All About Psychology Newsletter
The Psychology of Trust. The Ethics Debate That Changed Psychology. The Fear of Doing Nothing. Hallucinatory obliviousness.
A very warm welcome to the latest edition of the All About Psychology newsletter - the official newsletter of All-About-Psychology.com, a website providing comprehensive information and resources for psychology students and educators since 2008.
The Psychology of Trust: Why We Believe and How It Shapes Us
Have you ever wondered why you trust some people instantly - and struggle to trust others even after years? Or why betrayal feels like a punch to the gut?
The latest All About Psychology article, explores one of the most powerful forces shaping human behavior: trust.
From the moment we're born, trust influences how we connect, love, lead, collaborate, and protect ourselves. But what exactly is trust? How does it form? What happens when it’s broken? And can it ever truly be rebuilt?
This article brings together classic psychological theories, cutting-edge neuroscience, and real-world examples to answer the most Googled questions about trust - whether in romantic relationships, friendships, families, or workplaces.
Whether you're a psychologist, leader, therapist, educator, or just curious about human nature - this article will change how you understand trust.
Read the full article: 👉 www.all-about-psychology.com/psychology-of-trust.html
Moments in Psychology:
A fascinating glimpse into the stories that shaped psychology.
The Ethics Debate That Changed Psychology
On 10 June 1964, psychologist Diana Baumrind published a sharp critique of Stanley Milgram’s now-infamous obedience experiments in American Psychologist. In her article, Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram's "Behavioral Study of Obedience," Baumrind raised serious concerns about the psychological impact on participants and the broader ethical implications for the field. She argued:
"It is important that as research psychologists we protect our ethical sensibilities rather than adapt our personal standards to include as appropriate the kind of indignities to which Milgram's subjects were exposed. I would not like to see experiments such as Milgram's proceed unless the subjects were fully informed of the dangers of serious aftereffects and his correctives were clearly shown to be effective in restoring their state of well being."
Baumrind’s criticism became a turning point in psychology’s approach to research ethics, laying the groundwork for tighter protections for human participants and reshaping institutional review standards.
On 18 November 1964, Milgram published his formal reply, also in American Psychologist, marking the first use of the term “debriefing” in a psychological research context. Under the heading Procedures and Benefits, he defended his methods, stating:
"The debriefing and assessment procedures were carried out as a matter of course, and were not stimulated by any observation of special risk in the experimental procedure. In my judgment, at no point were subjects exposed to danger and at no point did they run the risk of injurious effects resulting from participation. If it had been otherwise, the experiment would have been terminated at once."
The exchange between Baumrind and Milgram sparked one of the most influential debates in the history of psychological science - one that continues to shape how we think about ethics, responsibility, and the human cost of discovery.
🚀 Want to get your brand, book, course, newsletter or podcast in front of a highly engaged psychology audience?
All-About-Psychology.com now offers advertising and sponsorship opportunities across one of the web’s most trusted psychology platforms—visited over 1.2 million times a year and supported by over 1 million social followers.
Whether you're an author, educator, startup, or organization in the psychology, mental health, or self-help space—this is your chance to stand out.
🎯 Exclusive placement
🔗 High-authority backlink
👀 A niche audience that actually cares
Learn more and explore advertising and sponsorship options here:
👉 www.all-about-psychology.com/psychology-advertising.html
📚 All About Psychology Recommended Read
The Fear of Doing Nothing: Notes of a Young Therapist by Valery Hazanov is one of the most strikingly honest and thought-provoking books you’re likely to encounter on the inner world of psychotherapy, and the people who inhabit it.
In this compelling book, clinical psychologist Hazanov shares ten interlinked stories that explore what therapy really looks and feels like, from the inside. Honest, skeptical, and vulnerable, The Fear of Doing Nothing offers an unfiltered, intimate look into the making of a therapist: Perfect for early-career clinicians, and anyone curious about the human side of psychotherapy.
