Psychologist attitudes towards disclosure and believability of childhood sexual abuse: Can biases affect perception, judgement, and action?

Singh, A., Morrison, B. W., &;Morrison, N. M.

(2023). Child Abuse & Neglect, 146, 106506.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106506 

Abstract

Background

The perception of CSA disclosure belief is critical to long-term outcomes for CSA survivors. Despite disclosures often occurring in clinical settings CSA survivors do not always report a sense of clinician belief in response to their disclosure. Ascertaining the factors that influence clinician belief is essential to improving outcomes.

Objective

This study examined whether language (i.e., word choice to describe abuse) and ongoing relationship status with a perpetrator impact perceptions of CSA belief amongst psychologists.

Methods

This 2 × 2 within subject's study examined relationship effects (ongoing verses estranged) and language effects (consensual verses abusive), embedded in fictitious vignettes, on believability. Seventy-five participants completed demographic surveys, rated and discussed belief in four vignettes, and completed validated scales capturing clinician trauma history and CSA myth endorsement.

Results

A significant main effect for relationship was found with ongoing victim-perpetrator relationships being less believed than depictions of estranged relationships (F(1,3) = 15.57, p = .001, h2 = 0.174). While no main effect for language was found (F(1,3) = 0.06, p = .801, h2 = 0.001) content analysis of the open-ended items revealed 80 % of psychologists reported being influenced by the language manipulations. Correlations revealed male psychologists were less likely to believe disclosures and more likely to endorse CSA myths than females, and psychologists who had engaged in trauma training appeared to have heightened disclosure belief and lower myth endorsement.

Conclusions

While psychologists generally report belief in CSA disclosures they appear to evaluate specific disclosure aspects to inform this level of belief. Issues around social desirability, measure sensitivity, and learning effects are discussed alongside the importance of trauma training for psychologists.

Here are the important points for mental health professionals:

Enhanced Sensitivity to Biases: Psychologists should be aware of their own biases and how they might affect their perceptions of CSA disclosures. This self-reflection can help mitigate the impact of biases on evaluations and decisions.

Trauma-Informed Training: Providing psychologists with comprehensive trauma-informed training can improve their understanding of CSA, its effects, and appropriate responses to disclosures. This training can foster empathy, reduce skepticism, and enhance the believability of disclosures.

Standardized Assessment Procedures: Implementing standardized assessment protocols for CSA allegations can help ensure consistency and reduce the influence of biases on individual psychologists' judgments.

Support for Survivors: Fostering a supportive and validating environment for CSA survivors is crucial to encourage disclosures and facilitate healing. This involves believing survivors, avoiding judgmental attitudes, and providing appropriate resources and support.

Abuse Survivors ‘Disgusted’ by Southern Baptist Court Brief

Bob Smietana

Christianity Today

Originally published 26 OCT 23

Here is an excerpt:

Members of the Executive Committee, including Oklahoma pastor Mike Keahbone, expressed dismay at the brief, saying he and other members of the committee were blindsided by it. Keahbone, a member of a task force implementing abuse reforms in the SBC, said the brief undermined survivors such as Thigpen, Woodson, and Lively, who have supported the reforms.

“We’ve had survivors that have been faithful to give us a chance,” he told Religion News Service in a phone interview. “And we hurt them badly.”

The controversy over the amicus brief is the latest crisis for leaders of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, which has dealt with a revolving door of leaders and rising legal costs in the aftermath of a sexual abuse crisis in recent years.

The denomination passed abuse reforms in 2022 but has been slow to implement them, relying mostly on a volunteer task force charged with convincing the SBC’s 47,000 congregations and a host of state and national entities to put those reforms into practice. Those delays have led survivors to be skeptical that things would actually change.

Earlier this week, ­the Louisville Courier Journal reported that lawyers for the Executive Committee, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary—the denomination’s flagship seminary in Louisville—and Lifeway had filed the amicus brief earlier this year in a case brought by abuse survivor Samantha Killary.

The information is here.

Here is my summary: 

In October 2023, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) filed an amicus curiae brief in the Kentucky Supreme Court arguing that a new law extending the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse claims should not apply retroactively. This filing sparked outrage among abuse survivors and some SBC leaders, who accused the denomination of prioritizing its own legal interests over the needs of victims.

