Why Aren’t We Outraged by Psych Evaluations for Reality TV?

Psychological testing may harm reality contestants, and the APA has said too little.

Key points

• Reality-TV casting usually involves clinical interviews and psychological evaluations.
• Cast members do not see their testing results but producers do, and can use them to manipulate the cast.
• Therapists are ethically obligated to consider the possible harm of participating in casting evaluations.

If, like most people, you’ve never been on a reality-TV show, you may not know how intensive the casting process is. There are rounds and rounds of interviews with various staff and producers, criminal background checks, medical records requests, and psychological evaluations. It can be a months-long process.

Producers will say that the main reason for this degree of examination is to ensure that only the best candidates are cast. They are selecting mentally and physically fit individuals with no concerning criminal records who are joining the show for the “right” reasons. Another reason is to mitigate the show’s liability, as they don’t want to cast someone who could expose them to a lawsuit.

Their commitment to extensive pre-casting assessments is a good thing. However, there are some serious ethical issues with the way psychological evaluations are handled as part of this casting process (among other concerns with how therapists participate in shows), ones with which the American Psychological Association (APA) should be very concerned. And therapists conducting these evaluations must consider more seriously whether their participation could potentially harm the cast members they assess.

Cast Members Don’t See Their Results

Most shows have cast members sign lengthy (and highly restrictive) contracts that include broad releases of information. In doing so, contestants waive their rights to see their testing results while allowing the show’s producers to have access to them.

In general, unless there is a clinically or legally justifiable reason not to, any client should have access to psychological testing results. In fact, the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct explicitly states that clients should be able to see raw scores, have a feedback session to discuss findings, and be given an interpretive report.

However, there is an exception: when evaluations are conducted by third parties, such as by an employer, and the results aren’t intended for clinical treatment. Reality-TV shows may fall under this umbrella (although they aren’t specified). As a result, testing results could be considered the property of the show, not the cast members, and the show wouldn’t be obligated to share them. (It’s worth noting that when this is the case, the third party should explain the limitations, provide informed consent, and offer a summary of their findings, which isn’t common practice in the reality-TV industry. Also, we don’t know what results are ultimately shared: Is it just a summary of findings and casting recommendations? Or do they get every response and raw score?)

Legally, the shows might be safe. The production company is requesting the evaluations, and cast members are signing agreements not to see the results. No one will take a show to court over this. However, therapists conducting these assessments should consider the potential harm that can come from the findings.

The most problematic aspect is that the production company is essentially receiving a psychological roadmap for triggering a contestant. A clinical interview can reveal someone’s greatest fears, sensitivities, mental health struggles, and attachment wounds; we can just imagine what other insights can be gained from psychometric tests. With the results in hand, a producer has an in-depth psychological profile that can be used to determine the best ways to push for an emotional reaction.

Consider a dating show. If a producer knows that a contestant’s father left at a young age and has a significant fear of being abandoned, they can use this knowledge to exploit that fear. If the contestant is rejected on a date, the producer can pull them into a confessional and say, “He left you, just like your dad did. Does this make you worried that no one will ever want to be with you?”

Maybe you’re thinking, “That’s horrible! That doesn’t happen.” And to be fair, it doesn’t always happen. But unfortunately, we have heard stories like this from cast members: How information they divulged during interviews or evaluations comes back around at their most vulnerable moments, weaponized to provoke the most emotional response, because that’s what makes great television—the overt breakdowns, the angry rants, the tearful despair.

This isn’t a paranoid fear; it’s reality. I’ve spoken with former producers who confirm that information gleaned from evaluations is used to create drama or heighten affect.

Therapists Can’t Ignore Ethical Concerns

As noted above, the shows may not have a legal problem. They are requesting evaluations for cast selection and liability reasons. They may use the results for off-label purposes, but as they are the “client” in this setup, there’s no reason they can’t use the reports in whatever ways they see fit.

However, therapists don’t have the same loophole. They are ethically obligated to consider the impact of their assessments on the people they are evaluating. And even one story from a cast member reporting that their testing results led to a painful exchange in which they felt their emotional wounds were exploited should be enough for all therapists conducting these evaluations to reconsider their participation.

If a therapist discovered that an assessment requested by a company was used to manipulate an employee, they would be ethically compelled to terminate their contract with that company lest they be complicit in the exploitation and harm of the employee. So why should our standard be different for reality TV?

We have literally watched people be psychologically harmed, and we have heard first-person reports of how disclosures led to emotional mistreatment, so we can’t pretend we don’t know the possible consequences. In the psychological community, the welfare of an individual comes before profit or others’ entertainment, so it begs the question: Why hasn’t the APA stepped in to create clear and rigorous ethical guidelines for therapists practicing in this industry?

In my next post, we’ll look at some standards that therapists should consider following if they choose to provide evaluations for reality TV shows.