Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Self-Disclosure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self-Disclosure. Show all posts

Friday, October 6, 2023

Taking the moral high ground: Deontological and absolutist moral dilemma judgments convey self-righteousness

Weiss, A., Burgmer, P., Rom, S. C., & Conway, P. (2024). 
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 110, 104505.

Abstract

Individuals who reject sacrificial harm to maximize overall outcomes, consistent with deontological (vs. utilitarian) ethics, appear warmer, more moral, and more trustworthy. Yet, deontological judgments may not only convey emotional reactions, but also strict adherence to moral rules. We therefore hypothesized that people view deontologists as more morally absolutist and hence self-righteous—as perceiving themselves as morally superior. In addition, both deontologists and utilitarians who base their decisions on rules (vs. emotions) should appear more self-righteous. Four studies (N = 1254) tested these hypotheses. Participants perceived targets as more self-righteous when they rejected (vs. accepted) sacrificial harm in classic moral dilemmas where harm maximizes outcomes (i.e., deontological vs. utilitarian judgments), but not parallel cases where harm fails to maximize outcomes (Study 1). Preregistered Study 2 replicated the focal effect, additionally indicating mediation via perceptions of moral absolutism. Study 3 found that targets who reported basing their deontological judgments on rules, compared to emotional reactions or when processing information was absent, appeared particularly self-righteous. Preregistered Study 4 included both deontological and utilitarian targets and manipulated whether their judgments were based on rules versus emotion (specifically sadness). Grounding either moral position in rules conveyed self-righteousness, while communicating emotions was a remedy. Furthermore, participants perceived targets as more self-righteous the more targets deviated from their own moral beliefs. Studies 3 and 4 additionally examined participants' self-disclosure intentions. In sum, deontological dilemma judgments may convey an absolutist, rule-focused view of morality, but any judgment stemming from rules (in contrast to sadness) promotes self-righteousness perceptions.


My quick take:

The authors also found that people were more likely to perceive deontologists as self-righteous if they based their judgments on rules rather than emotions. This suggests that it is not just the deontological judgment itself that leads to perceptions of self-righteousness, but also the way in which the judgment is made.

Overall, the findings of this study suggest that people who make deontological judgments in moral dilemmas are more likely to be perceived as self-righteous. This is because deontological judgments are often seen as reflecting a rigid and absolutist view of morality, which can come across as arrogant or condescending.

It is important to note that the findings of this study do not mean that all deontologists are self-righteous. However, the study does suggest that people should be aware of how their moral judgments may be perceived by others. If you want to avoid being perceived as self-righteous, it may be helpful to explain your reasons for making a deontological judgment, and to acknowledge the emotional impact of the situation.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Ethics, self-disclosure and our everyday multiple identities

APA’s Ethics Code speaks to our psychologies — and our clients’ psychologies — on many levels.

By Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD, MDiv
March 2015, Vol 46, No. 3
Print version: page 70

Here is an excerpt:

Here our profession's rather rigid history with multiple relationships may get in the way of good ethical thinking. The belief that all multiple relationships are unethical may lead a student to conclude that a rigid demarcation among identities is preferable or necessary. Of course, such demarcations are not possible and attempting to behave as though they are is futile, counterproductive and painfully distracting. Although a psychologist who is a parent is not parenting during psychotherapy, such a psychologist nonetheless remains a parent during the session. Standard 3.05 offers a way to think about this intra-psychic conundrum.

The entire article is here.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

When Mental Health Professionals are on Facebook

By Steven Petrow
The Washington Post
Originally posted on August 25, 2014

For the past two weeks, whenever I’ve scrolled through my Facebook newsfeed I’ve come to the section “People You May Know.” The suggestions offered have included relatives, co-workers, some people I don’t even like in “real” life — and my current psychologist. “OMG!” I’ve winced repeatedly at the profile photo of my shrink, who for the sake of his privacy I’ll just call Dr. E.

Still, being the curious sort, I clicked to view his page, which isn’t very well protected from eyes like mine. For starters, there are 12 photos of him available for all the world to enjoy, several of them shirtless and one that had a “friend” of his posting “Woof!” underneath it. I also discovered pictures of Dr. E from high school with two nice-looking young ladies. Although I’ve known he was gay, I started to wonder: Was he bisexual then? When did he come out? I found myself thinking much more about his personal life than any patient should.