The SBC's brief was filed in response to a lawsuit filed by a woman who was sexually abused as a child by a Louisville police officer. The woman is seeking to sue the city of Louisville and the police department, arguing that they should be held liable for her abuse because they failed to protect her.

The SBC's brief argues that the new statute of limitations should not apply retroactively because it would create a "windfall" for abuse survivors who would not have been able to sue under the previous law. The brief also argues that applying the new law retroactively would be unfair to institutions like the SBC, which could be faced with a flood of lawsuits.

Abuse survivors and some SBC leaders have criticized the brief as being insensitive to the needs of victims. They argue that the SBC is more interested in protecting itself from lawsuits than in ensuring that victims of abuse are able to seek justice.

In a joint statement, three abuse survivors said they were "sickened and saddened to be burned yet again by the actions of the SBC against survivors." They accused the SBC of "proactively choosing to side against a survivor and with an abuser and the institution that enabled his abuse."

Is Applied Ethics Morally Problematic?

Franz, D.J.

J Acad Ethics 20, 359–374 (2022).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09417-1

Abstract

This paper argues that applied ethics can itself be morally problematic. As illustrated by the case of Peter Singer’s criticism of social practice, morally loaded communication by applied ethicists can lead to protests, backlashes, and aggression. By reviewing the psychological literature on self-image, collective identity, and motivated reasoning three categories of morally problematic consequences of ethical criticism by applied ethicists are identified: serious psychological discomfort, moral backfiring, and hostile conflict. The most worrisome is moral backfiring: psychological research suggests that ethical criticism of people’s central moral convictions can reinforce exactly those attitudes. Therefore, applied ethicists unintentionally can contribute to a consolidation of precisely those social circumstances that they condemn to be unethical. Furthermore, I argue that the normative concerns raised in this paper are not dependent on the commitment to one specific paradigm in moral philosophy. Utilitarianism, Aristotelian virtue ethics, and Rawlsian contractarianism all provide sound reasons to take morally problematic consequences of ethical criticism seriously. Only the case of deontological ethics is less clear-cut. Finally, I point out that the issues raised in this paper provide an excellent opportunity for further interdisciplinary collaboration between applied ethics and social sciences. I also propose strategies for communicating ethics effectively.

A pdf is here.

Here is my summary:

First, ethical criticism can cause serious psychological discomfort. People often have strong emotional attachments to their moral convictions, and being told that their beliefs are wrong can be very upsetting. In some cases, ethical criticism can even lead to anxiety, depression, and other mental health problems.

Second, ethical criticism can lead to moral backfiring. This is when people respond to ethical criticism by doubling down on their existing beliefs. Moral backfiring is thought to be caused by a number of factors, including motivated reasoning and the need to maintain a positive self-image.

Third, ethical criticism can lead to hostile conflict. When people feel threatened by ethical criticism, they may become defensive and aggressive. This can lead to heated arguments, social isolation, and even violence.

Franz argues that these negative consequences are not just hypothetical. He points to a number of real-world examples, such as the backlash against Peter Singer's arguments for vegetarianism.

The author concludes by arguing that applied ethicists should be aware of the ethical dimension of their own work. They should be mindful of the potential for their work to cause harm, and they should take steps to mitigate these risks. For example, applied ethicists should be careful to avoid making personal attacks on those who disagree with them. They should also be willing to engage in respectful dialogue with those who have different moral views.

One strike and you’re a lout: Cherished values increase the stringency of moral character attributions

Rottman, J., Foster-Hanson, E., & Bellersen, S.

(2023). Cognition, 239, 105570.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105570 

