts:

This systematic review found that higher empathy levels among clinical nurses are generally associated with lower burnout, although specific subcomponents of empathy influenced burnout dimensions differently.

While greater empathic concern and perspective-taking were linked to reduced depersonalization and increased personal accomplishment, high personal distress was correlated with greater emotional exhaustion.

Burnout prevalence varied across settings, with moderate levels common among Chinese nurses and high burnout rates observed in trauma and emergency care units in the U.S. and Spain. Factors such as female gender, specialty area, permanent employment, and fixed shifts were associated with higher empathy and lower burnout, whereas longer working hours and rural practice environments contributed to increased burnout. Organizational climate, coping strategies, job commitment, secondary traumatic stress, and workplace spirituality were important mediators. Overall, the findings emphasize the protective role of empathy against burnout and support interventions targeting workplace environment and personal coping to enhance nurse well-being.

Moral reasoning in a digital age: blaming artificial intelligence for incorrect high-risk decisions

Leichtmann, B., et al. (2024).

Current Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06658-2

Abstract

The increasing involvement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in moral decision situations raises the possibility of users attributing blame to AI-based systems for negative outcomes. In two experimental studies with a total of N=911 participants, we explored the attribution of blame and underlying moral reasoning. Participants had to classify mushrooms in pictures as edible or poisonous with support of an AI-based app. Afterwards, participants read a fictitious scenario in which a misclassification due to an erroneous AI recommendation led to the poisoning of a person. In the first study, increased system transparency through explainable AI techniques reduced blaming of AI. A follow-up study showed that attribution of blame to each actor in the scenario depends on their perceived obligation and capacity to prevent such an event. Thus, blaming AI is indirectly associated with mind attribution and blaming oneself is associated with the capability to recognize a wrong classification. We discuss implications for future research on moral cognition in the context of human–AI interaction.

Here are some thoughts:

This research explores how people assign blame in situations where AI systems make mistakes that lead to harmful outcomes.    

In two experiments with a total of 911 participants, the study examined blame attribution and the underlying moral reasoning involved when AI is used in decision-making.  Participants were asked to use an AI-based app to classify mushrooms in pictures as edible or poisonous.  They then read a scenario where a person was poisoned due to a misclassification by the AI.    

The study's key findings include:

• In the first study, providing explanations for the AI's decisions (using explainable AI techniques) reduced the amount of blame attributed to the AI.    

• The second study showed that blame attribution depends on the perceived obligation and capacity of those involved (AI, user, etc.) to prevent the harmful event.    

• Blaming AI is linked to the degree to which the AI is perceived as having a mind of its own, while blaming oneself is associated with the individual's capability to recognize the AI's errors. 

This research is important for psychologists for several reasons:

• It provides insights into how people perceive AI as a moral agent and how they incorporate AI into their moral decision-making processes.

• The findings highlight the complexities of blame attribution in human-AI interaction, which is crucial for understanding responsibility, accountability, and trust in AI systems.

• Understanding the factors that influence blame attribution, such as perceived agency, mind attribution, and the availability of explanations, can inform the design of AI systems that promote trust and appropriate accountability.    

The research also has implications for legal and ethical considerations surrounding AI, particularly in cases where AI systems are involved in accidents or errors that cause harm. 

Delaware Becomes 12th U.S. Jurisdiction to Authorize Medical Aid in Dying, First Since 2021

Compassion & Choices (2025)

20 May 2025

Delaware Governor Matt Meyer today signed the Ron Silverio/Heather Block Delaware End-of-Life Options Act into law in a public signing ceremony, ending a decade of dedicated advocacy led by Compassion & Choices Action Network and fulfilling his September 2024 promise to authorize the option of medical aid in dying for terminally ill Delawareans. 

The new law will grant a terminally ill, mentally capable adult with six months or less to live the option to request a prescription from their healthcare provider for medication they can choose to self-ingest and die on their own terms. Delaware is the 12th U.S. jurisdiction to authorize medical aid in dying (10 other states plus Washington, D.C.) and the first to do so since New Mexico in April 2021. The law takes effect on January 1, 2026 or once the final regulations are formed to support the law, whichever is sooner. 

“Today I’m going to sign a bill that speaks to compassion, dignity, and respect for personal choice,” said Governor Meyer in an emotional speech before the signing. “This signing today is about relieving suffering and giving families the comfort of knowing that their loved one was able to pass on their own terms, without unnecessary pain, and surrounded by the people they love most.”

The info is here.

Here is a brief summary.

On May 20, 2025, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer signed the Ron Silverio/Heather Block Delaware End-of-Life Options Act into law, making Delaware the 12th U.S. jurisdiction to authorize medical aid in dying. This legislation allows mentally capable adults diagnosed with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less to request a prescription for medication they can choose to self-administer to end their lives peacefully. 

Key Provisions:

Eligibility Criteria: Patients must be at least 18 years old, residents of Delaware, diagnosed with a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less, mentally capable of making healthcare decisions, and able to self-ingest the prescribed medication. 

Compassion & Choices

Safeguards: The law includes multiple safeguards, such as requiring two healthcare providers to confirm the diagnosis and prognosis, two waiting periods, and ensuring that patients are informed about all end-of-life care options, including palliative care and hospice. 

The law is set to take effect on January 1, 2026, or upon the completion of necessary regulations, whichever comes first.

States & districts permitting MAiD.

Oregon (1997); Washington (2008); Montana (2009) – Legalized through a state Supreme Court ruling; 

Vermont (2013); California (2015); Colorado (2016); District of Columbia (2017); Hawai‘i (2018); New Jersey (2019); Maine (2019); New Mexico (2021); Delaware (2025)

The Benefits of Adopting a Positive Perspective in Ethics Education

Knapp, S., Gottlieb, M. C., & 

Handelsman, M. M. (2018).

