How do you think the people who want to shut down the JRC view the people who work or send students there?

How do you think the people who want to shut down the JRC view the people who work or send students there? Be specific. Don’t just say “they don’t like them.” What exactly do they think separates them? What specific judgments do they make?
I think they may view inhumanity
How do you think the people who support the JRC view the people who want it shut down? Be specific. Don’t just say “they don’t like them.” What exactly do they think separates them? What judgments do they make?
These are people who support this and people who want to shut down to informed
Using everything we’ve learned so far (and will learn before this is due): What are all of the psychological concepts that account for this difference in viewpoints? Be specific and include as much from this course as is relevant. This is called a midterm for a reason.
Also, what do you think would be the most effective way we (as a social psychology class or as individuals in my course) can realistically get the staff at the Judge Rotenberg Center to stop shocking clients for harmless behavior? Do not tell me things others should do. What can WE in this classroom do? Think about what has been tried that hasn’t worked.
Since this is a midterm, I expect you to only include concepts we’ve covered in this course, not other ideas you’ve found elsewhere. As always, plagiarism (including using AI to write any part of this for you) will result in an automatic 0.
EXTRA CREDIT OPPORTUNITY: Actually try your strategy. Talk to me first for approval.

ANSWER
Analyzing the Views on the Judge Rotenberg Center

Perspectives of Those Who Oppose the JRC

Those who oppose the JRC’s use of aversive interventions, such as electric shocks, often view the practice as inhumane, unethical, and ineffective. They believe that the JRC’s methods are outdated and based on a flawed understanding of behavior modification. They argue that these interventions cause unnecessary pain and suffering to individuals with disabilities, violating their basic human rights.

Specific Judgments

Inhumanity: Opponents view the JRC’s use of electric shocks as a form of torture, causing physical and psychological harm to clients.

Ineffectiveness: They argue that aversive interventions are not effective in modifying behavior in the long term and may even lead to increased aggression and self-harm.

Lack of Consent: They question the validity of informed consent from individuals with disabilities, suggesting that they may not fully understand the implications of the procedures.

Psychological Concepts

Moral Foundations Theory: Opponents likely place a strong emphasis on the care and fairness domains, perceiving the JRC’s practices as violating these fundamental moral principles.

Just-World Hypothesis: They may struggle to reconcile the suffering inflicted on JRC clients with their belief in a just and fair world, leading to feelings of anger and frustration.

Empathy Gap: Opponents may have a heightened sense of empathy for JRC clients, allowing them to viscerally understand the pain and suffering caused by the aversive interventions.

Perspectives of Those Who Support the JRC

Supporters of the JRC argue that aversive interventions are a necessary and effective treatment option for individuals with severe disabilities who exhibit self-injurious behaviors. They believe that these interventions are carefully administered and supervised, and they point to studies that have shown their effectiveness in reducing self-harm.

Specific Judgments

Necessity: Supporters view aversive interventions as a last resort, used only when other treatment options have failed.

Effectiveness: They emphasize the positive behavioral changes observed in clients who have undergone aversive interventions.

Appropriate Care: They believe that the JRC staff is highly trained and experienced in administering aversive interventions safely and effectively.

Psychological Concepts

Belief Perseverance Bias: Supporters may be more resistant to changing their views about the JRC’s methods, even in the face of conflicting evidence.

Authority Bias: They may defer to the expertise of the JRC staff and believe that the center is taking the best course of action for its clients.

Ingroup Bias: Supporters may identify with the JRC staff and feel protective of the center, leading to a defensive stance towards criticism.

Effective Strategies for Change

To effectively address the issue of aversive interventions at the JRC, a multi-pronged approach is necessary:

Educate and Engage: Raise awareness about the ethical concerns surrounding aversive interventions and engage in open dialogue with JRC staff and supporters.

Support Alternative Treatments: Promote research and development of alternative treatment options for individuals with severe disabilities.

Legal and Regulatory Action: Explore legal avenues to challenge the JRC’s use of aversive interventions and advocate for stricter regulations governing such practices.

Promote Empathy and Understanding: Foster empathy for JRC clients among supporters by highlighting their experiences and the potential harm caused by aversive interventions.

As a social psychology class, we can contribute to these efforts by:

Organizing educational events and workshops: Invite experts to discuss the ethical dilemmas surrounding aversive interventions and alternative treatment approaches.

Conducting research: Gather data on the experiences of JRC clients and the effectiveness of alternative treatments to inform advocacy efforts.

Engaging in community outreach: Raise awareness about the JRC’s practices within the local community and encourage support for efforts to reform or shut down the center.

Promoting respectful dialogue: Encourage open and respectful discussions about the JRC’s practices, avoiding personal attacks and focusing on the well-being of JRC clients.