On bullshit, large language models, and the need to curb your enthusiasm

Tigard, D. W. (2025).

AI And Ethics.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00743-3

Abstract

Amidst all the hype around artificial intelligence (AI), particularly regarding large language models (LLMs), generative AI and chatbots like ChatGPT, a surge of headlines is instilling caution and even explicitly calling “bullshit” on such technologies. Should we follow suit? What exactly does it mean to call bullshit on an AI program? When is doing so a good idea, and when might it not be? With this paper, I aim to provide a brief guide on how to call bullshit on ChatGPT and related systems. In short, one must understand the basic nature of LLMs, how they function and what they produce, and one must recognize bullshit. I appeal to the prominent work of the late Harry Frankfurt and suggest that recent accounts jump too quickly to the conclusion that LLMs are bullshitting. In doing so, I offer a more level-headed approach to calling bullshit, and accordingly, a way of navigating some of the recent critiques of generative AI systems.

Here are some thoughts:

This paper examines the application of Harry Frankfurt's theory of "bullshit" to large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT. It discusses the controversy around labeling AI-generated content as "bullshit," arguing for a more nuanced approach. The author suggests that while LLM outputs might resemble bullshit due to their lack of concern for truth, LLMs themselves don't fit the definition of a "bullshitter" because they lack the intentions and aims that Frankfurt attributes to human bullshitters.

For psychologists, this distinction is important because it asks for a reconsideration of how we interpret and evaluate AI-generated content and its impact on human users. The paper further argues that if AI interactions provide tangible benefits to users without causing harm, then thwarting these interactions may not be necessary. This perspective encourages psychologists to weigh the ethical considerations of AI's influence on individuals, balancing concerns about authenticity and integrity with the potential for AI to enhance human experiences and productivity.

Optimized Informed Consent for Psychotherapy: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Gerke, L. et al. (2022).

JMIR Research Protocols, 11(9), e39843.

https://doi.org/10.2196/39843

Abstract

Background:

Informed consent is a legal and ethical prerequisite for psychotherapy. However, in clinical practice, consistent strategies to obtain informed consent are scarce. Inconsistencies exist regarding the overall validity of informed consent for psychotherapy as well as the disclosure of potential mechanisms and negative effects, the latter posing a moral dilemma between patient autonomy and nonmaleficence.

Objective:

This protocol describes a randomized controlled web-based trial aiming to investigate the efficacy of a one-session optimized informed consent consultation.

Methods:

The optimized informed consent consultation was developed to provide information on the setting, efficacy, mechanisms, and negative effects via expectation management and shared decision-making techniques. A total of 122 participants with an indication for psychotherapy will be recruited. Participants will take part in a baseline assessment, including a structured clinical interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth edition (DSM-5) disorders. Eligible participants will be randomly assigned either to a control group receiving an information brochure about psychotherapy as treatment as usual (n=61) or to an intervention group receiving treatment as usual and the optimized informed consent consultation (n=61). Potential treatment effects will be measured after the treatment via interview and patient self-report and at 2 weeks and 3 months follow-up via web-based questionnaires. Treatment expectation is the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include the capacity to consent, decisional conflict, autonomous treatment motivation, adherence intention, and side-effect expectations.

Results:

This trial received a positive ethics vote by the local ethics committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University-Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany on April 1, 2021, and was prospectively registered on June 17, 2021. The first participant was enrolled in the study on August 5, 2021. We expect to complete data collection in December 2022. After data analysis within the first quarter of 2023, the results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals in summer 2023.

Conclusions:

If effective, the optimized informed consent consultation might not only constitute an innovative clinical tool to meet the ethical and legal obligations of informed consent but also strengthen the contributing factors of psychotherapy outcome, while minimizing nocebo effects and fostering shared decision-making.

Here are some thoughts:

This research study investigated an optimized informed consent process in psychotherapy. Recognizing inconsistencies in standard practices, the study tested an enhanced consultation method designed to improve patients' understanding of treatment, manage their expectations, and promote shared decision-making. By comparing this enhanced approach to standard practice with a cohort of 122 participants, the researchers aimed to demonstrate the benefits of a more comprehensive and collaborative informed consent process in fostering positive treatment expectations and related outcomes. The findings were anticipated to provide evidence for a more effective and ethical approach to initiating psychotherapy.

