I'm actually pleasantly surprised that Evangelicals score as high on comfort with mental health specialists as they do. I know many Evangelicals who are vocally against anything linked to modern psychology. It's easy to think that a vocal minority represents the rest of the community. I'm encouraged that this appears to not be the case in this instance!
I am not surprised that Republicans of all religious leanings are more reluctant to seek help from mental health counselors than political liberals are. There is a whole movement in mental health counseling right now on the "ethical duty" of mental health professionals to "educate" clients on anti-racism and social justice as part of normal clinic visits. There are also ever-expanding mandatory reporter guidelines on when a counselor must report a client for being a threat to others. This, combined with the fact that politically- or culturally-conservative counselors are rare as hens' teeth, provide disincentives for conservatives to seek counseling.
If I'm politically conservative and suffering from depression, do I go back if the first part of my visit was spent on a lesson on structural racism? Do I tell my friends to see a counselor after that happens, even if I truly believe they need help? If I know I'm suffering from anxiety, do I tell a counselor that a source of my anxiety is my 7-year-old homeschooled daughter playing outside with no supervision, or am I risking having her taken away?
I'm not an American conservative, and I wouldn't see an American counselor knowing what I know about current practice in American counseling.
I am not aware of that movement among health counselors, how would that be relevant to a standard therapy session? And wouldn't that go against the field's philosophy of generally not offering specific advice?
I recall the last two times I was regularly visiting a therapist (3 years ago and 8 years ago) I often just wanted to say "tell me what to do!" but as per industry practice the sessions were structured around wherever the conversation led, without concrete advice. And at least for me, discussions of politics or culture war issues never came up.
It's relatively new--since 2020--but I know about it because it comes up in medical education fora and materials all the time. (I do a lot of faculty development at a small medical school and have to keep on top of some of these trends as part of my job.) I have even seen licensing exam practice questions in the past year that have the setup:
Patient seeking therapy says a thing that could be interpreted as racist, what do you do? -->Correct answer: educate patient on systemic racism before providing counseling
or
Patient seeking therapy says thing that's pretty clearly racist, what do you do? --> Correct answer: refuse to have patient as a client because he's racist and you have a duty to justice to be anti-racist that overrides the duty of care to this particular patient.
Here's an example of a study (2025) where they're working to develop ways of having anti-racism bedside conversations with hospitalized patients:
The other issue of the ever-expanding definition of what kinds of things are subject to mandatory reporting because of the potential for harm to others has a longer history, but has also worsened since 2020. It also varies from state to state. In some states, kids playing outside unsupervised is legally protected. In other states, that's a mandatory report for child endangerment. There are similar discrepancies in state laws regarding whether it's abusive for a parent to not recognize a child's changed gender identity.
Because this kind of story is more click-baity for conservatives than liberals, I suspect conservatives are more likely than liberals to know about these trends in medical education and in mandatory reporting laws. And if I have conservative beliefs and know about these trends, I definitely have a disincentive to seek mental health care.
I am very glad to hear that. I'm reporting on what medical educators are told to teach medical professionals in training, including mental health professionals. I know that at least the people who come up with these teaching materials must be doing something like this in their practice, because otherwise they wouldn't have made these teaching materials. But I would be very, very happy to know that most aren't, as you've indicated here.
Thank you for the link to the very interesting article, Bob! I appreciate it.
I will note, though, that it's from 2015. I think that the proportion of liberal:conservative counselors may have even increased since then. Certainly, ideas about "best practices" in counseling have changed since then--especially during Peak Woke years of 2020-2022.
For instance, prior to 2021, no one argued that counselors had a duty to "educate" patients on anti-racism as part of standard practice, but this is now a common recommendation in medical education. Similarly, the disparity between crunchy conservative views on "free-range childhoods" vs. urban liberal views on protecting children from "trauma" has sharpened dramatically since 2015. Even notions about what "conservative" and "liberal" positions on some topics are have changed since then.
As I've said in another reply to you, I feel you are providing information that is not universally correct. We've had a LOT of interactions with mental health providers and have never had that issue. Never, zero. Now if the person's mental health issues could be worse because of racial issues, just like if it was porn or drugs, then it would be addressed.
Regarding the theology of the providers, in my state(in the deep south), it's actually difficult to find a therapist that isn't "biblically based" or at least had their education at a Christian university.
To be clear, I do not think that mental health counselors are universally behaving as post-2020 medical education materials recommend. I would be delighted and unsurprised to learn that most aren't. I'm just reporting on my experience in medical education, where, as one example, there really are guidelines now on when promoting anti-racism trumps providing care to patients. Most clinicians I know (with whom I've talked about this topic) are horrified at the idea that a duty to "justice" should ever trump the duty to provide care, and think that practice questions like I've described above are wrong.
