Which moral exemplars inspire prosociality?

Han, H., Workman, C. I., May, J., et al.

(2022, January 16). PsyArXiv

https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2035343

Abstract

Some stories of moral exemplars motivate us to emulate their admirable attitudes and behaviors, but why do some exemplars motivate us more than others? We systematically studied how motivation to emulate is influenced by the similarity between a reader and an exemplar in social or cultural background (Relatability) and how personally costly or demanding the exemplar’s actions are (Attainability). Study 1 found that university students reported more inspiration and related feelings after reading true stories about the good deeds of a recent fellow alum, compared to a famous moral exemplar from decades past. Study 2A developed a battery of short moral exemplar stories that more systematically varied Relatability and Attainability, along with a set of non-moral exemplar stories for comparison. Studies 2B and 2C examined the path from the story type to relatively low stakes altruism (donating to charity and intentions to volunteer) through perceived attainability and relatability, as well as elevation and pleasantness. Together, our studies suggest that it is primarily the relatability of the moral exemplars, not the attainability of their actions, that inspires more prosocial motivation, at least regarding acts that help others at a relatively low cost to oneself.

General Discussion

Stories can describe moral exemplars who are more or less similar to the reader (relatability) and who engage in acts that are more or less difficult to emulate (attainability). The overarching aim of this research was to address whether prosocial motivation is increased by greater attainability, relatability, or both. Overall, as predicted, more relatable and attainable exemplar stories generate greater inspiration (Study 1) and emulation of prosociality on some measures (Study 2), with perceived relatability being most influential. We developed a battery of ecologically valid exemplar stories that systematically varied attainability and relatability. Although differences in our story types did not produce detectable changes in prosocial behavior, perceived attainability and relatability are highly relative to the individual and thus difficult to systematically manipulate for all or even most participants. For instance, the average American might relate little to a Russian retiree, while others in our studies might do so easily (e.g., if their parents grew up in the Soviet Union). Similarly, donating $50 USD to charity is a major sacrifice for some Americans but not others. So, it was important for us to directly examine the effects of perceived attainability and relatability on prosociality.

The path analyses conducted in Studies 2B and 2C suggest in particular that the perceived relatability—not attainability—of a moral exemplar tends to increase emulation among readers.  The more attainable stories and perceived attainability did not positively predict emotional and behavioral outcomes, but the more relatable stories and perceived relatability did. This suggests that the relatability of exemplars is more fundamental in motivating people compared with the attainability of their acts. Another possibility is that highly attainable moral actions require little personal sacrifice, such as donating $1 to a charity, which is not particularly inspiring and in some cases is perhaps even seen as insulting (compare Thomson and Siegel 2013). Further research could explore these possibilities.

The research is here.

Navy Deputizes Psychologists to Enforce Drug Rules Even for Those Seeking Mental Health Help

Konstantin Toropin

MilitaryTimes.com

Originally posted 18 APR 22

In the wake of reports that a Navy psychologist played an active role in convicting for drug use a sailor who had reached out for mental health assistance, the service is standing by its policy, which does not provide patients with confidentiality and could mean that seeking help has consequences for service members.

The case highlights a set of military regulations that, in vaguely defined circumstances, requires doctors to inform commanding officers of certain medical details, including drug tests, even if those tests are conducted for legitimate medical reasons necessary for adequate care. Allowing punishment when service members are looking for help could act as a deterrent in a community where mental health is still a taboo topic among many, despite recent leadership attempts to more openly discuss getting assistance.

On April 11, Military.com reported the story of a sailor and his wife who alleged that the sailor's command, the destroyer USS Farragut, was retaliating against him for seeking mental health help.

Jatzael Alvarado Perez went to a military hospital to get help for his mental health struggles. As part of his treatment, he was given a drug test that came back positive for cannabinoids -- the family of drugs associated with marijuana. Perez denies having used any substances, but the test resulted in a referral to the ship's chief corpsman.

Perez's wife, Carli Alvarado, shared documents with Military.com that were evidence in the sailor's subsequent nonjudicial punishment, showing that the Farragut found out about the results because the psychologist emailed the ship's medical staff directly, according to a copy of the email.