Learn more about The Fear of Doing Nothing via the All About Psychology Website
👉 www.all-about-psychology.com/fear-of-doing-nothing.html
📖 Or head straight to Amazon to check out the reviews and grab your copy:
👉 The Fear of Doing Nothing on Amazon
Psychology Q&A
Someone posted the following question on the All About Psychology Q&A page.
Most people are familiar with hallucinations in which people see or hear things that are not really there. But I was wondering if the reverse is possible. In other words: Is there a type of hallucination is which something that really IS there is NOT perceived (seen or heard) by the one hallucinating? If so, what is the name of this type of hallucination?
Here’s the answer they received:
The phenomenon you’re thinking of is called negative hallucination. Whereas a “positive” hallucination adds a perception that isn’t really there (hearing a voice, seeing an extra figure), a negative hallucination does the opposite: it deletes a perception that is present. The person looks straight at (or listens directly to) a real stimulus yet reports nothing at all.
Where the term comes from
The expression goes back to the work of French physician Hippolyte Bernheim in the 1880s and was picked up by Freud in his early writings on hypnosis. In Bernheim’s demonstrations, highly suggestible volunteers failed to see a chair or a person standing right in front of them after a hypnotic suggestion that “there is nothing there.” Freud later used the term to illustrate how perception itself can be defensively blocked, not merely distorted.
Laboratory evidence
Modern research still uses hypnosis to study the effect because it offers a controlled way to switch the experience on and off. Electro-encephalography (EEG) studies show that when hypnotised participants are told to “not see” a specific colour, early visual-cortex responses to that colour shrink dramatically, and later decision-related brain waves (the P300) are slowed - as if the stimulus never arrived at all. One small but influential experiment found precisely this pattern when four highly hypnotisable adults ignored “forbidden” green targets on a screen.
Outside the hypnosis lab
Negative hallucinations can also crop up spontaneously in certain psychotic states. Case reports describe people who cannot see parts of their own body (“negative autoscopic hallucination”) or fail to hear actual voices while other hallucinated sounds dominate their awareness. Clinicians occasionally observe the phenomenon in severe dissociative disorders and post-ictal states after temporal-lobe seizures. A recent review aimed at the general public outlines these less common, non-hypnotic examples.
How it differs from ordinary “blind spots”
Not every failure to notice something counts as a negative hallucination. Inattentional blindness, famously illustrated by the “invisible gorilla” video, occurs because attention is tied up elsewhere; once your focus shifts, the object becomes perfectly visible. In a true negative hallucination, no amount of refocusing brings the stimulus into awareness while the suggestion or psychotic state persists. The brain behaves as though the stimulus has been erased, not merely overlooked.
Why it matters
Studying negative hallucinations gives psychologists a rare window on how the brain can veto incoming information. It highlights the role of top-down processes; expectations, beliefs, clinical symptoms, in shaping even the earliest stages of perception. Clinically, recognising the phenomenon can prevent mislabeling such episodes as simple inattention or malingering and can guide treatment toward managing the underlying dissociation, psychosis, or susceptibility to suggestion.
In short, the absence you asked about is real (at least for the experiencer) and it’s called a negative hallucination.
Psychology Q & A is open to everyone and is designed as a space for those with an interest in psychology to both give and receive help. So, if you have a psychology-related question, feel free to ask! And if you believe you can answer any of the questions posted, I encourage you to share your insights. Please note that any content generated by psychology Q & A is provided for informational purposes only. It does not signify that I endorse the material provided or the views expressed. None of the information within psychology Q & A should be considered a substitute for professional psychological, psychiatric or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
Visit the All About Psychology Amazon Store to check out an awesome collection of psychology books, gifts and T-shirts.
🌐 Explore More Psychology Content—For Free!
Looking for clear, credible, and comprehensive psychology information?
Visit All-About-Psychology.com—your go-to hub for resources, articles, and expert insights across every major area of psychology.
