Psychology understands cognitive biases. Is it recognising its own?

The current psychology training debate in Australia is full of concern about standards, safety and the future of the profession. What I’m seeing much less of is reflection on how cognitive bias might be shaping the debate itself.

Psychology has studied these patterns for years. Effort justification can lead us to see a difficult path as more necessary or valuable because we endured it. The sunk-cost effect can make it hard to question a system after investing years, money and identity in it. Confirmation bias can lead us to give more weight to evidence that supports what we already believe. And status quo bias can make current arrangements feel safer simply because they are familiar.

There is also the pull of professional identity. When a proposed change seems to threaten the standing of a qualification, endorsement or career pathway, it can feel like a judgement on the people who hold them. That reaction is human but it can turn a debate about how best to prepare practitioners into a fight to defend the value of our own training.

These biases do not prove that concerns about reform are wrong. Competence, supervision, placements and public safety deserve rigorous scrutiny, but the existing system deserves that same scrutiny too. If we ask whether reform could weaken standards, we should also ask whether every current requirement demonstrably improves competence—or whether some remain because they are familiar, prestigious and difficult to question.

Is Australia’s psychology registration approach due for a full revamp? Not a rushed rewrite or a lowering of standards. A genuine review of the whole structure: what training is essential, what can be integrated, where supervised practice adds the most value, and whether any onerous steps remain without a clear benefit to capability or public protection. Also what needs to be protected and what can be changed.

The people seeking support have changed—and so has the range of professionals supporting them. People work with psychologists, counsellors, psychotherapists, social workers, OT’s and coaching psychology practitioners for different, sometimes overlapping, reasons: to address distress, build understanding, navigate change, strengthen relationships, develop capability or move towards personal and professional goals. Through the democratisation of psychology, people also encounter psychological ideas and services through online communities, apps and AI tools.. A recent Australian study found that many respondents wanted access to both conversational AI and human professionals, rather than choosing one or the other.

We need to be honest about the shape of need. There is a pointy end of the therapeutic triangle: acute, complex clinical practice that requires advanced preparation and specialist care. That work is essential but it is not the whole triangle. Many people seek support with distress that is not acute, life transitions, relationships, work, learning, wellbeing, capability and change. They may benefit from psychotherapy, counselling, coaching psychology or other skilled support within a clear scope and training.

A system designed mainly around the acute pointy end risks treating the whole landscape as though every person needs the same kind of practitioner, training pathway or intervention. A better system would value quality work across the wider community of practice, make roles and scopes clear, and help clients move to the right support as their needs change.

Along with training pathway reforms it is time to look at protected titles and endorsement fields. They have a legitimate role in helping the public understand registration but title protection should provide clarity, not become a boundary wall around all credible psychological support. Protecting a title is not the same as protecting the public. Public protection depends on competence, ethical practice, honest communication about qualifications and scope, supervision, referral and accountability. We can respect qualifications while recognising that psychologists, counsellors, psychotherapists and coaching psychology practitioners each have valuable contributions to make.

That includes reconsidering our attachment to the existing endorsement fields. Specialised expertise matters, but do the current categories still reflect the work being done and the needs of the public? Could we recognise depth of expertise while being more open about how different professionals contribute and collaborate?

There has been substantial lobbying against the proposed redesign. I’ve also seen posts celebrating that the Health Minister will not consider the reforms in December as a win for those opposing them. A delay in consideration is not the same as rejection and nor does it answer the bigger question: is stopping or slowing reform actually the right outcome for Australia?

The Australian psychology community has acknowledged that the current system is complex, costly and inequitable, while also raising concerns about the proposed reform’s safeguards and impact on standards. Both points deserve answers.

If we were designing psychology registration for Australia today, around the needs of the whole community, would we build it the same way? Importantly could reform help us work together across the triangle, rather than fight over who belongs in it and outside of it?