PSYC FPX 3520 Assessment 3 Thinking, Feeling, and Believing

Student Name

Capella University

PSYC FPX 3520 Introduction to Social Psychology

Prof. Name

Date

Self-Regulation Case Study

Case Study 3: Dr. Frank – Practicing Psychology

Thinking, Feeling, and Believing: A Case Study

This case study revolves around Frank, a psychologist who engages in deceitful practices with his patient, Eduardo, while manipulating symptoms to suit his narrative. Frank’s actions not only jeopardize Eduardo’s well-being but also raise ethical concerns regarding his professional conduct.

Confirmation Bias in Psychological Practice

The social psychology concept prevalent in this case study is confirmation bias, wherein individuals selectively attend to information that aligns with their preconceived beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence (Baumeister & Bushman, 2020). Frank’s confirmation bias manifests in his tendency to accentuate symptoms indicative of depression in Eduardo, while neglecting signs pointing towards Dependent Personality Disorder.

Research Support

Two studies support the existence of confirmation bias in decision-making processes. Rajsic, Wilson, and Pratt (2015) conducted experiments demonstrating confirmation bias in visual search tasks, where participants exhibited a tendency to prioritize information consistent with their expectations. Similarly, Kappes et al. (2019) investigated confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinions, highlighting individuals’ propensity to discount information conflicting with their existing beliefs.

Application of Confirmation Bias

Frank’s confirmation bias is evident as he selectively acknowledges Eduardo’s symptoms aligning with major depression while dismissing indications of Dependent Personality Disorder. This bias leads to distorted perceptions and false conclusions, posing significant risks to Eduardo’s mental health.

Ethical Reasoning Application

Frank’s rationalizations serve as a shield for his unethical behavior, allowing him to justify deceitful practices under the guise of future success as a psychologist. However, such rationalizations obscure the moral implications of his actions, undermining professional integrity (Mulder & van Dijk, 2020).

Critical Thinking Application

Frank’s failure to gather comprehensive information impedes his critical thinking abilities. By selectively filtering data and neglecting to consider the broader context, Frank undermines the accuracy and relevance of his assessments (Paul & Elder, 2012).

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2020). Social psychology and human nature (5th ed.). Cengage Limited.

Kappes, A., Harvey, A. H., Lohrenz, T., Montague, P. R., & Sharot, T. (2019). Confirmation bias in the utilization of others’ opinion strength. Nature News. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-019-0549-2

PSYC FPX 3520 Assessment 3 Thinking, Feeling, and Believing

Mulder, L. B., & van Dijk, E. (2020). Moral rationalization contributes more strongly to escalation of unethical behavior among low moral identifiers than among high moral identifiers. Frontiers in Psychology. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6960263/

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking: Intellectual standards essential to reasoning well within every domain of human thought, part Two. Journal of Developmental Education. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1067269

Rajsic, J., Wilson, D. E., & Pratt, J. (2015). Confirmation bias in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26098120/

PSYC FPX 3520 Assessment 3 Thinking, Feeling, and Believing