Among Dr. E’s Facebook friends was another psychologist, one who seemed to deploy no privacy safeguards whatsoever. Any patient clicking on his Facebook page could see tons of photos, including those of his wedding and honeymoon, and even his attendance at a celebration of “Bush 43’s” last night in office. (That makes it a good bet he’s a Dem, which might be TMI for a GOP patient.)

The entire article is here.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Should teachers of controversial issues disclose their opinions?

By Harry
Crookedtimber.org
Originally posted March 3, 2014

Here is an excerpt:

For some of the issues I teach, it is not that hard to find out my views, if you really want to, and are a minimally competent googler. But I take a pretty hard line on the disclosure question. I don’t disclose my views about the issues I teach. Here’s why.

First, all of the issues I teach are issues on which there are powerful arguments on more than one side. I do not see my job as presenting technical scholarly applied ethics so that they will become interested in the major, but in introducing them to a particular practice that requires certain intellectual resources that my discipline has developed: the practice of moral reason giving and taking. So it makes no sense to teach issues about which, though there is a public debate, the reasons are one-sided. This is why, for example, I do not teach same-sex marriage (I tried, it didn’t work) or gun rights and why, if I lived in the UK, I would not teach about the legitimacy of the monarchy. I want students really to understand that there are reasons on both sides, and worry that disclosing would give them the impression that, contrary to fact, I regard the issues as settled. (I should add: it might make complete sense to teach such issues in a social studies high school class, especially if the focus is on getting the students to articulate and defend their own positions; the aims of such a class might be different from mine).

The entire blog post is here.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Digital and Social Media for Psychologist: Current Issues and Ethical Dilemmas

By Keely Kolmes, PsyD

Psychologists, whether they are in independent practice, working in an agency setting, or are teaching and supervision, are struggling more and more with issues related to their own, their trainees', and their clients' online access and availability.  Zur and Donner (2009) wrote about the accessibility of online information.  the compared unintentional vs. intentional disclosures clinicians may make during the psychotherapy hour and then compared these with the unintentional disclosures that psychotherapists might make available on the Internet when clients seek out information about providers.  They noted that the motivations could range from mild curiosity to criminal stalking, and they encouraged clinicians to maintain awareness of what information is made available about them.

The entire article is here.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Vignette 27: To Skate or Not to Skate


Dr. Logan Earthski works with adolescents and their families.  During the course of treating one adolescent male, the parents, Mr. and Mrs. Hawk, expressed frustration with their son Tony’s lack of involvement with sports.  The Hawks detailed how Tony enjoyed team sports in the past, but has not enjoyed participating due to anxiety and constantly comparing himself to others.

In order to bond and connect with the family, Dr. Earthski explained from his experience with teens, some male teens function better with individual sports.  Dr. Earthski disclosed that he grew up skateboarding and taught lessons for several years.  A few of the children and adolescents he taught fit the description of Tony.  In those cases, the adolescent tried soccer or baseball, but did not really like it because they felt too anxious and overly competitive. 

When it came to individual sports, like skateboarding, teens that became involved with individual sports usually showed a decrease in anxiety and an increase in self-confidence.  However, sometimes, when adolescents first show up at the skate park, they may experience a similar level of anxiety and heightened self-awareness that Dr. Earthski helped remediate during his coaching sessions. 

Dr. Earthski also revealed that he worked with one particular teenager who became very anxious and experienced episodes of panic related to going to the skate park.  That adolescent did not think he was good and was weary of other kids watching and judging him.  Dr. Earthski gave him some coaching on anxiety reduction techniques and worked through those negative, anxiety-provoking emotions.  Further, he did very well at skateboarding once he conquered his symptoms of anxiety and panic.  The teenager's self-confidence grew as he performed better at the skate park.  Based on Dr. Earthski's revelations, the parents seemed reassured.

Prior to the next session, Dr. Earthski received a voicemail message from Mrs. Hawk asking if he could coach Tony on skate boarding.

After thinking about this request, Dr. Earthski calls you for a consult.  Dr. Earthski puts forward the following concerns:

1.  Is coaching a teenager-patient on anxiety-related issues in context of a skate boarding lessons definitively a dual relationship?

