The Goldwater Rule: Perspectives From, and Implications for, Psychological Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
scott lilienfeld ◽  
Josh Miller ◽  
Donald Lynam
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Psychiatric Status ◽  
Public Figures ◽  
Duty To Inform

When, if ever, should psychological scientists be permitted to offer professional opinions concerning the mental health of public figures they have never directly examined? This contentious question, which attracted widespread public attention during the 1964 U.S. presidential election involving Barry Goldwater, received renewed scrutiny during and after the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when many mental health professionals raised pointed questions concerning the psychiatric status of Donald Trump. Although the Goldwater Rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering diagnostic opinions on individuals they have never examined, no comparable rule exists for psychologists. We contend that, owing largely to the Goldwater Rule’s origins in psychiatry, a substantial body of psychological research on assessment and clinical judgment, including work on the questionable validity of unstructured interviews, the psychology of cognitive biases, and the validity of informant reports and of L (lifetime) data, has been overlooked in discussions of its merits. We conclude that although the Goldwater Rule may have been defensible several decades ago, it is outdated and premised on dubious scientific assumptions. We further contend that there are select cases in which psychological scientists with suitable expertise may harbor a “duty to inform,” allowing them to offer informed opinions concerning public figures’ mental health with appropriate caveats.

The Goldwater Rule: Perspectives From, and Implications for, Psychological Science

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott O. Lilienfeld ◽  
Joshua D. Miller ◽  
Donald R. Lynam
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Psychiatric Status ◽  
Public Figures ◽  
Duty To Inform

When, if ever, should psychological scientists be permitted to offer professional opinions concerning the mental health of public figures they have never directly examined? This contentious question, which attracted widespread public attention during the 1964 U.S. presidential election involving Barry Goldwater, received renewed scrutiny during and after the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when many mental health professionals raised pointed questions concerning the psychiatric status of Donald Trump. Although the Goldwater Rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering diagnostic opinions on individuals they have never examined, no comparable rule exists for psychologists. We contend that, owing largely to the Goldwater Rule’s origins in psychiatry, a substantial body of psychological research on assessment and clinical judgment, including work on the questionable validity of unstructured interviews, the psychology of cognitive biases, and the validity of informant reports and of L (lifetime) data, has been overlooked in discussions of its merits. We conclude that although the Goldwater Rule may have been defensible several decades ago, it is outdated and premised on dubious scientific assumptions. We further contend that there are select cases in which psychological scientists with suitable expertise may harbor a “duty to inform,” allowing them to offer informed opinions concerning public figures’ mental health with appropriate caveats.

History of Sexual Orientation and Mental Health

2020 ◽  
pp. 9-24
Author(s):  
Kristin A. Hancock ◽  
Douglas C. Haldeman
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Movements ◽  
International Policy ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Aids Epidemic ◽  
History Of ◽  
And Bisexual ◽  
The Impact

Psychology’s understanding of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people has evolved, become more refined, and impacted the lives of LGB people in profound ways. This chapter traces the history of LGB psychology from the nineteenth century to the present and focuses on major events and the intersections of theory, psychological science, politics, and activism in the history of this field. It explores various facets of cultural and psychological history that include the pathologizing of homosexuality, the rise of psychological science and the political movements in the mid-twentieth century, and the major shifts in policy that ensued. The toll of the AIDS epidemic on the field is discussed as is the impact of psychological research on national and international policy and legislation.

scholarly journals It is ethical to diagnose a public figure one has not personally examined

2018 ◽  
Vol 213 (5) ◽  
pp. 633-637 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Gartner ◽  
Alex Langford ◽  
Aileen O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Social Media ◽  
British Journal ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Public Figure ◽  
Duty To Warn ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Figures ◽  
The Press

SummaryShould psychiatrists be able to speculate in the press or social media about their theories? John Gartner argues the risk to warn the public of concerns about public figures overrides the duty of confidentiality; whereas Alex Langford suggests this is beyond the ethical remit of psychiatric practice.Declaration of interestA.O'B is joint debates and analysis Editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry. J.G. is the founder of Duty To Warn, an association of mental health professionals who advocate the president's removal under the 25th Amendment on the grounds that he is psychologically unfit and dangerous.

Improving Clinical Judgment and Decision Making in Forensic Evalution

1993 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy Borum ◽  
Randy Otto ◽  
Stephen Golding
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Judgment And Decision Making ◽  
Forensic Evaluations ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Clinical Evaluations ◽  
Almost All

Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are frequently involved as expert witnesses in legal proceedings. However, clinical judgment and decision making, which play a role in almost all clinical evaluations, have problems and limitations. Mental health professionals who conduct forensic examinations should be aware of these problems and take steps to address them. This article details the limitations of clinical judgment and decision making, and suggests ways to minimize associated problems, thereby improving the validity and utility of forensic evaluations.

