Psychology - With enough time/money, can psychologists "make" an exceptionally moral/ethical person?

[MathHelp]

EDIT: MODERATORS, PLEASE MOVE TO PSYCHOLOGY FORUM

Hi team,

I am just wondering if psychologists have investigated methods for developing a person's ability to be "good". In this case I mean to have a particular mindset of wanting to do the right/ethical thing.

I am specifically thinking in the context of policing. If you were trying to create police officers who were model officers for the rest of the world law enforcement (i.e. less inclined towards corruption, abuse etc etc than police) is there some sort of training that could be or has already developed?

Just to clarify, I am not asking about the recruitment process where steps could be taken to weed out bad apples. I am interested to know if it is possible to develop someone's mindset after they get to the training academy. 

Edited December 25, 2022 by MathHelp
Request to move topic to psychology forum

[mistermack]

The evidence that I see is that indoctrination is very effective, but you have to start young. Parents and teachers are very effective at moulding children, but it gets much more difficult as they get older. And kids get most of their 'moulding' from other kids anyway.

You only have to look at the high rate of re-offending for prison inmates. They get talked at, in an attempt to get them to change their ways, but there's no good evidence that psychologists or psychiatrists have any statistical positive effect. They take all of the credit, and none of the blame.

The very fact of getting caught, and experiencing prison life, will deter some offenders. But others just learn from other inmates how not to get caught, how not to incriminate yourself if you do get caught, and which crimes are most profitable for least risk. 

[iNow]

6 hours ago, MathHelp said:

to have a particular mindset of wanting to do the right/ethical thing.

Who defines right/ethical, and how is it measured? Is there a scoring system?

6 hours ago, MathHelp said:

is there some sort of training that could be or has already developed?

No, because training ensures awareness, not compliance nor adherence. 

[Genady]

No. They can only affect a mindset, but they cannot "make" a specific mindset as there are other factors affecting it.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, MathHelp said:

I am specifically thinking in the context of policing. If you were trying to create police officers who were model officers for the rest of the world law enforcement (i.e. less inclined towards corruption, abuse etc etc than police) is there some sort of training that could be or has already developed?

I find this a bit offensive, focusing on the concept of the police when you have a way to develop a more ethical population overall. Shouldn't you use this in the schools first, and not just the police academies? You could also focus on removing the need to commit crime, since many are faced with the "moral" dilemma of stealing to feed families. 

I've often thought we should test children before school age by putting them in situations where we can formally observe their behavior, and continue it as part of school. We trust new parents with those formative first years, but maybe they should have a LOT more help from the state. It seems like we should be able to spot destructive behavior earlier so we can address it specifically. Set up scenarios to test a child in various ways and hopefully spot strengths and weaknesses.

The big problem with this is there are still too many people who raise ruthless bullies on purpose, thinking this is how it's supposed to be. Come up with a standard for morality and ethics that doesn't involve conflicts with the extremist attitudes and double standards prevalent in our society today, and there may be a way for psychology to be helpful with this.

[MathHelp]

Quote

I find this a bit offensive, focusing on the concept of the police when you have a way to develop a more ethical population overall. 

I don't think this is a healthy way to look at things. 

1. Peoples interests are exactly that - their interests. I am assuming you have interest/s hobbies as well (swimming/hunting/reading/talking/walking etc etc). Life wouldn't function well if it is offensive to take an interest in anything outside the ultimate good.

I think this comes down to practical reasoning versus theoretical reasoning.  

2. No doubt you would offend someone else by your focus on wanting to develop a more ethical population versus wanting to cure diseases. Discussions about the correct focus could last for a long time and in the meantime nothing would get done as no-one would want to choose to focus on the offensive option. Once again, it comes down to practical reasoning versus theoretical reasoning.

3. If I am in charge of developing a new training curriculum for officers (I am not), I would argue that the most ethical thing I could do would be to spend the time creating the best ethical curriculum possible. In this case the time would be allocated for law enforcement purposes, and I am not free to use the time to create a training curriculum for the entire world. I would also lack the resources.

4. If I am writing a book about a futuristic planet where the main character is a member of a law enforcement agency, I need content that can be used to remind the reader that "things are different". There is no value in an improved ethical population if the plotline is supposed to go in the opposite direction.  

 

Quote

I've often thought we should test children before school age by putting them in situations where we can formally observe their behavior, and continue it as part of school.

I was hoping to avoid this as it goes more towards identifying issues early/before recruitment. While this is certainly something that is important and I am sure would create a more ethical people, I was specifically interested in a situation where the psychologist does not have control over who is in the training course. Presumably someone else (perhaps even other psychologists) has done their absolute best to get the best candidates. From there, I was interested in whether further training was possible regarding mindsets.

Quote

The evidence that I see is that indoctrination is very effective, but you have to start young. Parents and teachers are very effective at moulding children, but it gets much more difficult as they get older. And kids get most of their 'moulding' from other kids anyway.

Thanks, that is really good feedback. In my hypothetical situation, is there any evidence to believe indoctrination could be just as effective if you have plenty of time/money to create more intensive programs?

As an example, if you had a class of 30 trainees and 10 of them were actually there to reinforce ethical/moral behaviour at all times. The 10 people might be required to always back each other up on the ethical/moral behaviour so if any of the 20 actual trainees did something wrong it would draw the disgust of at least 10 people automatically.

Obviously, this is an extreme example, but I am just wanting to know if the limitation is that "psychologists don't know enough about it" or if it is "psychologists don't know enough to make meaningful changes at an affordable price".

Quote

Who defines right/ethical, and how is it measured? Is there a scoring system?

In this scenario, it would be the law and department guidelines/policy or you could even answer the question assuming experts in ethics and psychology are involved in making the policy law.

For me, I am curious about getting the officers to follow the policy once it is created. 

As an example, there are many situations where an officer might be fearful and it will be hard to follow training regarding the use of force if the officer "feels" they are taking a risk by using a low level of force but cannot justify greater force on a feeling. They may act irrationally and use excessive force because they were afraid. When the optimal response might be to overcome the fear and continue using the required low level of force.

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by MathHelp

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, MathHelp said:

I don't think this is a healthy way to look at things.

Now I find your idea very offensive. In the US especially, the police need a serious overhaul in terms of how they ethically protect and serve EVERYBODY, but it I'd known you were just writing fiction, I wouldn't bothered responding. Enjoy your... interests.

[MathHelp]

Quote

Now I find your idea very offensive. In the US especially, the police need a serious overhaul in terms of how they ethically protect and serve EVERYBODY, but it I'd known you were just writing fiction, I wouldn't bothered responding. Enjoy your... interests.

So it's gone from offensive to "very" offensive????

It's a psychology forum... I'm asking about psychology related questions to specific law enforcement training.

I am not from the United States, I am not sure how any of what you are saying relates to my questions.

Is there some rule that prevents me from asking questions unless they relate to improving overall US Law Enforcement or the entire population of the world?

There are plenty of questions on this psychology forum that are not related to improving US Law enforcement or creating a more ethical population.

In fact, my assumption is that the types of discussions you are wanting might be found in the politics forum because creating policy is more of a specialisted subject.

Your a moderator, please stop posting responses that are obviously unrelated to the questions asked. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MathHelp said:

I am curious about getting the officers to follow the policy once it is created.

Have you considered shock collars?