Search

Research on attitudes towards asexual people is a relatively new focus within the discipline of psychology, and to date has not been a topic of focus in the Australian context. This study focused on Australian undergraduate psychology students, and their attitudes towards asexual people. The study recruited 231 participants from undergraduate psychology programmes to complete an online survey assessing their attitudes towards asexual people, bias against single people, and gender ideologies. In addition, participants rated how comfortable and confident they felt about working with asexual people within mental health settings in the future. Participants who reported greater endorsement of traditional gender role ideology, and negative bias against singles, also reported greater levels of anti-asexual bias. Participants who hoped to pursue a career in psychology reported lower levels of anti-asexual bias and less negative attitudes towards single people, and reported moderate levels of both comfort in working with asexual people in the future, and capacity to provide safe care to asexual people in the future. Drawing on these findings, the paper concludes by discussing areas that require ongoing attention in the study of anti-asexual bias, and makes recommendations for the training of psychology students and clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Sexual health problems can be pertinent to psychological function/diagnosis and psychologists are key players in treatment and education regarding sexual health. Despite this, little evidence exists to determine if sexual dysfunction is explored during routine client intake interviews, when the client does not present with relationship difficulties, or from a specialist referral for sexual dysfunction. We aimed to explore psychologists' decision-making around questioning of client sexual functioning through the lens of the Dual-Processing Model. Method: This qualitative study assessed 16 registered psychologists working within Australia who answered an online questionnaire around their beliefs and clinical experiences of sexual health practice. Results: Data was analysed using thematic analysis, revealing multiple themes favouring sexual health investigation. Main themes included risk management, relevance to clinical presentations, scope of practice, positive beliefs about asking, and competency beliefs. Primary barriers against sexual health investigation included perceived incompetence, organisational constraints, concerns around damaging rapport, sexual health not being relevant to the client's needs, and perceptions around unethical practice. Conclusions: This paper challenged the applicability of the Dual Processing Model to psychological decision-making, and suggested personal biases influence Australian psychologists' sexual health questioning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New technologies have afforded increased access to genetic testing providing valuable information for individuals and those biologically related. However, the management of such information is challenging for psychologists given the ethical issues that may arise. This paper aims to review the utility of existing ethical standards and current legislation for psychologists when encountering genetic information. Current legislation and guidelines involved in the management of genetic information applicable for psychologists is critically reviewed in light of relevant ethical principles. While knowledge of information that has arisen from genetic testing may guide psychological therapy, intervention, and education, psychologists have a responsibility to uphold their ethical obligations in order to meet the needs of their clients and their families and to prevent harm. Outside the domain of ethically approved human research, and specific guidance for trained genetic counsellors in Australia, ethical guidance on the management of human genetic information is not readily available for psychologists. Technological advances can be expected to continue to present epistemic dilemmas about the use of genetic material. The implications for future psychological practice is discussed. : What is already known about this topic: (1) Increased access to genetic testing can provide valuable information for individuals and those biologically related. (2) Genetic testing poses new and significant challenges for psychologists, especially in respect to the ethical issues that can occur. (3) Given that findings from genetic testing may guide therapy goals, interventions, and psychoeducation, psychologists have a responsibility to uphold ethical obligations in order to meet the needs of their clients and their families and to prevent harm. Yet, clear guidelines for ethical obligations regarding the handling of genetic testing are not readily available. What this topic adds: (1) Within the framework of current legislation, the four core ethical standards of beneficence, autonomy, justice, and non-maleficence work together with the APS Code of Ethics and ethical guidelines for psychologists. (2) While the use of genetic information has the potential to affect whole communities, it should be used in such a way that maintains ethical principles, meeting the needs of the individual and family. (3) It is important that ethical guidelines for genetic information in the field of psychology remain cohesive to meet the needs of rapid technological advances and changing legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]