In a November 2025 press release, the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Chief Executive Office (CEO), Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, offered warning and guidance about the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and wellness applications for mental health care. Dr. Evans stated, “We are in the midst of a major mental health crisis that requires systemic solutions, not just technological stopgaps…While chatbots seem readily available to offer users support and validation, the ability of these tools to safely guide someone experiencing a crisis is limited and unpredictable” (APA, 2025a, para. 3). In the same month, the American Psychology Association issued a comprehensive health advisory detailing recommendations to mitigate the risks associated with GenAI in the context of mental health and wellness (APA, 2025b). Although the trend of turning to AI for mental health support is relatively recent, the phenomenon of seeking advice and solace online about one’s psychological experience is not a novel one.

Decades before AI technologies became readily available to the general public, individuals of all ages began seeking community in online platforms with people who have similar lived experiences (Finn, 1999; Hai et al., 2021). Today, individuals have access to a wealth of online content from those who discuss their mental health experience(s) openly. These platforms offer an opportunity for people to share their stories shed light, and/or reduce stigma. At a distance, this seems like a positive trend, and some may even argue this can be cited as a catalyst for an era that seems uniquely accepting of the need to seek therapeutic support. When examining this closer to the source, however, psychologists will likely notice an increase in the number of patients who present with a strong identification with diagnoses such as Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), or Tourette’s Disorder based upon widespread conceptions (or misconceptions) rather than objective assessment. Although it is not the direct duty of the psychologist to comprehensively address both the benefits and potential harms of this cultural trend, understanding the ethical implications of this period is imperative to our practice.

First, Do No Harm

            The APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (hereafter referred to as the Ethics Code) holds psychologists accountable to Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence at every decision point in their practice (APA, 2017). Principle A asks psychologists to  “strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm,” which may make them  feel conflicted about the steady rise of self-diagnoses. How do these self-diagnoses benefit patients, and in what ways are they potentially harmful? Furthermore, what is the duty of the psychologist to address these potentially inaccurate diagnoses? Ethical Standard 9.07 (Assessment by Unqualified Persons) can be directly applied to these conversations. This standard states that, “Psychologists do not promote the use of psychological assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except when such use is conducted for training purposes with appropriate supervision” (APA, 2017). Thus, psychologists are directly responsible for shedding light on inappropriate diagnostic labels when they are sourced from unqualified persons (or technologies). Beyond refraining from promotion of such a movement, it may be ethically within bounds to consider challenging these self-diagnoses with empathy and curiosity. This can be framed not as invalidating a client’s lived experience, but as clarifying the value of diagnostic labels. By exploring what the label represents for the client, psychologists can honor the underlying need while also correcting misinformation. In doing so, clinicians reduce the risk of harm associated with mislabeling, including inappropriate treatment or neglect of alternative explanations. Ultimately, beneficence is upheld when psychologists balance respect for client autonomy with their professional responsibility to ensure that diagnostic conceptualizations are accurate, evidence-based, and used in service of the client’s well-being.

Maintaining Competence 

In an already demanding profession, energy devoted to remaining abreast of pop culture may feel like a drain on psychologists’ bandwidth. However, ethical guidelines clearly state that psychologists “undertake ongoing efforts to develop and maintain their competence” (APA, 2017, Standard 2.03). This essential effort extends beyond attention to research and commitment to evidence-based interventions. To best support the populations one seeks to serve, it is important to understand the systems they exist within, which include their experiences online. While the average daily use of social networking sites across populations is difficult to ascertain, it is hard to deny that social media has become an integral part of everyday life. Concerningly, the rapid rate of growth of these sites has, at times, exceeded the capacity for regulation and safeguards (Chhabra et al., 2025). Psychologists today are certainly aware of the possible negative effects of excessive time spent online on mental health, with research pointing to challenges that result from social comparison, cyberbullying, and increased depressive/anxious symptoms (Naslund et al., 2020). However, they may be less aware of the trends online resulting in an increase in self-diagnosis of psychological disorders (Armstrong et al., 2025; Hasan et al., 2023). Without awareness of these trends, psychologists run the risk of responding to self-diagnoses without fully appreciating the social and digital contexts from which they emerge, and overlooking the powerful role that online narratives may play in symptom presentation and help-seeking behavior.