Avoiding the road to ethical disaster: Overcoming vulnerabilities and developing resilience

Tjeltveit, A. C., & Gottlieb, M. C. (2010).

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, 

Training, 47(1), 98–110.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018843

Abstract

Psychotherapists may, despite their best intentions, find themselves engaging in ethically problematic behaviors that could have been prevented. Drawing on recent research in moral psychology and longstanding community mental health approaches to prevention, we suggest that psychotherapists can reduce the likelihood of committing ethical infractions (and move in the direction of ethical excellence) by attending carefully to 4 general dimensions: the desire to facilitate positive (good) outcomes, the powerful opportunities given to professionals to effect change, personal values, and education. Each dimension can foster enhanced ethical behavior and personal resilience, but each can also contribute to ethical vulnerability. By recognizing and effectively addressing these dimensions, psychotherapists can reduce their vulnerabilities, enhance their resilience, reduce the risk of ethical infractions, and improve the quality of their work.

The article is paywalled, unfortunately.

Here are some thoughts:

The authors argue that psychotherapists, despite their good intentions, can engage in unethical behaviors that could be prevented. Drawing on moral psychology research, they suggest that ethical infractions can be reduced by focusing on four dimensions: the desire to help, the opportunities available to professionals, personal values, and education. Each of these dimensions can enhance ethical behavior and resilience, but also contribute to vulnerability. By addressing these dimensions, psychotherapists can reduce vulnerabilities, enhance resilience, and improve their practice. Traditional ethics education, focused on rules and codes, is insufficient. A broader approach is needed, incorporating contextual, cultural, and emotional factors. Resilience involves skills, personal characteristics, support networks, and their integration. Vulnerability includes general factors like stress, and idiosyncratic factors like personal history. Prevention involves self-awareness, emotional honesty, and addressing vulnerabilities. The DOVE framework (Desire, Opportunities, Values, Education) can help psychotherapists enhance resilience and minimize vulnerabilities, ultimately leading to more ethical and effective practice.

Understanding ethical drift in professional decision making: dilemmas in practice

Bourke, R., Pullen, R., & Mincher, N. (2021).

International Journal of Inclusive Education,

28(8), 1417–1434.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1992679

Abstract

Educational psychologists face challenging decisions around ethical dilemmas to uphold the rights of all children. Due to finite government resources for supporting all learners, one of the roles of educational psychologists is to apply for this funding on behalf of schools and children. Tensions can emerge when unintended ethical dilemmas arise through decisions that compromise their professional judgement. This paper presents the findings from an exploratory study around educational psychologists’ understandings and concerns around ethical dilemmas they faced within New Zealand over the past 5 years. The study set out to explore how educational psychologists manage the ethical conflicts and inner contradictions within their work. The findings suggest that such pressures could influence evidence-based practice in subtle ways when in the course of decision making, practitioners experienced some form of ethical drift. There is seldom one correct solution across similar situations. Although these practitioners experienced discomfort in their actions they rationalised their decisions based on external forces such as organisational demands or funding formulas. This illustrates the relational, contextual, organisational and personal influences on how and when ‘ethical drift’ occurs.

Here are some thoughts:

This article is highly relevant to psychologists as it examines the phenomenon of "ethical drift," where practitioners may gradually deviate from ethical standards due to systemic pressures like limited resources or organizational demands.

Focusing on educational psychologists in New Zealand, the study highlights the tension between upholding children's rights—such as equitable education and inclusion—and navigating restrictive policies or funding constraints. Through real-world scenarios, the authors illustrate how psychologists might rationalize ethically ambiguous decisions, such as omitting assessment data to secure resources or tolerating reduced school hours for students.

The article underscores the importance of self-awareness, advocacy, and reflective practice to counteract ethical drift, ensuring that professional judgments remain aligned with core ethical principles and children's best interests. By addressing these challenges, the study provides valuable insights for psychologists globally, emphasizing the need for systemic support, ongoing dialogue, and ethical vigilance in complex decision-making environments.

Moral judgement and decision-making: theoretical predictions and null results

Hertz, U., Jia, F., & Francis, K. B. (2023).

Scientific Reports, 13(1).

