A Qualitative Analysis of Power Differentials in Ethical Situations in Academia

Power and organizational hierarchies are ubiquitous to social institutions that form the foundation of modern society. Power differentials may act to constrain or enhance people’s ability to make good ethical decisions. However, little scholarly work has examined perceptions of this important topic. The present effort seeks to address this issue by interviewing academics about hypothetical ethical problems that involve power differences among those involved. Academics discussed what they would do in these scenarios, often drawing on their own experiences. Using a think-aloud protocol, participants were prompted to discuss their reasoning and thinking behind their ethical decisions. These interview data were content analyzed using a semantic analysis program that identified a number of distinct ways that academics think about power differences and abuses in ethical situations. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

From achievement to power: David C. McClelland,McBer & Company,and the business of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), 1962–1985

During the 1960s, Harvard psychologist David McClelland focused his research and business endeavors on increasing the need for achievement in small businesspeople, with the goal of fostering economic success in the developing world. However, by the early 1970s, McClelland would focus almost entirely on developing executives’ need for power in the United States. In this paper, I argue that underlying this shift was McClelland's dedication to the project of behavioral engineering and a newfound belief that training individuals in the responsible exercise of leadership and managerial power had become the most effective path to achieving his liberal political aims.     

Resiliency,Self-Regulation,and Reemployment After Job Loss

This study investigated self-regulation and resiliency in one's search for reemployment. Although trait-based approaches are central to many resiliency conceptualizations, recent research has found that self-regulation (affective, behavioral, and cognitive) contributes to predicting resiliency-related outcomes. We hypothesized that self-regulation would incrementally predict reemployment process outcomes, specifically the job search outcomes of psychological well-being, job search self-efficacy, and job search clarity. Results indicated that, over and above resiliency traits, behavioral and cognitive self-regulation incrementally predicted well-being and job search clarity, and cognitive self-regulation incrementally predicted job search self-efficacy. Implications for theory and continued research on resiliency in reemployment are discussed.     

Moral Foundations Theory and Its Implications for Counseling

Moral foundations theory has recently emerged from the field of social psychology as a means for understanding cultural, political, and religious differences between individuals and groups. The authors review the moral foundations theory literature to help counselors in understanding the roots of their clients' and their own moral belief systems and how these systems contribute to decision-making pertaining to morally laden topics. Lastly, the authors present a model for self-awareness around moral issues along with a fictional case study intended to illustrate the use of the model.     

Technological Advances and the Future of Suicide Prevention: Ethical,Legal, and Empirical Challenges

Technological advancements have brought multiple and diverse benefits to our human existence. In suicide prevention, new technologies have spurred great interest in and reports of the applicability to assessing, monitoring, and intervening in various community and clinical populations. We argue in this article that we need to better understand the complexities of implementation of technological advances; especially the accuracy, effectiveness, safety, ethical, and legal issues, even as implementation occurs at individual, clinical, and population levels, in order to achieve that measure of public health impact we all desire (i.e., greater benefit than harm).