"I'm not sure if you've been tracking, but OS2 Alvarado Perez popped positive for cannabis while inpatient," read the email, written to the ship's medical chief. Navy policy prohibits punishment for a positive drug test when administered as part of regular medical care.

The email goes on to describe efforts by the psychologist to assist in obtaining a second test -- one that could be used to punish Perez.

"We are working to get him a command directed urinalysis through [our command] today," it added.

The info is here.

The State of Florida v. Kelvin Lee Coleman Jr.: the implications of neuroscience in the courtroom through a case study

P. Loizidou, R. E. Wieczorek-Fynn, & J. C. Wu

Psychology, Crime & Law 

Published online: 17 Mar 2022

Abstract

Neuroscience can provide evidence in some cases of legal matters, despite its tenuous nature. Among others, arguing for diminished capacity, insanity, or pleading for mitigation is the most frequent use of neurological evidence in the courtroom. While there is a plethora of studies discussing the moral and legal matters of the practice, there is a lack of studies examining specific cases and the subsequent applications of brain knowledge. This study details the capital punishment trial of Kelvin Lee Coleman Jr., charged in 2013 with double murder in Tampa, Florida, to illustrate the extent that expert opinions – based on neuroimaging, neurological, and neuropsychiatric examinations – had an impact on the court’s decisions. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. According to the comments of the trial’s jury, the most influential reason for not sentencing the defendant to death is the fact that during the incident was that he was under extreme mental and emotional disturbance. Other reasons were evidence of brain abnormalities resulting from neurological insult, fetal alcohol syndrome, and orbitofrontal syndrome contributing to severely abnormal behavior and lack of impulse control.

Discussion

While this study addresses a single case, similar cases have in the past reached similar rulings. The evasion of death sentences has been especially common after the Hurst v. State decision requiring an anonymous jury vote before sentencing defendants to death. One such case is the State of Florida v. Luis Toledo which took place in 2017. The defendant was not sent to death despite killing his wife and her two children because of the mitigation claims of neurological illness and epilepsy. Similarly, in the case of State of Florida v. Byron Burch in 2015, first-degree murder and burglary charged to a defendant with a lengthy criminal record, did not result in a death sentence due to mitigating evidence of brain damage and presumptive chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Both cases had PET neuroimaging analyzed by one of the coauthors (JCW). After quantitative electroencephalography was inadmissible to the court, the defense attorney presented PET scans to claim brain damage that hindered impulse control. The jurors decided on a sentence to life in prison without parole which the judge ultimately decided upon.

While evidence on the existence of brain damage seems to suffice in some cases for a sentence to life in prison without parole, it is of interest to examine further the link between brain damage and criminality. This is linked to two questions: First, how common is brain damage among criminals, and second, how much does brain damage impact the likeliness of criminality. Several studies have looked at the prevalence of brain damage and psychiatric disorders among incarcerated individuals. Mental illness is significantly over-represented in death-row samples relative to the general population (Cunningham & Vigen, 2002). TBI is particularly prevalent among criminals, with one study reporting that 82% of the 164 incarcerated individuals interviewed have sustained a TBI, 79% have sustained a TBI with loss of consciousness, and 43% have sustained more than four or more TBIs (Schofield et al., 2006). Other psychiatric conditions like depression, mania, and schizophrenia have reportedly significantly higher prevalence rates among general samples of individuals from jails and specific samples of homicide charged individuals as compared to the rest of the population (Teplin, 1990; Wallace et al., 1998). It is of interest to see that mental disorders are usually accompanied by substance abuse and in many cases substance, especially alcohol abuse was confounded with associations between TBI and criminal offense (Wallace et al., 1998).

The info is here.

APA decries Florida guidance calling for withholding treatment for gender non-conforming children

American Psychological Association

Press Release

Originally release 21 APR 22

Warns that Florida document is based on flawed, cherry-picked research

WASHINGTON — Following is a statement by Frank C. Worrell, PhD, president of the American Psychological Association, reacting to new guidance issued by the Florida Department of Health opposing science-based treatment for gender non-conforming children:

“This memo from the Florida Department of Health distorts the psychological science regarding the treatment of gender non-conforming children. Research into the treatment of gender non-conforming individuals has found that withholding evidence-based treatments can be psychologically damaging, especially to children and youths who are struggling with their gender identity. Rates of self-injury, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts are much higher among gender dysphoric youth, ironically attributed to stress associated with non-affirming approaches to these very real issues.   