And don’t forget to connect with the All About Psychology community across social media:
🔹 Facebook – Join over 800,000 psychology enthusiasts
🔹 LinkedIn – Connect with professionals and academics
🔹 LinkedIn Psychology Students Group – A dedicated space for students to share and learn (over 175,000 members)
🔹 Instagram – Visual insights, quotes, and key concepts
🔹 Pinterest – Curated boards on topics across the field
🔹 Bluesky – Our newest platform for psychological conversation
🔹 YouTube – Watch engaging, science-backed videos that bring psychology to life
Whether you’re learning, teaching, researching, or simply curious—you’re always welcome in the All About Psychology community.
Stay in the know! The All About Psychology newsletter is your go-to source for all things psychology. Subscribe today and instantly receive my bestselling Psychology Student Guide right in your inbox.
Upgrade to a paid subscription and also get the eBook version of my latest book Psychology Q & A: Great Answers to Fascinating Psychology Questions. As a paid subscriber, you will be:
Ensuring that psychology students and educators continue to have completely free access to the most important and influential journal articles ever published in the history of psychology.
Ensuring that psychology students and educators continue to hear from world renowned psychologists and experts.
Ensuring that free quality content and resources for psychology students, educators and the general public, continue to be created on a regular basis.
With newer frameworks like "Moral Injury," Milgram's argument that there was no harm done to participants in his obedience experiments can indeed be strongly challenged.
Here's why:
Definition of Moral Injury: Moral injury refers to the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of events that involve a betrayal or transgression of one's own deeply held moral beliefs and values, especially in high-stakes situations. It's not a formal mental health disorder like PTSD, but it can be associated with conditions like PTSD and depression. Key aspects often include feelings of guilt, shame, anger, disgust, and a loss of trust in oneself or others.
Milgram's Experiment and Moral Transgression: In Milgram's experiment, participants were led to believe they were administering increasingly severe and painful electric shocks to another human being (the "learner"). Many participants experienced extreme distress, sweating, trembling, stuttering, nervous laughter, and even seizures, as they struggled with the conflict between their conscience (not wanting to harm another person) and the authority figure's instructions to continue. They were, in essence, compelled to act against their fundamental moral imperative not to inflict harm.
The "No Harm" Argument vs. Moral Injury: Milgram's defense largely rested on the fact that no physical harm was done and that, through debriefing, participants were informed of the deception and that the "learner" was unharmed. He believed this effectively restored their well-being. However, the concept of moral injury suggests that the harm goes beyond physical injury or even simply feeling distressed in the moment. The act of believing they were inflicting severe pain, even if it was a deception, could constitute a profound moral transgression for the participants.
Lingering Psychological Impact: Even if participants were "debriefed," the experience of having seemingly acted against their deepest moral compass could have left a lasting impact. The feelings of guilt, shame, or a questioning of their own character for obeying orders to harm someone, even under duress, could persist. This is precisely what moral injury addresses: the internal wound that occurs when one's moral compass is violated.
Betrayal and Trust: The deception itself could also contribute to moral injury, as participants were misled by an authority figure (the researcher) in a context where they expected ethical conduct. This betrayal of trust, both in the experimenter and potentially in the institution of science, could further exacerbate feelings of moral distress.
Beyond "Distress": While Baumrind pointed out the severe distress experienced, moral injury offers a more nuanced framework to understand the specific type of psychological wound. It's not just general anxiety; it's the specific pain of having acted in a way that conflicts with one's core values.
In conclusion, while Milgram maintained there was no lasting harm due to the debriefing, the framework of moral injury provides a strong counter-argument. The psychological toll of believing one has inflicted harm, even if the harm was simulated, can be profound and enduring, impacting an individual's sense of self and their moral integrity. This ongoing debate highlights the critical importance of ethical considerations in research and the lasting legacy of Milgram's controversial experiments.