Why I think this cuts especially for conservatives is that this behavior need not be universal, or even especially common, for it to dissuade someone from seeking mental health care. It just has to be something that the person who would otherwise seek mental health care knows about. I think it's more likely for conservatives than liberals to know about this social justice overreach in medical training because "AMA Ethics Journal promotes anti-racism training in medical school*" is a rage-bait headline for conservatives, but not for liberals.
This must be an extraordinarily difficult offshoot of a survey to bundle with other things. As the video showed, sometimes the healer is the first responder. Typically, in the medical world, that is the primary doctor, which is why Valium was the most common prescription in my residency era and prozac got popularity as soon as it came out. First responders are often teachers or dorm RAs. There is also a difference between people seeking help and an outsider referring a person to a professional resource. The spectrum of what psychologists address differs a lot from what clergy try to remedy. Tensions with the boss or irritation with the kids differs quite a lot from disabling depression or anxiety that has no external trigger.
The survey does not seem to distinguish between who the affected person seeks out and who the observer refers them to. No doubt a physician will send a patient to a mental hygiene colleague. A clergyman who observes a congregant in distress may tackle the problem himself without referral. A boss who finds an employee underperforming or disrupting the team may have HR handle this, and not voluntarily on the part of the person, who may not think a problem exists.
My Jewish lenses found no surprise in that we trust our shrinks more than our rabbis.
Interesting study here Ryan. I am curious in the evangelical world if it's just men talking to men type of thing. Whereas, in other religious setting they may seek out a therapist for a certain set of problems and their Pastor in another. I can say with certainty that I am more comfortable talking to my Pastor about my problems since he's known me for more than enough years and has seen me at my worst and best. Caveat here, he's very approachable and understanding. He's retired now, but when faced not long ago with some extremely life changing issues and the moral an ethical questions I had when I faced those issues, he was totally keyed in, answered questions I hadn't even asked myself and heard me. He listened.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised that Evangelicals score as high on comfort with mental health specialists as they do. I know many Evangelicals who are vocally against anything linked to modern psychology. It's easy to think that a vocal minority represents the rest of the community. I'm encouraged that this appears to not be the case in this instance!
I am not surprised that Republicans of all religious leanings are more reluctant to seek help from mental health counselors than political liberals are. There is a whole movement in mental health counseling right now on the "ethical duty" of mental health professionals to "educate" clients on anti-racism and social justice as part of normal clinic visits. There are also ever-expanding mandatory reporter guidelines on when a counselor must report a client for being a threat to others. This, combined with the fact that politically- or culturally-conservative counselors are rare as hens' teeth, provide disincentives for conservatives to seek counseling.
If I'm politically conservative and suffering from depression, do I go back if the first part of my visit was spent on a lesson on structural racism? Do I tell my friends to see a counselor after that happens, even if I truly believe they need help? If I know I'm suffering from anxiety, do I tell a counselor that a source of my anxiety is my 7-year-old homeschooled daughter playing outside with no supervision, or am I risking having her taken away?
I'm not an American conservative, and I wouldn't see an American counselor knowing what I know about current practice in American counseling.
I am not aware of that movement among health counselors, how would that be relevant to a standard therapy session? And wouldn't that go against the field's philosophy of generally not offering specific advice?
I recall the last two times I was regularly visiting a therapist (3 years ago and 8 years ago) I often just wanted to say "tell me what to do!" but as per industry practice the sessions were structured around wherever the conversation led, without concrete advice. And at least for me, discussions of politics or culture war issues never came up.
It's relatively new--since 2020--but I know about it because it comes up in medical education fora and materials all the time. (I do a lot of faculty development at a small medical school and have to keep on top of some of these trends as part of my job.) I have even seen licensing exam practice questions in the past year that have the setup:
Patient seeking therapy says a thing that could be interpreted as racist, what do you do? -->Correct answer: educate patient on systemic racism before providing counseling
or
Patient seeking therapy says thing that's pretty clearly racist, what do you do? --> Correct answer: refuse to have patient as a client because he's racist and you have a duty to justice to be anti-racist that overrides the duty of care to this particular patient.
Here's an example of a study (2025) where they're working to develop ways of having anti-racism bedside conversations with hospitalized patients:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12797735/
The other issue of the ever-expanding definition of what kinds of things are subject to mandatory reporting because of the potential for harm to others has a longer history, but has also worsened since 2020. It also varies from state to state. In some states, kids playing outside unsupervised is legally protected. In other states, that's a mandatory report for child endangerment. There are similar discrepancies in state laws regarding whether it's abusive for a parent to not recognize a child's changed gender identity.
