Adolescents,Risk Behaviour and Confidentiality: When Would Australian Psychologists Breach Confidentiality to Disclose Information to Parents?

The protection of confidentiality in psychological practice is vital. However, confidentiality is not absolute and psychologists are permitted to breach confidentiality under particular circumstances. Ethical challenges surrounding confidentiality are complex with adolescent clients, as assessments often consider the risk that adolescents pose to themselves in addition to the risk posed to others. The current study documented situations in which Australian psychologists would breach adolescents' confidentiality to disclose information about risk behaviour to parents, with a focus on situations where adolescents posed a risk to themselves as opposed to other people putting adolescents at risk. A total of 264 Australian psychologists were surveyed online. They were each presented with 68 variations of a vignette about a 15‐year‐old boy who was engaged in risk behaviour and were asked whether they would breach confidentiality in each case. The vignettes covered six behavioural domains (smoking, sexual behaviour, drinking, drug use, suicide, stealing) and varied in behaviour intensity, frequency and duration. Consensus was reached about breaching confidentiality in 16% of cases (related to sexual behaviour, drug use, and suicide). Consensus was reached about not breaching confidentiality in 41% of cases (relating to smoking, sexual behaviour, drug use, suicide, and stealing). In the remaining 43% of cases, significant disagreement occurred (relating to all six behavioural domains). The findings suggest a high degree of variation in opinion about confidentiality with adolescents, emphasising the importance of transparent communication and informed consent. The findings also raise questions about how important consistency of psychological practice is across Australia.     

How social network heterogeneity facilitates lexical access and lexical prediction

People learn language from their social environment. As individuals differ in their social networks, they might be exposed to input with different lexical distributions, and these might influence their linguistic representations and lexical choices. In this article we test the relation between linguistic performance and 3 social network properties that should influence input variability, namely, network size, network heterogeneity, and network density. In particular, we examine how these social network properties influence lexical prediction, lexical access, and lexical use. To do so, in Study 1, participants predicted how people of different ages would name pictures, and in Study 2 participants named the pictures themselves. In both studies, we examined how participants’ social network properties related to their performance. In Study 3, we ran simulations on norms we collected to see how age variability in one’s network influences the distribution of different names in the input. In all studies, network age heterogeneity influenced performance leading to better prediction, faster response times for difficult-to-name items, and less entropy in input distribution. These results suggest that individual differences in social network properties can influence linguistic behavior. Specifically, they show that having a more heterogeneous network is associated with better performance. These results also show that the same factors influence lexical prediction and lexical production, suggesting the two might be related.     

Theta synchronizes the activity of medial prefrontal neurons during learning

Memory consolidation is thought to involve the gradual transfer of transient hippocampal-dependent traces to distributed neocortical sites via the rhinal cortices. Recently, medial prefrontal (mPFC) neurons were shown to facilitate this process when their activity becomes synchronized. However, the mechanisms underlying this enhanced synchrony remain unclear. Because the hippocampus projects to the mPFC, we tested whether theta oscillations contribute to synchronize mPFC neurons during learning. Thus, we obtained field (LFP) and unit recordings from multiple mPFC sites during the acquisition of a trace-conditioning task, where a visual conditioned stimulus (CS) predicted reward delivery. In quiet waking, the activity of mPFC neurons was modulated by theta oscillations. During conditioning, CS presentation caused an increase in mPFC theta power that augmented as the CS gained predictive value for reward delivery. This increased theta power coincided with a transient theta phase locking at distributed mPFC sites, an effect that was also manifest in the timing of mPFC unit activity. Overall, these results show that theta oscillations contribute to synchronize neuronal activity at distributed mPFC sites, suggesting that the hippocampus, by generating a stronger theta source during learning, can synchronize mPFC activity, in turn facilitating rhinal transfer of its activity to the neocortex.     

Dreading the pain of others? Altruistic responses to others' pain underestimate dread

A dislike of waiting for pain, aptly termed ‘dread’, is so great that people will increase pain to avoid delaying it. However, despite many accounts of altruistic responses to pain in others, no previous studies have tested whether people take delay into account when attempting to ameliorate others' pain. We examined the impact of delay in 2 experiments where participants (total N = 130) specified the intensity and delay of pain either for themselves or another person. Participants were willing to increase the experimental pain of another participant to avoid delaying it, indicative of dread, though did so to a lesser extent than was the case for their own pain. We observed a similar attenuation in dread when participants chose the timing of a hypothetical painful medical treatment for a close friend or relative, but no such attenuation when participants chose for a more distant acquaintance. A model in which altruism is biased to privilege pain intensity over the dread of pain parsimoniously accounts for these findings. We refer to this underestimation of others' dread as a ‘Dread Empathy Gap’.