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34899-x

Abstract

The study of moral judgement and decision making examines the way predictions made by moral and ethical theories fare in real world settings. Such investigations are carried out using a variety of approaches and methods, such as experiments, modeling, and observational and field studies, in a variety of populations. The current Collection on moral judgments and decision making includes works that represent this variety, while focusing on some common themes, including group morality and the role of affect in moral judgment. The Collection also includes a significant number of studies that made theoretically driven predictions and failed to find support for them. We highlight the importance of such null-results papers, especially in fields that are traditionally governed by theoretical frameworks.

Here are some thoughts:

The article explores how predictions from moral theories—particularly deontological and utilitarian ethics—hold up in empirical studies. Drawing from a range of experiments involving moral dilemmas, economic games, and cross-cultural analyses, the authors highlight the increasing importance of null results—findings where expected theoretical effects were not observed.

These outcomes challenge assumptions such as the idea that deontologists are inherently more trusted than utilitarians or that moral responsibility diffuses more in group settings. The studies also show how individual traits (e.g., depression, emotional awareness) and cultural or ideological contexts influence moral decisions.

For practicing psychologists, this research underscores the importance of moving beyond theoretical assumptions toward a more evidence-based, context-sensitive understanding of moral reasoning. It emphasizes the relevance of emotional processes in moral evaluation, the impact of group dynamics, and the necessity of accounting for cultural and psychological diversity in decision-making. Additionally, the article advocates for valuing null results as critical to theory refinement and scientific integrity in the study of moral behavior.

Ethical decision making in the 21st century: A useful framework for industrial-organizational psychologists

Banks, G. C., Knapp, D. J., et al. (2022).

Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

15(2), 220–235. doi:10.1017/iop.2021.143

Abstract

Ethical decision making has long been recognized as critical for industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists in the variety of roles they fill in education, research, and practice. Decisions with ethical implications are not always readily apparent and often require consideration of competing concerns. The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct are the principles and standards to which all Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members are held accountable, and these principles serve to aid in decision making. To this end, the primary focus of this article is the presentation and application of an integrative ethical decision-making framework rooted in and inspired by empirical, philosophical, and practical considerations of professional ethics. The purpose of this framework is to provide a generalizable model that can be used to identify, evaluate, resolve, and engage in discourse about topics involving ethical issues. To demonstrate the efficacy of this general framework to contexts germane to I-O psychologists, we subsequently present and apply this framework to five scenarios, each involving an ethical situation relevant to academia, practice, or graduate education in I-O psychology. With this article, we hope to stimulate the refinement of this ethical decision-making model, illustrate its application in our profession, and, most importantly, advance conversations about ethical decision making in I-O psychology.

Here are some thoughts:

Banks and colleagues present a comprehensive and accessible framework designed to help industrial-organizational (I-O) psychologists navigate ethical dilemmas in their diverse roles across academia, research, and applied practice. Recognizing that ethical challenges are not always immediately apparent and often involve conflicting responsibilities, the authors argue for the need for a generalizable and user-friendly decision-making process.

Developed by the SIOP Committee for the Advancement of Professional Ethics (CAPE), the proposed framework is rooted in empirical evidence, philosophical foundations, and practical considerations. It consists of six recursive stages: (1) recognizing the ethical issue, (2) gathering information, (3) identifying stakeholders, (4) identifying alternative actions, (5) comparing those alternatives, and (6) implementing the chosen course of action while monitoring outcomes. The framework emphasizes that ethical decision making is distinct from other types of decision making because it often involves ambiguous standards, conflicting values, and competing stakeholder interests.

To demonstrate how the framework can be applied, the article presents five real-world scenarios: a potential case of self-plagiarism in a coauthored book, a dispute over authorship involving a graduate assistant, an internal consultant pressured to provide coaching without adequate training, a data integrity dilemma in external consulting, and a case of sexual harassment involving a faculty advisor. Each case illustrates the complexity of ethical considerations and how the framework can guide thoughtful action.

The authors emphasize that ethical behavior is not just about adhering to written codes but about developing the cognitive and emotional skills to navigate gray areas effectively. They encourage ongoing refinement of the framework and call on the I-O community to foster greater ethical awareness through practice, dialogue, and education. Ultimately, the article aims to strengthen ethical standards across the profession and support psychologists in making decisions that are not only compliant but also fair, responsible, and contextually informed.