“The Florida memo relies not on science, but on biased opinion pieces and cherry-picked findings to support a predetermined viewpoint and create a narrative that is not only scientifically inaccurate but also dangerous.  

“The American Psychological Association urges both policymakers and psychological practitioners to follow APA’s carefully researched ‘Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People (PDF, 461KB),’ which call for ‘culturally competent, developmentally appropriate, and trans-affirmative psychological practice’ with such individuals, including minors.

------------------

Please note: Psychologists are bound by APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and Practice Guidelines.

Psychologists may want to contemplate the concept of Conscientious Objector status to laws and regulations that conflict with ethical obligations and moral beliefs.

Ethical considerations for psychotherapists participating in Alcoholics Anonymous

Kohen, Casey B.,Conlin, William E.

Practice Innovations, Vol 7(1), Mar 2022, 40-52.

Abstract

Because the demands of professional psychology can be taxing, psychotherapists are not immune to the development of mental health and substance use disorders. One estimate indicates that roughly 30% to 40% of psychologists know of a colleague with a current substance abuse problem (Good et al., 1995). Twelve-step mutual self-help groups, particularly Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), are the most widely used form of treatment for addiction in the United States. AA has empirically demonstrated effectiveness at fostering long-term treatment success and is widely accessible throughout the world. However, psychotherapist participation in AA raises a number of ethical concerns, particularly regarding the potential for extratherapy contact with clients and the development of multiple relationships. This article attempts to review the precarious ethical and practical situations that psychotherapists, either in long-term recovery or newly sober, may find themselves in during AA involvement. Moreover, this article provides suggestions for psychotherapists in AA regarding how to best adhere to both the principles of AA (i.e., the 12 steps and 12 traditions) and the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. 

Here is an excerpt:

Recent literature regarding the use of AA or other mutual self-help groups by psychotherapists is scant, but earlier studies suggest its effectiveness. A 1986 survey of 108 members of Psychologists Helping Psychologists (a seemingly defunct support group exclusively for substance dependent doctoral-level psychologists and students) shows that of the 94% of respondents maintaining abstinence, 86% attended AA (Thoreson et al., 1986). A separate study of 70 psychologists in recovery who were members of AA revealed the majority attained sobriety outside of formal treatment or intervention programs (Skorina et al., 1990). 

Because AA appears to be a vital resource for psychotherapists struggling with substance misuse, it is important to consider how to address ethical dilemmas that one might encounter while participating in AA.

Conclusion

Psychotherapists participating in AA may, at times, find that their professional responsibility of adhering to the APA Code of Ethics hinders some aspects of their categorical involvement in AA as defined by AA’s 12 steps and 12 traditions. The psychotherapist in AA may need to adjust their personal AA “program” in comparison with the typical AA member in a manner that attempts to meet the requirements of the profession yet still provides them with enough support to maintain their professional competence. This article discusses reasonable compromises, specifically tailored to the length of the psychotherapist’s sobriety, that minimize the potential for client harm. Ultimately, if the psychotherapist is unable to find an appropriate middle-ground, where the personal needs of recovery can be met without damaging client welfare and respecting the client’s rights, the psychotherapist should refer the client elsewhere. With these recommendations, psychotherapists should feel more comfortable participating in AA (or other mutual self-help groups) while also adhering to the ethical principles of our profession.

The article is here.

Morality just isn't Republicans' thing anymore

Steve Larkin

The Week

Originally posted 23 APR 22

Here is an excerpt:

There is no understanding the Republican Party without understanding its leader and id, former President Donald Trump. His sins and crimes have been enumerated many times. But for the record, the man is a serial adulterer who brags about committing sexual assault with impunity, responsible for three cameo appearances in Playboy videos, dishonest in his business dealings, and needlessly callow and cruel. And, finally, he claims that he has never asked God for forgiveness for any of this.

Trump's presidency would seem to have vindicated the Southern Baptist Convention's claim that "tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God's judgment." Of course, that was about former President Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Now, tolerating this sort of behavior in a leader is par for the Republican Party course.

