MAFS UK, Attachment Styles, and the Goldwater Rule
Can psychologists in the UK talk about reality TV?
The Context (for those of you who know this, move to the good stuff further down…)
Having sat through the painful experience of Married at First Sight Australia, it was suggested to me that I might want to watch Married at First Sight UK “for comparison.” Initially, I wasn’t going to, but then, as tends to happen with these things, I saw bits and pieces about the latest series online, and my intrigue, morbid curiosity, and further desire to see how the “experts” handle things pulled me into watching. I had not posted much about it as I (before this post) merely intended to give a general overview of MAFS UK compared to MAFS Aus. However, one couple, Eve and Charlie (the show’s only same-sex marriage), has changed that somewhat.
The two exited the show somewhere around episode twelve, and when they did, I breathed a sigh of relief. I said something to that effect in one of the very few posts about the show I put on my Instagram stories, saying that their relationship had been hard to watch. Some followers messaged me and requested that I offer a broader view of why that was, and some offered some thoughts related to attachment styles. I re-shared some of these messages, asking if this was something that would be worth reading. Most were keen; however, one follower got in touch to query if it was ethical for me, as a psychologist in the UK, to make a comment on someone in the public sphere (i.e., participants on a show like MAFS UK), particularly around attachment styles.
An interesting conundrum, right?
They were referring to the Goldwater Rule, ethical guidance that prohibits psychiatrists in America (as part of the American Psychiatric Association) from making diagnoses or commenting about the mental states of those in the public eye. This would be considered unethical as psychiatrists would not have undertaken the appropriate clinical examination necessary to arrive at a diagnostic label. This received a lot of focus in the American presidential campaign four years ago when there seemed to be a lot of commentary about Donald Trump, his personality, and his cognitive functioning, with arguments on both sides. Some argued that it was unethical (under the Goldwater Rule) to comment on his personality traits and cognitive functioning, while others stated that in the public interest and for voters to make an informed decision about who they voted into the White House, US voters needed to know about these aspects of Donald Trump’s mental state and views of himself and others. Technically, the Goldwater Rule only applies to psychiatrists in America, but the American Psychological Association also incorporates it to a degree into their ethical guidelines, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists here in the UK apparently “endorses” the rule, too. Before all this, I was vaguely aware of the Goldwater Rule, but not because it formed part of my training as a psychologist. So, I was keen to see if this applied to psychologists in the UK.
According to a Guardian article, it doesn’t, but I was also keen to hear from other UK practitioner psychologists and hear their views, so I posed another question in my stories asking psychologists who follow me if they felt that the Goldwater rule applies to us and if this applied to commenting on things like attachment styles, and using examples of this from a show like MAFS UK, which had a primary focus on relationships and interpersonal behaviour (and with the experts making reference to things like attachment styles throughout). There were numerous contributions to that conversation, several of which I posted in my stories, which I have saved to a “highlight” that you can see here (entitled “Goldwater Rule”).
My Thoughts…
Before we get into it, I would like to thank anyone who has followed me on this ethical exploration and those who have contributed. From all these conversations and reading the views of those who shared them, I have reached the following conclusions. Some of these might seem like splitting hairs, but I think they are important distinctions. Also, and this is very important, none of what I say is binding in any way. None of this makes me the authority on this issue; these are just my views and nothing more. Some of you might read all of these and still think I am wrong.
So, firstly, yes, there are aspects of the Goldwater Rule that we, as psychologists in the UK, can and should apply to ourselves. Everyone I spoke to and who shared their views with me unanimously agreed that diagnosis of any clinical psychopathology (i.e., mental health conditions/disorders) from a distance would be unethical. For example, saying that someone has depression based on a snapshot of their behaviours would be massively unethical, and even in my personal life is not something I would comment on or say about anyone in the public eye or who I knew in some personal capacity. This is largely based on the societal and authoritative knowledge that psychologists have by virtue of their profession and is not something to be wielded without regard as to how this may impact the public’s perception of a person’s mental state, even if that person never knows about the comments.
However, there is a difference between psychopathology and attachment styles. Firstly, it is worth saying that a) it is very possible that someone’s attachment style may contribute to some aspects of their mental health difficulties (to a greater or lesser extent) and any subsequent diagnosis of those difficulties. And b) attachment styles have clinical utility (i.e., you may discuss aspects of your attachment style during therapy). However (and this is the important bit), you cannot diagnose anyone with an attachment style. Yes, there are attachment disorders in the DSM-5, but the styles themselves (secure, avoidant, anxious, and disorganised), are not diagnostic labels. They are concepts of how we bond with early caregivers that explain how we may behave in the context of a specific relationship, usually an intimate one.
There is also a difference between a person being in the public eye – and psychologists commenting on those individuals’ real-life actions/behaviours – and reality TV. One is real life, and often, the behaviours we see lack context of any kind. The other is “real life”; while reality TV has real people, it is still a piece of entertainment media. It has more narrative and context (albeit heavily edited) around the reality TV participants’ actions. There is more for us to see that links what participants do or say in these shows, and we are often given insights into their thoughts and feelings (i.e., their inner processes) through the interview segments as the show unfolds. Far more than something we might see on the news about a public figure. For these reasons – and unlike commenting on the latest paparazzi images, clickbait news clips, or sensationalised sound released by the news or social media – I think reality TV clips can be used as contemporary, relatable, and accessible pieces of popular media to highlight and discuss certain aspects of psychology and human behaviour.
One of the things to be very clear about is that if this is done, comments are only made on the observed behaviours in clips of the show, and acknowledgement is made that any clips or “storyline” commented on is heavily edited. What this means, then, is that the discussion about behaviours observed in clips are not conclusions drawn about the people in the clips, and inferences are not made about what they might be like in real life outside of the reality TV show. Again, this is to account for the power inherent authority in what psychologists say. To make sure that we do not infer anything, we have to be clear about what we are saying. Therefore, it would be something along the lines of, “The behaviours of [individual] could be seen as an example of x, because x is characterised by y, which can be seen when [individual] does [highlighted behaviour]” and nothing more than that.
The final thing is the argument for public interest. There is a lot of information about psychological theories, models, concepts, etc, out there at the moment. And not all of it is bad, but some of it is not the best, and some of it is downright awful. And while a show like MAFS (all iterations of it, although I have not seen all iterations) claims to be a show that takes into account aspects of human psychology, I would argue that it is not the most accurate and well-intentioned show to showcase this. Therefore, it is in the interest of viewers (and maybe the public at large) for additional discussions to be added about what is seen and discussed on the show by professionals who have a greater understanding of human behaviours or can offer alternative viewpoints of what is seen on a reality TV show.
So, in conclusion, I agree that there are aspects of the Goldwater Rule that UK psychologists (and other psychological practitioners, perhaps) should abide by. But, for the reasons stated above, and with a lot of caveating and acknowledgement that reality TV is edited and does not show full depictions of what participants are like outside of a reality TV show, it is possible to use clips from a reality TV show like MAFS UK for educational and learning purposes, which can be in the public’s best interest.