Learning information ethical decision making with a simulation game.

Lin, W., Wang, J., & Yueh, H. (2022).

Frontiers in Psychology, 13.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.933298

Abstract

Taking advantage of the nature of games to deal with conflicting desires through contextual practices, this study illustrated the formal process of designing a situated serious game to facilitate learning of information ethics, a subject that heavily involves decision making, dilemmas, and conflicts between personal, institutional, and social desires. A simulation game with four mission scenarios covering critical issues of privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility was developed as a situated, authentic and autonomous learning environment. The player-learners were 40 college students majoring in information science and computer science as pre-service informaticists. In this study, they played the game and their game experiences and decision-making processes were recorded and analyzed. The results suggested that the participants’ knowledge of information ethics was significantly improved after playing the serious game. From the qualitative analysis of their behavioral features, including paths, time spans, and access to different materials, the results supported that the game designed in this study was helpful in improving participants’ understanding, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of information ethics issues, as well as their judgments. These findings have implications for developing curricula and instructions in information ethics education.

Here are some thoughts:

The article presents a compelling case for the use of simulation-based serious games as a teaching tool for ethical decision-making, specifically in the context of information ethics. The game was designed around four core ethical concerns—privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility—which are frequently encountered in information and technological contexts. These issues closely mirror ethical dilemmas psychologists face, particularly regarding confidentiality, informed consent, data handling, and equitable access to services.

For psychologists, especially those engaged in clinical practice, research, or supervisory roles, the implications are significant. First, the study underscores the importance of situated learning—learning that occurs in context—which aligns with the ethical challenges clinicians often encounter in dynamic, real-world settings. Second, the use of simulation allows for autonomous and reflective learning, reinforcing critical thinking, ethical analysis, and decision-making in morally ambiguous situations. The framework applied in the game—the General Theory of Marketing Ethics (GTME)—can be generalized to support ethical reasoning in any professional field, including psychology, by integrating deontological (duty-based) and teleological (consequence-based) approaches, along with rights-based and virtue-based perspectives.

The study also demonstrated a significant improvement in ethical reasoning after gameplay, indicating that such interactive methods could enhance continuing education efforts or be adapted to ethics training in graduate psychology programs. The inclusion of stakeholder perspectives and the visualization of consequences provided a practical way for learners to grasp how decisions affect others—key to ethical competence in psychology.

Lastly, the findings suggest that relying solely on codes of ethics may be insufficient; immersive, experiential training that helps translate abstract principles into practice is critical. This insight is highly relevant to psychologists aiming to foster ethical climates in organizational settings or who supervise early career professionals.

Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis

Suarez, V. D., Marya, V., et al. (2022).

Behavior analysis in practice, 16(3), 657–671.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00753-1

Abstract

Human service practitioners from varying fields make ethical decisions daily. At some point during their careers, many behavior analysts may face ethical decisions outside the range of their previous education, training, and professional experiences. To help practitioners make better decisions, researchers have published ethical decision-making models; however, it is unknown the extent to which published models recommend similar behaviors. Thus, we systematically reviewed and analyzed ethical decision-making models from published peer-reviewed articles in behavior analysis and related allied health professions. We identified 55 ethical decision-making models across 60 peer-reviewed articles, seven primary professions (e.g., medicine, psychology), and 22 subfields (e.g., dentistry, family medicine). Through consensus-based analysis, we identified nine behaviors commonly recommended across the set of reviewed ethical decision-making models with almost all (n = 52) models arranging the recommended behaviors sequentially and less than half (n = 23) including a problem-solving approach. All nine ethical decision-making steps clustered around the ethical decision-making steps in the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts published by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (2020) suggesting broad professional consensus for the behaviors likely involved in ethical decision making.

Here are some thoughts: 

The article provides a comprehensive review of 55 ethical decision-making models drawn from seven professional disciplines, including psychology, medicine, education, and behavior analysis. The authors aimed to identify common decision-making steps across these models and analyze their applicability to behavior analysts, especially in navigating complex, real-world ethical dilemmas that extend beyond the scope of formal training.