Abstract

Moral dilemmas are inescapable in daily life, and people must often choose between two desirable character traits, like being a diligent employee or being a devoted parent. These moral dilemmas arise because people hold competing moral values that sometimes conflict. Furthermore, people differ in which values they prioritize, so we do not always approve of how others resolve moral dilemmas. How are we to think of people who sacrifice one of our most cherished moral values for a value that we consider less important? The “Good True Self Hypothesis” predicts that we will reliably project our most strongly held moral values onto others, even after these people lapse. In other words, people who highly value generosity should consistently expect others to be generous, even after they act frugally in a particular instance. However, reasoning from an error-management perspective instead suggests the “Moral Stringency Hypothesis,” which predicts that we should be especially prone to discredit the moral character of people who deviate from our most deeply cherished moral ideals, given the potential costs of affiliating with people who do not reliably adhere to our core moral values. In other words, people who most highly value generosity should be quickest to stop considering others to be generous if they act frugally in a particular instance. Across two studies conducted on Prolific (N = 966), we found consistent evidence that people weight moral lapses more heavily when rating others’ membership in highly cherished moral categories, supporting the Moral Stringency Hypothesis. In Study 2, we examined a possible mechanism underlying this phenomenon. Although perceptions of hypocrisy played a role in moral updating, personal moral values and subsequent judgments of a person’s potential as a good cooperative partner provided the clearest explanation for changes in moral character attributions. Overall, the robust tendency toward moral stringency carries significant practical and theoretical implications.

The research is paywalled here.

My take aways: 

The results showed that participants were more likely to rate the person as having poor moral character when the transgression violated a cherished value. This suggests that when we see someone violate a value that we hold dear, it can lead us to question their entire moral compass.

The authors argue that this finding has important implications for how we think about moral judgment. They suggest that our own values play a significant role in how we judge others' moral character. This is something to keep in mind the next time we're tempted to judge someone harshly.

Here are some additional points that are made in the article:

• The effect of cherished values on moral judgment is stronger for people who are more strongly identified with their values.
• The effect is also stronger for transgressions that are seen as more serious.
• The effect is not limited to personal values. It can also occur for group-based values, such as patriotism or religious beliefs.

Posthumanism’s Revolt Against Responsibility

Nolen Gertz

Commonweal Magazine

Originally published 31 Oct 23

Here is an excerpt:

A major problem with this view—one Kirsch neglects—is that it conflates the destructiveness of particular humans with the destructiveness of humanity in general. Acknowledging that climate change is driven by human activity should not prevent us from identifying precisely which humans and activities are to blame. Plenty of people are concerned about climate change and have altered their behavior by, for example, using public transportation, recycling, or being more conscious about what they buy. Yet this individual behavior change is not sufficient because climate change is driven by the large-scale behavior of corporations and governments.

In other words, it is somewhat misleading to say we have entered the “Anthropocene” because anthropos is not as a whole to blame for climate change. Rather, in order to place the blame where it truly belongs, it would be more appropriate—as Jason W. Moore, Donna J. Haraway, and others have argued—to say we have entered the “Capitalocene.” Blaming humanity in general for climate change excuses those particular individuals and groups actually responsible. To put it another way, to see everyone as responsible is to see no one as responsible. Anthropocene antihumanism is thus a public-relations victory for the corporations and governments destroying the planet. They can maintain business as usual on the pretense that human nature itself is to blame for climate change and that there is little or nothing corporations or governments can or should do to stop it, since, after all, they’re only human.

Kirsch does not address these straightforward criticisms of Anthropocene antihumanism. This throws into doubt his claim that he is cataloguing their views to judge whether they are convincing and to explore their likely impact. Kirsch does briefly bring up the activist Greta Thunberg as a potential opponent of the nihilistic antihumanists, but he doesn’t consider her challenge in depth. 

The info is here.

Here is my summary:

Anthropocene antihumanism is a pessimistic view that sees humanity as a destructive force on the planet. It argues that humans have caused climate change, mass extinctions, and other environmental problems, and that we are ultimately incapable of living in harmony with nature. Some Anthropocene antihumanists believe that humanity should go extinct, while others believe that we should radically change our way of life in order to avoid destroying ourselves and the planet.

Some bullets

• Posthumanism is a broad philosophical movement that challenges the traditional view of what it means to be human.
• Anthropocene antihumanism and transhumanism are two strands of posthumanism that share a common theme of revolt against responsibility.
• Anthropocene antihumanists believe that humanity is so destructive that it is beyond redemption, and that we should therefore either go extinct or give up our responsibility to manage the planet.
• Transhumanists believe that we can transcend our human limitations and create a new, posthuman species that is not bound by the same moral and ethical constraints as humans.
• Kirsch argues that this revolt against responsibility is a dangerous trend, and that we should instead work to create a more sustainable and just future for all.