2.  What if the coaching is time-limited, informed consent is given, and this activity is viewed as the exception rather than the rule?  (“Time-limited” means between one and six sessions, depending on his response to treatment.)

3.  Can time-limited skateboard coaching be incorporated as part of an in-vivo anxiety reduction technique and billed as therapy services?

4.  Would Dr. Earthski’s malpractice insurance likely cover this activity?

5.  What would happen if the teen-patient injured himself as part of coaching?

6.  Dr. Earthski asks about the use of self-disclosure.  What feedback might you give to Dr. Earthski about what he disclosed about himself?

7.  Given everything you know about the case, what is/are the final recommendation(s) about this scenario?

Monday, November 26, 2012

What Brand Is Your Therapist?

by Lori Gottlieb
The New York Times
Originally published November 23, 2012

Here is an excerpt:


What nobody taught me in grad school was that psychotherapy, a practice that had sustained itself for more than a century, is losing its customers. If this came as a shock to me, the American Psychological Association tried to send out warnings in a 2010 paper titled, “Where Has all the Psychotherapy Gone?” According to the author, 30 percent fewer patients received psychological interventions in 2008 than they did 11 years earlier; since the 1990s, managed care has increasingly limited visits and reimbursements for talk therapy but not for drug treatment; and in 2005 alone, pharmaceutical companies spent $4.2 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising and $7.2 billion on promotion to physicians, nearly twice what they spent on research and development.

According to the A.P.A., therapists had to start paying attention to what the marketplace demanded or we risked our livelihoods. It wasn’t long before I learned that an entirely new specialized industry had cropped up: branding consultants for therapists.

I couldn’t imagine hiring a branding consultant to lure people to the couch. Psychotherapy is perhaps one of the few commercial businesses that doesn’t see itself as one, that views financial gain as unseemly when connected to the delicate work of emotional insight. Moreover, the field is predicated on strict concepts of authenticity, privacy and therapist-patient boundaries. Branding was the antithesis of what we did.

The entire article is here.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Upcoming Article: Is Coming Out Always a 'Good Thing'?


*Social Psychological and Personality Science* has scheduled an article for publication in a future issue of the journal: "Is Coming Out Always a 'Good Thing'? Exploring the Relations of Autonomy Support, Outness, and Wellness for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals."

The authors are Nicole Legate, Richard M. Ryan, and Netta Weinstein.

Disclosing a lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) identity to others, or ''coming out,'' has been shown in past research to be associated with mental health benefits (e.g., Ragins, 2004).

Yet, in a world that can be unaccepting of nonheterosexual orientations, coming out also involves risk. LGB individuals may anticipate stigmatization, negative judgments, or rejection feelings that deter them from self-disclosing their sexual identity.

Recent legislation like Don't Ask Don't Tell provides a clear example of this risk: those who came out as LGB in the military were discharged from service. Indeed, some research suggests that coming out can result in other negative consequences such as costs to well-being (D'Augelli, 2006).

It is thus the case that many LGB individuals are selective, varying from context to context in how much they disclose their sexual identity to others.

In the present article, we explore this within-person variability in disclosure using a self-determination theory framework (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000) is a theory of personality and motivation that concerns how social contexts impact motivation and well-being.

According to SDT, social contexts vary in their levels of autonomy support, defined as interpersonal acceptance and support for authentic self-expression (Lynch, La Guardia, & Ryan, 2009; Ryan, La Guardia, Solky-Butzel, Chirkov, & Kim, 2005).

In environments high in autonomy support, people feel accepted for who they are, are free to act and express themselves, and are more open to rely on others. In contrast, in controlling environments, people feel pressured to appear, behave, or perform a certain way (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and they exhibit less openness and more defensiveness (Hodgins et al., 2010).

It is thus likely that autonomy supportive environments reduce perceived risks for coming out, whereas in environments perceived as controlling individuals may be less likely to express a potentially stigmatized part of themselves that could incur censure.

In addition, we argue that the autonomy supportiveness of an environment influences the well-being experienced in that environment as a result of disclosure. Specifically, we expect that LGB individuals who disclose in environments low in autonomy support will not experience the typical boost to wellness from coming out reported in the literature.

