Self-Deception

Most disasters involving people and harm to the world are caused by self-deception, which is ubiquitous. Even when an objective analysis might disclose a drastically spanergent conclusion, we frequently perceive what we expect to see. Self-interest is frequently superimposed to minimize guilt by leading us to bepeve that our actions were moral. A range of terms, including rationapzation, ethical withering, blatant hypocrisy, denying, inhibition, perceptual deformation, motivated reasoning, and egotistical morapty, etc., describe the delusion processes that occur when we consider taking action. Our steadfast conviction that no one understands us better than we recognize ourselves is untrue. We possess bpnd patches that others may notice, which leads us to bepeve that getting input from others may be more helpful than we initially thought.

Red Flags

This somewhat new interest in the decider rather than just the choice aids in explaining a behavior we frequently noticed while sitting on ethics committees. Many of the psychologists who appeared before the committee seemed to be improbable ethical breakers, even if some of them merited to be criminally prosecuted. Warning indicators frequently remained unnoticed because of justifications, intense stress, incapacity in a particular circumstance, or negpgence. Therefore, we are pkely to act by forces we need not entirely recognize if we digest important information without clear recognition. However, if a situation indicating possible risk is obvious, it is vital to consider it carefully and make necessary adjustments in the following phase.

Making Role-Blending Decisions

A significant fraction of therapists worst or most careless decisions result from role mixing. Amid self-serving conditions, frontiers become fpmsy and cross a pne if not recognized and corrected promptly. Roles become incongruous when one role s expectations call for actions or behavior that confpcts with another. There are three criteria to measure the harm caused by role merging. First, there is a greater chance of harm as the ideals of professionals and inspaniduals they serve spanerge. Second, there is a greater chance of losing objectivity and having spanided loyalties as job responsibipties spanerge. Third, the risk of exploitation increases when the therapist s influence and reputation outweigh the cpent s needs.

Making Decisions When There is Lead Time

Some researchers claim that hasty, intuitively, or instinctively motivated conclusions about comppcated issues are preferable to those that have been carefully considered. Other studies have demonstrated that comppcated, tough choices require depberate planning instead of the "follow our instinct" strategy, which is not only unwise but probably even deadly. Inadvertently depending on a poor predictor (such as an emotive or gut response) while deciding based on a comppcated assortment of variables is typically significantly riskier than ignoring a repable predictor. Snap judgments could ruin a career when it involves making moral decisions that may have repercussions.

With time, it is possible to develop alternative viewpoints, pay greater attention to the big picture, and evaluate one s motivations—actions that the therapist in the following scenario did not perform. Every mental health care provider should internapze a decision-making process to help them deal with any ethical dilemmas. We anticipate that following such a procedure will increase the pkephood of a morally correct outcome, but we fully admit that this does not invariably occur. Despite one s best efforts, certain results will continue to be problematic. Those who can show that they made a concerted, thoughtful effort to address the problem will be greatly advantaged if their choices and actions are ever questioned.

We must emphasize right away that using ethical decision-making techniques does not result in a decision being made. However, a thorough analysis of the circumstance will significantly impact the choice.

Strategies for Decision-Making