China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Clinicians come second
Published in Stephen Buetow, Rethinking Pain in Person-Centred Health Care, 2020
This state of loss can involve excessive detachment by clinicians from themselves and their work. Such moral disengagement tends to erode their motivation as a key driver of professionalism.35 It can also exacerbate difficulty in processing emotionally challenging elements of pain management36 and lead clinicians to display a distant attitude in interactions with co-workers and patients, for example, by avoiding opportunities for trust and co-operation.37 Negative and inappropriate attitudes toward patients include frustration and cold-hearted cynicism rather than compassion in response to pain reports, while blaming patients for their pain and care-seeking. Augmenting these concerns is the likelihood that clinician depersonalization is pervasive.
Identifying the Risk Factors
Published in Brian Van Brunt, Chris Taylor, Understanding and Treating Incels, 2020
Drivenness and a justification for violent action occur when someone is willing to commit violence for a cause (Deisinger et al., 2014; Meloy et al., 2011; USPS, 2007; ATAP, 2006; Turner & Gelles, 2003). Before committing violence, it is necessary for the individual to achieve a sense of peace and larger justification for their actions (Moghaddam, 2005). As a person moves toward violence, they experience moral disengagement and adherence to the mission where their target is depersonalized and dehumanized (O’Toole, 2002; O’Toole & Bowman, 2011; Van Brunt, 2012, 2015a). They experience a pervasive sense of anger and frustration toward the target and a driving desire for revenge (Pressman, 2009). They see violence as a natural consequence for an unjust enemy (Horgan, 2008; Pressman, 2009).
Clinician self-care
Published in Stephen Buetow, Person-centred Health Care, 2016
Going beyond clinical distance, other avoidant approaches to coping include related, social cognitive mechanisms of moral disengagement and loss of empathy to prevent vicarious trauma. These mechanisms also free up cognitive resources to facilitate purposeful, complex problem-solving, which can be especially important to clinicians operating under time pressure to deliver efficient, objective and effective health care to patients. Clinicians also avoid moral self-sanctions by maintaining intact their self-image as ethical persons.29 Yet, moral disengagement and lack of empathy are ultimately maladaptive. They isolate clinicians and predict their unethical behaviour by permitting clinicians to distance themselves from, or rationalize, past harm and act unethically toward patients who need clinicians to understand and empathize with their illness experience and accompany them through it.
License to Retaliate: Good Deeds as a Moral License for Misdeeds in Reaction to Abusive Supervision
Published in Human Performance, 2022
Lindie H. Liang, Claudie Coulombe, Sarah Skyvington, Douglas J. Brown, D. Lance Ferris, Huiwen Lian
Moral disengagement refers to a set of cognitive mechanisms that may help explain why moral self-regulation can, at times, prove unsuccessful (Bandura, 1999). Such mechanisms have been proposed to deactivate moral self-regulation and affect the way in which individuals cognitively process and frame information pertaining to moral decisions (Bandura, 1999; Moore, Detert, Trevino, Baker, & Mayer, 2012). More specifically, individuals with a propensity to morally disengage may cognitively construe immoral acts as morally acceptable, allowing them to engage in such acts without experiencing feelings of guilt or self-censure (Bandura, 1986, 1999; Newman et al., 2019). By deactivating the moral self-regulatory processes that would otherwise inhibit such acts and influencing cognitive processes, moral disengagement may allow individuals to dissociate from their internal moral standards and feel justified to behave immorally. Consistent with this theory, research has shown that individuals with a propensity to morally disengage are more likely to make unethical decisions (Detert, Trevino, & Sweitzer, 2008) and engage in unethical work behaviors such as organizational deviance (Moore et al., 2012).
Moral Disengagement and School Bullying Perpetration in Middle Childhood: A Short-Term Longitudinal Study in Sweden
Published in Journal of School Violence, 2019
Robert Thornberg, Linda Wänström, Tiziana Pozzoli, Jun Sung Hong
According to the social-cognitive theoretical framework (Bandura, 1999, 2016), moral agency must be understood as being situated and learned through the environment and culture in which people establish their social relationships. Bandura (1999, 2016) introduced the concept of moral disengagement, referring to social and psychological maneuvers by which self-regulated mechanisms can be deactivated and moral self-sanctions can be disengaged, which in turn promotes or facilitates behaviors that harm others without feelings of remorse or guilt. Examples of moral disengagement include using worthy ends or moral purposes to excuse pernicious means (moral justification), diluting personal responsibility because other people are also involved (diffusion of responsibility), disregarding or distorting the negative or harmful consequences of actions, and believing that the victim deserves his or her suffering (blaming the victim).
Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP): A Replication and Extension in Dutch Nonclinical Participants
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2019
Carlo Garofalo, Mirthe G. C. Noteborn, Martin Sellbom, Stefan Bogaerts
The Moral Disengagement Scale (MDS; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996) is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 32 items measuring moral disengagement; that is, the tendency to use psychological mechanisms to justify or not take responsibility for detrimental behavior. In this study, an adapted Dutch translation was used to fit the adult population (Jansen, Sijtsema, Klimstra, & Denissen, 2018). Furthermore, whereas the items in the original version of the MDS can be scored on a 3-point Likert scale, different adaptations have been used, which used different response scales. The Dutch translation employs a 4-point Likert scale, leaving no room for a neutral response, in line with the English version used in previous studies (e.g., Risser & Eckert, 2016). Higher scores on the MDS indicate a higher degree of moral disengagement. Eight different mechanisms of moral disengagement are categorized and together form a total score of moral disengagement, which was used in this study. The MDS has good internal consistency (α > .80; Bandura et al., 1996; Jansen et al., 2018).