Here's how the article ends:

"This research has implications for practitioners providing treatment to LGB individuals because it suggests that people experience greater wellness when they come out in certain contexts, but certainly not all contexts. This research also has implications for workplaces. Providing autonomy support is beneficial for all employees (Baard et al., 2004), but may be especially important for LGB employees' wellness and productivity. Future research should look at disclosing in workplaces that foster self-expression versus controlling work environments and compare wellness and productivity of employees of different sexual orientations. More generally the findings may speak to factors that can facilitate greater openness and wellness in individuals who face stigma, as well as to the costs of controlling social contexts and the self-concealment they often foster."

Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Supervisor Self-Disclosure

*Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training* has scheduled an article for publication in a future issue: "Supervisor Self-Disclosure: Supervisees' Experiences and Perspectives."

The authors are Sarah Knox, Lisa M. Edwards, Shirley A. Hess, and Clara E. Hill.  Here's how the article begins:

[begin excerpt]

Farber (2006) suggested that, in addition to the inherent need for supervisee self-disclosure, supervisor self-disclosure (SRSD) is also crucial to supervision.

He asserted that supervisors disclose to build the supervision relationship, share discoveries from their own professional experiences, model skills, and provide feedback.

Given the role that SRSD may have in supervision, it is important to examine its impact on supervisees and on supervision.

Existing studies, primarily using quantitative survey methods, have described types and outcomes of SRSDs (Bahrick, 1990; Gray, Ladany, Walker, & Ancis, 2001; Hess et al., 2008; Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & Nutt, 1996; Ladany & Lehrman-Waterman, 1999; Ladany & Melincoff, 1999; Ladany & Walker, 2003; Ladany, Walker, & Melincoff, 2001; Norcross & Halgin, 1997; Walsh, Gillespie, Greer, & Eanes, 2002; Worthen & McNeill, 1996; Yourman, 2003). In the only qualitative study in this area, Knox, Burkard, Edwards, Smith, and Schlosser (2008) examined supervisors' perspectives about using SRSD with supervisees. Supervisors used SRSDs when supervisees struggled, and intended them to teach or normalize. Supervisors' disclosures focused on supervisors' reactions to their own or their supervisees' clients. These SRSDs had positive effects on supervisors, supervisees, the supervision relationship, and supervisors' supervision of others.

These results suggest that the supervisors were attuned to their supervisees' clinical needs and sought to intervene such that supervisees could function more effectively, all of which led to salutary results. Although Knox et al.'s results are intriguing, we wonder if supervisees feel the same way about SRSDs . . . do such disclosures have the salutary effects that supervisors perceived? Relatedly, the literature is replete with examples of supervisees' negative feelings about their supervisors, and also the belief that they must hide such feelings for fear of political suicide (Gray et al., 2001; Hess et al., 2008; Nelson & Friedlander, 2001). Learning about supervisees' reactions could thus help us understand the other side of the SRSD interaction. We need, then, a probing examination of supervisees' experiences of SRSD, so that we may "get inside" the phenomenon by asking those to whom it is directed how they experienced such disclosure.

A qualitative design could help us fill this gap in the literature by addressing the central question of the current study: How do supervisees experience SRSD? How does SRSD affect supervision and supervisees' clinical work? Examining such questions from the supervisee perspective is essential, and will add important new understandings to the extant literature. In the present study, then, we examined supervisees' experiences of SRSD, extending with a distinct sample the work by Knox et al. (2008) about supervisors' experiences of SRSD. We asked supervisees to describe in depth one particular instance of SRSD and its impact.

[end excerpt]

Another excerpt: "When describing a specific SRSD experience, supervisees reported a range of antecedents (e.g., difficult clinical situation, selfdoubt, tension in supervision relationship) followed by supervisor disclosures about clinical experiences or personal information. Supervisees perceived that their supervisors disclosed primarily to normalize, but also to build rapport and to instruct. The SRSDs had mostly positive effects (e.g., normalization), though some negative effects (e.g., deleterious impact on supervision relationship) were reported."

The author note provides the following contact information: " Sarah Knox, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology, College of Education, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881. E-mail: sarah.knox@marquette.edu.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.