Because this kind of story is more click-baity for conservatives than liberals, I suspect conservatives are more likely than liberals to know about these trends in medical education and in mandatory reporting laws. And if I have conservative beliefs and know about these trends, I definitely have a disincentive to seek mental health care.
I’ve known a lot of people, including family member, who have gone to counseling and zero of what you mentioned happened. Ever.
I am very glad to hear that. I'm reporting on what medical educators are told to teach medical professionals in training, including mental health professionals. I know that at least the people who come up with these teaching materials must be doing something like this in their practice, because otherwise they wouldn't have made these teaching materials. But I would be very, very happy to know that most aren't, as you've indicated here.
Some find liberals outnumber conservatives 14-1 in the psychology field. The two groups have very different worldviews and ways of responding to personal problems. https://theconversation.com/psychologists-are-known-for-being-liberal-but-is-that-because-they-understand-how-people-think-44066
Thank you for the link to the very interesting article, Bob! I appreciate it.
I will note, though, that it's from 2015. I think that the proportion of liberal:conservative counselors may have even increased since then. Certainly, ideas about "best practices" in counseling have changed since then--especially during Peak Woke years of 2020-2022.
For instance, prior to 2021, no one argued that counselors had a duty to "educate" patients on anti-racism as part of standard practice, but this is now a common recommendation in medical education. Similarly, the disparity between crunchy conservative views on "free-range childhoods" vs. urban liberal views on protecting children from "trauma" has sharpened dramatically since 2015. Even notions about what "conservative" and "liberal" positions on some topics are have changed since then.
As I've said in another reply to you, I feel you are providing information that is not universally correct. We've had a LOT of interactions with mental health providers and have never had that issue. Never, zero. Now if the person's mental health issues could be worse because of racial issues, just like if it was porn or drugs, then it would be addressed.
Regarding the theology of the providers, in my state(in the deep south), it's actually difficult to find a therapist that isn't "biblically based" or at least had their education at a Christian university.
To be clear, I do not think that mental health counselors are universally behaving as post-2020 medical education materials recommend. I would be delighted and unsurprised to learn that most aren't. I'm just reporting on my experience in medical education, where, as one example, there really are guidelines now on when promoting anti-racism trumps providing care to patients. Most clinicians I know (with whom I've talked about this topic) are horrified at the idea that a duty to "justice" should ever trump the duty to provide care, and think that practice questions like I've described above are wrong.
Why I think this cuts especially for conservatives is that this behavior need not be universal, or even especially common, for it to dissuade someone from seeking mental health care. It just has to be something that the person who would otherwise seek mental health care knows about. I think it's more likely for conservatives than liberals to know about this social justice overreach in medical training because "AMA Ethics Journal promotes anti-racism training in medical school*" is a rage-bait headline for conservatives, but not for liberals.
--------------------------
*For instance, https://edhub.ama-assn.org/ama-journal-of-ethics/module/2813366
Good point. The gap is even wider now.
This must be an extraordinarily difficult offshoot of a survey to bundle with other things. As the video showed, sometimes the healer is the first responder. Typically, in the medical world, that is the primary doctor, which is why Valium was the most common prescription in my residency era and prozac got popularity as soon as it came out. First responders are often teachers or dorm RAs. There is also a difference between people seeking help and an outsider referring a person to a professional resource. The spectrum of what psychologists address differs a lot from what clergy try to remedy. Tensions with the boss or irritation with the kids differs quite a lot from disabling depression or anxiety that has no external trigger.
The survey does not seem to distinguish between who the affected person seeks out and who the observer refers them to. No doubt a physician will send a patient to a mental hygiene colleague. A clergyman who observes a congregant in distress may tackle the problem himself without referral. A boss who finds an employee underperforming or disrupting the team may have HR handle this, and not voluntarily on the part of the person, who may not think a problem exists.
My Jewish lenses found no surprise in that we trust our shrinks more than our rabbis.
I wish we had data on how open each of these groups would be to talking to an interfaith chaplain.
I have written about chaplains before:
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/what-is-the-role-of-the-chaplain
Interesting study here Ryan. I am curious in the evangelical world if it's just men talking to men type of thing. Whereas, in other religious setting they may seek out a therapist for a certain set of problems and their Pastor in another. I can say with certainty that I am more comfortable talking to my Pastor about my problems since he's known me for more than enough years and has seen me at my worst and best. Caveat here, he's very approachable and understanding. He's retired now, but when faced not long ago with some extremely life changing issues and the moral an ethical questions I had when I faced those issues, he was totally keyed in, answered questions I hadn't even asked myself and heard me. He listened.