The researchers distilled nine common steps in ethical decision-making, including identifying ethical concerns, considering the impact on stakeholders, referencing both professional and personal ethical codes, gathering context-specific information, analyzing and weighing options, and following up on outcomes. Most models were structured sequentially—suggesting ethical decision making functions as a behavior chain, where each step builds on the previous one. Importantly, less than half of the models explicitly included problem-solving strategies, which involve considering multiple actions and predicting their potential consequences. This highlights a potential area for improvement in existing models.

The study found strong alignment between the steps identified in the literature and those recently incorporated into the Behavior Analyst Certification Board’s (BACB) Ethics Code (2020)—a notable development, as the authors' review was conducted before the release of the BACB's new model. This convergence suggests growing consensus across disciplines on the key components of ethical decision-making and validates the BACB's approach as grounded in decades of interdisciplinary research.

The Illusion of Moral Objectivity: A Learned Framework An Exploration of Morality as a Social Construct

Noah Cottle

Thesis for: Neuropsychology & Philosophy

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.16238.73286

Abstract

This paper explores the argument that morality is not an innate, universal truth but rather a

construct learned through socialization, cultural exposure, and environmental conditioning.

Challenging the notion of objective moral values, it posits that human beings are born without a

fixed moral compass and instead develop their sense of right and wrong through the values and

beliefs taught to them. Drawing on psychological, sociological, and historical perspectives, this

work investigates how moral frameworks differ across cultures and time periods, revealing the

malleability of ethical systems. The paper concludes that morality is a fluid structure—often

mistaken for objective truth—shaped by the narratives and authorities that define it.

A pdf is here.

Here are some thoughts:

The thesis presents a compelling argument that morality is not an innate or universal human truth, but rather a social construct developed through conditioning, cultural immersion, and the influence of authority. Drawing from psychology, sociology, anthropology, and history, the paper contends that humans are born without a fixed moral compass and instead acquire their moral frameworks through a process of environmental shaping. From early childhood, individuals are taught what is "right" or "wrong" through reinforcement, punishment, observation, and repeated narratives. These teachings are often internalized so deeply that they are mistaken for moral intuition or truth. However, what feels instinctively moral is more accurately the product of learned emotional associations and cultural conditioning.

Cottle further demonstrates that moral beliefs vary drastically across cultures and historical periods, undermining the notion of a single objective morality. Practices such as honor killings, child labor, slavery, or same-sex marriage have been alternately viewed as virtuous or immoral depending on the time and place—highlighting morality’s fluidity rather than its universality. This perspective is reinforced by psychological research on moral development, including theories of operant conditioning and moral intuition, which show that moral responses are heavily influenced by emotions, authority figures, and exposure rather than by logic or reason.

Importantly, the paper explores how morality is often shaped and enforced by those in power—religious leaders, governments, and social institutions—which raises critical questions about who defines moral standards and whose interests those standards serve. Morality, in this view, becomes a tool for maintaining social order and control rather than a reflection of universal justice. The text also critiques the binary between moral absolutism and relativism, advocating instead for moral pluralism—a more nuanced stance that recognizes multiple coexisting moral systems, yet still allows for critical reflection, ethical responsibility, and the pursuit of greater justice.

For psychologists, this work is especially relevant. It aligns with longstanding psychological theories about learning, development, and socialization, but pushes further by encouraging professionals to interrogate the origins of moral beliefs in both themselves and their clients. Understanding morality as constructed opens up rich therapeutic possibilities—helping clients disentangle moral distress from inherited values, explore cultural identity, and develop personal ethics grounded in intentionality rather than unexamined tradition. It also challenges psychologists to approach ethical issues with humility and flexibility, fostering cultural competence and critical awareness in their work. Moreover, in a field governed by professional codes of ethics, this perspective encourages ongoing dialogue about how those codes are shaped, whose voices are represented, and how they might evolve to better reflect justice and inclusion.

Ultimately, The Illusion of Moral Objectivity is not a call to abandon morality, but rather an invitation to take it more seriously—to recognize its human origins, question its assumptions, and participate actively in its ongoing construction. For psychologists, this insight reinforces the importance of ethical maturity, cultural sensitivity, and critical self-reflection in both clinical practice and broader social engagement.