And Trump seems to have set a kind of example for other stars of the MAGAverse: Rep. Matt Gaetz is under investigation for paying for sex with an underage girl and sex trafficking; former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, who was forced to resign that post after accusations that he tried to use nude photos to blackmail a woman with whom he had an affair, has not let that stop him from running for the Senate; Rep. Madison Cawthorn has been accused of sexual harassment and other misconduct by women who were his classmates in college.

Democrats, of course, have their own fair share of scandals, criminals, and cads, and they see themselves as being on the moral side, too. But they're not running around championing those "traditional values."

Why do Republicans thrill to Trump and tolerate misbehavior which previous generations — maybe even the very same people, a few decades ago — would have viewed as immediately disqualifying? (A long time ago, Ronald Reagan being divorced and remarried was a serious problem for a small but noticeable group of voters.) Maybe it's because, while Trump is an extreme (and rich) example, in many ways he's not so different from his devotees.

The info is here.

Individual vulnerability to industrial robot adoption increases support for the radical right

Anelli, M., Colantone, I., & Stanig, P. 

(2021). PNAS, 118(47), e2111611118.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111611118

Significance

The success of radical-right parties across western Europe has generated much concern. These parties propose making borders less permeable, oppose ethnic diversity, and often express impatience with the institutions of representative democracy. Part of their recent success has been shown to be driven by structural economic changes, such as globalization, which triggers distributional consequences that, in turn, translate into voting behavior. We ask what are the political consequences of a different structural change: robotization of manufacturing. We propose a measure of individual exposure to automation and show that individuals more vulnerable to negative consequences of automation tend to display more support for the radical right. Automation exposure raises support for the radical left too, but to a significantly lower extent.

Abstract

The increasing success of populist and radical-right parties is one of the most remarkable developments in the politics of advanced democracies. We investigate the impact of industrial robot adoption on individual voting behavior in 13 western European countries between 1999 and 2015. We argue for the importance of the distributional consequences triggered by automation, which generates winners and losers also within a given geographic area. Analysis that exploits only cross-regional variation in the incidence of robot adoption might miss important facets of this process. In fact, patterns in individual indicators of economic distress and political dissatisfaction are masked in regional-level analysis, but can be clearly detected by exploiting individual-level variation. We argue that traditional measures of individual exposure to automation based on the current occupation of respondents are potentially contaminated by the consequences of automation itself, due to direct and indirect occupational displacement. We introduce a measure of individual exposure to automation that combines three elements: 1) estimates of occupational probabilities based on employment patterns prevailing in the preautomation historical labor market, 2) occupation-specific automatability scores, and 3) the pace of robot adoption in a given country and year. We find that individuals more exposed to automation tend to display higher support for the radical right. This result is robust to controlling for several other drivers of radical-right support identified by earlier literature: nativism, status threat, cultural traditionalism, and globalization. We also find evidence of significant interplay between automation and these other drivers.

Conclusion

We study the effects of robot adoption on voting behavior in western Europe. We find that higher exposure to automation increases support for radical-right parties. We argue that an individual-level analysis of vulnerability to automation is required, given the prominent role played by the distributional effects of automation unfolding within geographic areas. We also argue that measures of automation exposure based on an individual’s current occupation, as used in previous studies, are potentially problematic, due to direct and indirect displacement induced by automation. We then propose an approach that combines individual observable features with historical labor-market data. Our paper provides further evidence on the material drivers behind the increasing support for the radical right. At the same time, it takes into account the role of cultural factors and shows evidence of their interplay with automation in explaining the political realignment witnessed by advanced Western democracies.

The research is here.