Clinical Judgment and the Influence of Screening on Decision Making

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard N. Garb
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Broad Array ◽  
Clinically Depressed

How do clinicians arrive at diagnostic decisions? In most cases the decision is not made following formal criteria, but by intuition. In addition, routine interviews are often narrow and the feedback gleaned from patients is inadequate. Yet it is not clear if screening helps or hinders clinical judgment. It might be that only clinicians who have low confidence and interviewing and diagnostic skills are open to the use of and actually helped by diagnostic tools. To provide a theoretical framework for understanding why it is difficult for physicians to detect depression in primary care settings, a broad array of research in the mental health fields can be described. For example, more than 1,000 studies have been conducted on clinical judgment in the area of mental health practice, and the results from these studies can be used to illuminate the challenges physicians face in judging whether a patient is clinically depressed and can benefit from treatment. In this chapter, results on clinical judgment will be described. A second topic will also be briefly discussed. Results from research on clinical judgment would seem to indicate that screening should be of value. Yet, as noted in Chapter 7, stand-alone screening programs have added little or nothing to outcomes. Reasons for this unexpected result will be explored. Three topics will be discussed: (1) narrowness of interviews, (2) nature of patient feedback, and (3) the cognitive processes of clinicians. Depression goes undetected because in many cases physicians do not ask patients if they have symptoms of a depressive mood disorder.3 To place this in context, it can be noted that mental health professionals also often do not ask patients about important symptoms and behaviors. Failure to inquire about depression in primary care settings can be viewed in the broader context of failure to inquire about important symptoms and events in mental health settings. Research on clinical judgment has demonstrated that lack of comprehensiveness is often a problem for interviews made in clinical practice. For example, in one study,4 mental health professionals saw patients in routine clinical practice, and afterwards research investigators conducted semi-structured interviews with the patients. Remarkably, the mental health professionals had evaluated only about 50% of the symptoms that were recorded using the semi-structured interviews.

Multidimensional Scaling Used to Evaluate Students Residing in a Rehabilitation Unit

1971 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 879-886 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leroy A. Stone ◽  
Gary J. Coles ◽  
E. Robert Sinnett ◽  
Gail L. Sherman
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Similarity Analysis ◽  
Rehabilitation Unit ◽  
Content Model ◽  
Common Frame Of Reference

The Stone-Coles revision of Ekman's “content” model of multidimensional similarity analysis was applied to judgments of person similarity made by four mental health professionals. The person-stimuli evaluated were college student clients (disturbed Ss) and volunteers (normal Ss). Two students in the latter category also served as judges. All judges appeared to share a common frame of reference, as only one factor emerged from a factor analysis of interjudge correlations. The factor analysis of a matrix of correlational similarities calculated from a matrix of mean similarities yielded four factors. These factors were first interpreted using clinical judgment and subsequently these interpretations were checked by correlations with MMPI variables. The first three factors were labeled: I. Action-oriented vs Overcontrolled, II. Sex, and III. Severity of Disturbance. A small fourth factor was uninterpretable.

Clinical Judgment of Rigidity by Mental Health Professionals

1969 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 915-922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne R. Bartz
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Laboratory Research ◽  
Clinical Judgments ◽  
Case Histories ◽  
Clinical Concept

20 volunteers from each of the 3 major mental health professions made clinical judgments of the presence or absence of “rigidity” in 16 case histories. The histories contained all possible combinations of 4 literature-identified aspects of rigidity. The results indicate that rigidity is considered present when an individual shows 2 or more of the following: failure to adapt to changing situations, involuntary repetition of responses, emotional-intellectual suppression. If he experiences stress, anxiety, or insecurity, rigidity is contra-indicated. Considering the differences between such clinical views of rigidity and those incorporated in most laboratory research, it is suggested that attempts be made to demonstrate predictive validity of the clinical concept.

scholarly journals Recognizing Context-Aware Human Sociability Patterns Using Pervasive Monitoring for Supporting Mental Health Professionals

Sensors ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Ivan Rodrigues de Moura ◽  
Ariel Soares Teles ◽  
Markus Endler ◽  
Luciano Reis Coutinho ◽  
Francisco José da Silva e Silva
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Pattern Mining ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Social Behaviors ◽  
Mental States ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Frequent Pattern ◽  
Abnormal Behavior ◽  
Context Aware

Traditionally, mental health specialists monitor their patients’ social behavior by applying subjective self-report questionnaires in face-to-face meetings. Usually, the application of the self-report questionnaire is limited by cognitive biases (e.g., memory bias and social desirability). As an alternative, we present a solution to detect context-aware sociability patterns and behavioral changes based on social situations inferred from ubiquitous device data. This solution does not focus on the diagnosis of mental states, but works on identifying situations of interest to specialized professionals. The proposed solution consists of an algorithm based on frequent pattern mining and complex event processing to detect periods of the day in which the individual usually socializes. Social routine recognition is performed under different context conditions to differentiate abnormal social behaviors from the variation of usual social habits. The proposed solution also can detect abnormal behavior and routine changes. This solution uses fuzzy logic to model the knowledge of the mental health specialist necessary to identify the occurrence of behavioral change. Evaluation results show that the prediction performance of the identified context-aware sociability patterns has strong positive relation (Pearson’s correlation coefficient >70%) with individuals’ social routine. Finally, the evaluation conducted recognized that the proposed solution leading to the identification of abnormal social behaviors and social routine changes consistently.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document