Doesn't everybody jaywalk? On codified rules that are seldom followed and selectively punished

Wylie, J., & Gantman, A. (2023).

Cognition, 231, 105323.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105323

‌

Abstract

Rules are meant to apply equally to all within their jurisdiction. However, some rules are frequently broken without consequence for most. These rules are only occasionally enforced, often at the discretion of a third-party observer. We propose that these rules—whose violations are frequent, and enforcement is rare—constitute a unique subclass of explicitly codified rules, which we call ‘phantom rules’ (e.g., proscribing jaywalking). Their apparent punishability is ambiguous and particularly susceptible to third-party motives. Across six experiments, (N = 1440) we validated the existence of phantom rules and found evidence for their motivated enforcement. First, people played a modified Dictator Game with a novel frequently broken and rarely enforced rule (i.e., a phantom rule). People enforced this rule more often when the “dictator” was selfish (vs. fair) even though the rule only proscribed fractional offers (not selfishness). Then we turned to third person judgments of the U.S. legal system. We found these violations are recognizable to participants as both illegal and commonplace (Experiment 2), differentiable from violations of prototypical laws (Experiments 3) and enforced in a motivated way (Experiments 4a and 4b). Phantom rule violations (but not prototypical legal violations) are seen as more justifiably punished when the rule violator has also violated a social norm (vs. rule violation alone)—unless the motivation to punish has been satiated (Experiment 5). Phantom rules are frequently broken, codified rules. Consequently, their apparent punishability is ambiguous, and their enforcement is particularly susceptible to third party motives.

An earlier version of the research is here.

Here's my quick summary: 

This research explores the concept of "phantom rules". Phantom rules are rules that are frequently broken without consequence for most, and are only occasionally enforced, often at the discretion of a third-party observer. Examples of phantom rules include jaywalking, speeding, and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.

The authors argue that phantom rules are a unique subclass of explicitly codified rules, and that they have a number of important implications for our understanding of law and society. For example, phantom rules can lead to people feeling like the law is unfair and that they are being targeted. They can also create a sense of lawlessness and disorder.

The authors conducted six experiments to investigate the psychological and social dynamics of phantom rules. They found evidence that people are more likely to punish violations of phantom rules when the violator has also violated a social norm. They also found that people are more likely to justify the selective enforcement of phantom rules when they believe that the violator is a deserving target.

The authors conclude by arguing that phantom rules are a significant social phenomenon with a number of important implications for law and society. They call for more research on the psychological and social dynamics of phantom rules, and on the impact of phantom rules on people's perceptions of the law and the criminal justice system.

People believe misinformation is a threat because they assume others are gullible

Altay, S., & Acerbi, A. (2023).

New Media & Society, 0(0).

https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231153379

Abstract

Alarmist narratives about the flow of misinformation and its negative consequences have gained traction in recent years. If these fears are to some extent warranted, the scientific literature suggests that many of them are exaggerated. Why are people so worried about misinformation? In two pre-registered surveys conducted in the United Kingdom (Nstudy_1 = 300, Nstudy_2 = 300) and replicated in the United States (Nstudy_1 = 302, Nstudy_2 = 299), we investigated the psychological factors associated with perceived danger of misinformation and how it contributes to the popularity of alarmist narratives on misinformation. We find that the strongest, and most reliable, predictor of perceived danger of misinformation is the third-person effect (i.e. the perception that others are more vulnerable to misinformation than the self) and, in particular, the belief that “distant” others (as opposed to family and friends) are vulnerable to misinformation. The belief that societal problems have simple solutions and clear causes was consistently, but weakly, associated with perceived danger of online misinformation. Other factors, like negative attitudes toward new technologies and higher sensitivity to threats, were inconsistently, and weakly, associated with perceived danger of online misinformation. Finally, we found that participants who report being more worried about misinformation are more willing to like and share alarmist narratives on misinformation. Our findings suggest that fears about misinformation tap into our tendency to view other people as gullible.

My thoughts:

The authors conducted a study in the United Kingdom. They found that people who believed that others were more gullible than themselves were also more likely to perceive misinformation as a threat. This relationship was independent of other factors such as people's political beliefs, media consumption habits, and trust in institutions.