Historical Fundamentalism? Christian Nationalism and Ignorance About Religion in American Political History

S. L. Perry, R. Braunstein, et al.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 

(2022) 61(1):21–40

Abstract

Religious right leaders often promulgate views of Christianity's historical preeminence, privilege, and persecution in the United States that are factually incorrect, suggesting credulity, ignorance, or perhaps, a form of ideologically motivated ignorance on the part of their audience. This study examines whether Christian nationalism predicts explicit misconceptions regarding religion in American political history and explores theories about the connection. Analyzing nationally representative panel data containing true/false statements about religion's place in America's founding documents, policies, and court decisions, Christian nationalism is the strongest predictor that Americans fail to affirm factually correct answers. This association is stronger among whites compared to black Americans and religiosity actually predicts selecting factually correct answers once we account for Christian nationalism. Analyses of “do not know” response patterns find more confident correct answers from Americans who reject Christian nationalism and more confident incorrect answers from Americans who embrace Christian nationalism. We theorize that, much like conservative Christians have been shown to incorrectly answer science questions that are “religiously contested,” Christian nationalism inclines Americans to affirm factually incorrect views about religion in American political history, likely through their exposure to certain disseminators of such misinformation, but also through their allegiance to a particular political-cultural narrative they wish to privilege.

From the Discussion and Conclusions

Our findings extend our understanding of contemporary culture war conflicts in the United States in several key ways. Our finding that Christian nationalist ideology is not only associated with different political or social values (Hunter 1992; Smith 2000), but belief in explicitly wrong historical claims goes beyond issues of subjective interpretation or mere differences of opinion to underscore the reality that Americans are divided by different information. Large groups of Americans hold incompatible beliefs about issues of fact, with those who ardently reject Christian nationalism more likely to confidently and correctly affirm factual claims and Christian nationalists more likely to confidently and incorrectly affirm misinformation. To be sure, we are unable to disentangle directionality here, which in all likelihood operates both ways. Christian nationalist ideology is made plausible by false or exaggerated claims about the evangelical character of the nation’s founders and founding documents. Yet Christian nationalism, as an ideology, may also foster a form of motivated ignorance or credulity toward a variety of factually incorrect statements, among them being the preeminence and growing persecution of Christianity in the UnitedStates.

Closely related to this last point, our findings extend recent research by further underscoring the powerful influence of Christian nationalism as the ideological source of credulity supporting and spreading far-right misinformation.

A pdf is here.

Generous with individuals and selfish to the masses

Alós-Ferrer, C.; García-Segarra, J.; Ritschel, A.

(2022). Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1):88-96.

Abstract

The seemingly rampant economic selfishness suggested by many recent corporate scandals is at odds with empirical results from behavioural economics, which demonstrate high levels of prosocial behaviour in bilateral interactions and low levels of dishonest behaviour. We design an experimental setting, the ‘Big Robber’ game, where a ‘robber’ can obtain a large personal gain by appropriating the earnings of a large group of ‘victims’. In a large laboratory experiment (N = 640), more than half of all robbers took as much as possible and almost nobody declined to rob. However, the same participants simultaneously displayed standard, predominantly prosocial behaviour in Dictator, Ultimatum and Trust games. Thus, we provide direct empirical evidence showing that individual selfishness in high-impact decisions affecting a large group is compatible with prosociality in bilateral low-stakes interactions. That is, human beings can simultaneously be generous with others and selfish with large groups.

From the Discussion

Our results demonstrate that socially-relevant selfishness in the large is fully compatible with evidence from experimental economics on bilateral, low-stake games at the individual level, without requiring arguments relying on population differences (in fact, we found no statistically significant differences in the behavior of participants with or without an economics background). The same individuals can behave selfishly when interacting with a large group of other people while, at the same time, displaying standard levels of prosocial behavior in commonly-used laboratory tasks where only one other individual is involved. Additionally, however, individual differences in behavior in the Big Robber Game correlate with individual selfishness in the DG/UG/TG, i.e., Extreme Robbers gave less in the DG, offered less in the UG, and transferred less in the TG than Moderate Robbers.

The finding that people behave selfishly toward a large group while being generous toward individuals suggests that harming many individuals might be easier than harming just one, in line with received evidence that people are more willing to help one individual than many. It also reflects the tradeoff between personal gain and other-regarding concerns encompassed in standard models of social preferences, although this particular implication had not been demonstrated so far. When facing a single opponent in a bilateral game, appropriating a given monetary amount can result in a large interpersonal difference. When appropriating income from a large group of people, the same personal gain involves a smaller percentual difference. Correspondingly, creating a given level of inequality with respect to others results in a much larger personal gain when income is taken from a group than when it is taken from just another person, and hence it is much more likely to offset the disutility from inequality aversion in the former case.

A pdf is here.