Training and Education in Professional Psychology,

12(3), 196–202.

https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000195

Abstract

Positive ethics is a perspective that encourages psychologists to see professional ethics as an effort to adhere to overarching ethical principles that are integrated with personal values, as opposed to efforts that focus primarily on avoiding punishment for violating the ethics codes, rules, and regulations. This article reviews the foundations of positive ethics, argues for the benefits of adopting a positive approach in ethics education, and considers recent findings from psychological science that support the value of a positive perspective by improving moral sensitivity, setting high standards for conduct, and increasing motivation to act ethically.

Here are some thoughts:

The article argues that traditional ethics training often focuses narrowly on rules and punishments—a “floor” approach that teaches students simply what they must not do—while neglecting the broader, aspirational ideals that give ethics its vitality. In contrast, a positive ethics perspective invites psychologists to anchor their professional conduct in overarching principles and personal values, framing ethics as an opportunity to excel rather than a set of minimum requirements. Drawing on concepts from positive psychology and decision science (such as approach versus avoidance motivation and prescriptive versus proscriptive morality), the authors show how a positive approach deepens moral sensitivity, elevates standards of care beyond mere compliance, and taps into intrinsic motivations that make ethical practice more meaningful and less anxiety-provoking.

This perspective matters for psychologists because it reshapes how we learn, teach, and model ethical behavior. By broadening ethical reflection to include everyday decisions—from informed consent to collegial interactions—a positive ethics framework equips practitioners to recognize and respond to moral dimensions they might otherwise overlook. Training that highlights internal motivations and the connection between personal values and professional standards not only reduces the fear and cognitive narrowing associated with punishment-focused teaching, but also fosters stronger professional identity, better decision making under stress, and higher-quality care for clients and communities.

Ethical drift: when good people do bad things

Kleinman C. S. (2006).

JONA'S healthcare law, ethics and regulation, 

8(3), 72–76. 

https://doi.org/10.1097/00128488-200607000-00004

 Abstract

There are many factors in today’s healthcare environment which challenge nurses and nursing administration in adhering to ethical values. This article discusses the phenomenon of ethical drift, a gradual erosion of ethical behavior that occurs in individuals below their level of awareness. It is imperative for nurse managers and executives to be aware of the danger that workplace pressures pose in encouraging ethical drift at all levels of nursing, and to take steps to prevent this phenomena from occurring in their facilities.

Here is a summary and some thoughts:

The article explores how well-intentioned nurses and healthcare leaders can gradually erode their own ethical standards without realizing it. Under pressures such as staffing shortages, budget constraints, and competing organizational demands, small justifications for bending the rules accumulate until significant breaches become normalized. Kleinman illustrates this phenomenon through scenarios in which nurse managers unconsciously override physicians’ orders or skew performance appraisals to meet immediate needs, ultimately exposing themselves and their institutions to liability, moral distress, and burnout. She traces ethical drift to broader shifts in moral philosophy—where diverse, and sometimes conflicting, theories of right action make it easier to rationalize incremental deviations—and emphasizes that its insidious nature lies in occurring below conscious awareness until serious harm has already been done.

For psychologists, understanding ethical drift is vital because it mirrors key concepts in social and cognitive psychology, such as moral disengagement, obedience to authority, and the slippery-slope effect of incremental rationalization. Industrial-organizational psychologists can apply these insights to design training, support groups, and leadership practices that reinforce core values and ethical vigilance in high-pressure environments. Clinical psychologists and supervisors working with healthcare professionals must recognize how stress and systemic demands can undermine personal integrity and patient care, integrating strategies like values clarification, reflective practice, and peer feedback into interventions. By bringing psychological theory to bear on the gradual erosion of ethical behavior, psychologists help ensure that individuals and organizations remain aligned with the foundational principles of care and professional integrity.

Ethical Fading: The Role of Self-Deception in Unethical Behavior

Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004).

Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223–236.

https://doi.org/10.1023/b:sore.0000027411.35832.53

Abstract

This paper examines the root of unethical dicisions by identifying the psychological forces that promote self-deception. Self-deception allows one to behave self-interestedly while, at the same time, falsely believing that one's moral principles were upheld. The end result of this internal con game is that the ethical aspects of the decision “fade” into the background, the moral implications obscured. In this paper we identify four enablers of self-deception, including language euphemisms, the slippery slope of decision-making, errors in perceptual causation, and constraints induced by representations of the self. We argue that current solutions to unethical behaviors in organizations, such as ethics training, do not consider the important role of these enablers and hence will be constrained in their potential, producing only limited effectiveness. Amendments to these solutions, which do consider the powerful role of self-deception in unethical decisions, are offered.

Here are some thoughts:

For psychologists, the concept of ethical fading is vital because it reveals the unconscious cognitive and emotional processes that allow otherwise principled individuals to act unethically. Tenbrunsel and Messick’s identification of four self-deception enablers—euphemistic language that obscures harm, the slippery-slope effect that numbs moral sensitivity, biased causal attributions that deflect blame, and self-serving self-representations—aligns closely with established constructs in social and cognitive psychology such as motivated reasoning, framing effects, and defense mechanisms . By understanding how moral considerations “fade” from awareness, psychologists can refine theories of moral cognition and affect, deepening insight into how people justify or conceal unethical behavior.

This framework also carries significant practical and research implications. In organizational and clinical settings, psychologists can design interventions that counteract ethical fading—reshaping decision frames, interrupting incremental justifications, and exposing hidden biases—rather than relying solely on traditional ethics education. Moreover, it opens new avenues for empirical study, from measuring the conditions under which moral colors dim to testing strategies that re-salientize ethical concerns, thereby advancing both applied and theoretical knowledge in the psychology of morality and self-deception.

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.