The authors argue that this finding suggests that people's concerns about misinformation may be rooted in their own biases about the intelligence and critical thinking skills of others. They also suggest that this bias may make people more likely to share and spread misinformation themselves.

The authors conclude by calling for more research on the role of bias in people's perceptions of misinformation. They also suggest that interventions to reduce misinformation should address people's biases about the gullibility of others.

One implication of this research is that people who are concerned about misinformation should be mindful of their own biases. It is important to remember that everyone is vulnerable to misinformation, regardless of their intelligence or education level. We should all be critical of the information we encounter online and be careful about sharing things that we are not sure are true.

Which Humans?

Atari, M., Xue, M. J.et al.

(2023, September 22).

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5b26t

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have recently made vast advances in both generating and analyzing textual data. Technical reports often compare LLMs’ outputs with “human” performance on various tests. Here, we ask, “Which humans?” Much of the existing literature largely ignores the fact that humans are a cultural species with substantial psychological diversity around the globe that is not fully captured by the textual data on which current LLMs have been trained. We show that LLMs’ responses to psychological measures are an outlier compared with large-scale cross-cultural data, and that their performance on cognitive psychological tasks most resembles that of people from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies but declines rapidly as we move away from these populations (r = -.70). Ignoring cross-cultural diversity in both human and machine psychology raises numerous scientific and ethical issues. We close by discussing ways to mitigate the WEIRD bias in future generations of generative language models.

My summary:

The authors argue that much of the existing literature on LLMs largely ignores the fact that humans are a cultural species with substantial psychological diversity around the globe. This diversity is not fully captured by the textual data on which current LLMs have been trained.

For example, LLMs are often evaluated on their ability to complete tasks such as answering trivia questions, generating creative text formats, and translating languages. However, these tasks are all biased towards the cultural context of the data on which the LLMs were trained. This means that LLMs may perform well on these tasks for people from certain cultures, but poorly for people from other cultures.

Atari and his co-authors argue that it is important to be aware of this bias when interpreting the results of LLM evaluations. They also call for more research on the performance of LLMs across different cultures and demographics.

One specific example they give is the use of LLMs to generate creative text formats, such as poems and code. They argue that LLMs that are trained on a dataset of text from English-speaking countries are likely to generate creative text that is more culturally relevant to those countries. This could lead to bias and discrimination against people from other cultures.

Atari and his co-authors conclude by calling for more research on the following questions:

• How do LLMs perform on different tasks across different cultures and demographics?
• How can we develop LLMs that are less biased towards the cultural context of their training data?
• How can we ensure that LLMs are used in a way that is fair and equitable for all people?

The Mental Health Crisis Among Doctors Is a Problem for Patients

Keren Landman

vox.com

Originally posted 25 OCT 23

Here is an excerpt:

What’s causing such high levels of mental distress among doctors?

Physicians have high rates of mental distress — and they’re only getting higher. One 2023 survey found six out of 10 doctors often had feelings of burnout, compared to four out of 10 pre-pandemic. In a separate 2023 study, nearly a quarter of doctors said they were depressed.

Physicians die by suicide at rates higher than the general population, with women’s risk twice as high as men’s. In a 2022 survey, one in 10 doctors said they’d thought about or attempted suicide.

Not all doctors are at equal risk: Primary care providers — like emergency medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics practitioners — are most likely to say they’re burned out, and female physicians experience burnout at higher rates than male physicians.

(It’s worth noting that other health care professionals — perhaps most prominently nurses — also face high levels of mental distress. But because nurses are more frequently unionized than doctors and because their professional culture isn’t the same as doctor culture, the causes and solutions are also somewhat different.)

The info is here.

Here is my summary:

The article discusses the mental health crisis among doctors and its implications for patients. It notes that doctors are at a higher risk of suicide than any other profession, and that they also experience high rates of burnout and depression.

The mental health crisis among doctors is a problem for patients because it can lead to impaired judgment, medical errors, and reduced quality of care. Additionally, the stigma associated with mental illness can prevent doctors from seeking the help they need, which can further exacerbate the problem.

The article concludes by calling for more attention to the mental health of doctors and for more resources to be made available to help them.

I treat a number of physicians in my practice.