When clinicians understand the language and narratives circulating online, they are better positioned to assess how these labels shape clients’ identities, expectations for treatment, and perceptions of distress. Peer-reviewed research shows that online platforms like TikTok serve as major sites of identity formation and community building around neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism and ADHD, where community-specific language and labels not yet recognized by the diagnostic statistical manual (DSM) (such as “AuDHD” [an informal label to describe an individual with both autism spectrum disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder] and “neurospicy” [a slang term for a person who identifies as neurodivergent]) are increasingly common (Gilmore et al., 2024). Concerningly, analyses of information posted about certain disorders (obsessive compulsive disorder and Tourette’s Disorder being the most widely reviewed) on applications such as TikTok and Instagram have shown significant lack of reliable information (Fitzpatrick et al., 2025; Ononuju & Ujari, 2025; Sieferle et al., 2025). Psychologists engaging in ethical practice are tasked with, at the very least, understanding how and why their patients present to therapy with these and other self-diagnoses. Those wishing to explore these trends deeper through a reflective process may ask themselves:

• How does a patient benefit from framing their experience through a given diagnostic label?
• How may I best serve a client when we do not have consensus regarding their diagnosis?
• How do I balance expression of professional competence with respect for autonomy and dignity, to include self-determination?

Engagement with these trends does not require psychologists to endorse colloquial or inaccurate diagnostic labels, but rather to recognize their cultural salience and clinical impact. This awareness allows psychologists to validate the client’s experience while gently grounding clinical work in evidence-based assessment and formulation. In this way, maintaining competence includes a kind of cultural fluency, and ethical care should be rooted in the evolving contexts in which psychological distress is understood and expressed.

Summary

It is understandable for psychologists, trained in critical thinking, scientific inquiry, and analysis, to look warily upon the self-diagnosis movement and adhere to the belief that only objective assessment can produce valid (and unbiased) diagnoses. Yet, as professionals who maintain a value of curiosity, it may also be important to consider that self-diagnoses are a tool for clients to better understand their experiences and seek solutions if mental healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable. Psychologists who can hold both skepticism and openness are better positioned to meet clients where they are, using self-diagnoses as a starting point rather than an endpoint for clinical inquiry. Ultimately, ethical practice requires balancing professional responsibility with empathy, ensuring that clients feel heard while guiding them toward accurate understanding, appropriate care, and meaningful change.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

American Psychological Association. (2025, November 13). Artificial intelligence, wellness apps alone cannot solve mental health crises. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2025/11/ai-wellness-apps-mental-health

American Psychological Association. (2025b, November). Use of generative AI chatbots and wellness applications for mental health: An APA health advisory. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/topics/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning/health-advisory-chatbots-wellness-apps

Armstrong, S., Osuch, E., Wammes, M., Chevalier, O., Kieffer, S., Meddaoui, M., & Rice, L. (2025). Self-diagnosis in the age of social media: A pilot study of youth entering mental health treatment for mood and anxiety disorders. Acta Psychologica, 256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105015

Chhabra, J., Pilkington, V., Benakovic, R., Wilson, M. J., La Sala, L., & Seidler, Z. (2025). Social media and youth mental health: Scoping review of platform and policy recommendations. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e72061. https://doi.org/10.2196/72061

Finn, J. (1999). An exploration of helping processes in an online self-help group focusing on issues of disability. Health & Social Work, 24(3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/24.3.220

Fitzpatrick, M., Moore, A. S., Kichuk, S. A., Pittenger, C., & Zaboski, B. A. (2025). #OCD: A content analysis of obsessive-compulsive disorder stereotype amplification and misinformation on tiktok. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 28(9), 607–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/21522715251370135

Gilmore, D., Radford, D., Haas, M. K., Shields, M., Bishop, L., & Hand, B. (2024). Building community and identity online: A content analysis of highly viewed #autism tiktok videos. Autism in Adulthood, 6(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0019

Hai, A. H., Lee, C. S., Oh, S., Vaughn, M. G., Piñeros-Leaño, M., Delva, J., & Salas-Wright, C. P. (2021). Trends and correlates of internet support group participation for mental health problems in the United States, 2004-2018. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 132, 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2020.10.012

Hasan, F., Foster, M. M., & Cho, H. (2023). Normalizing anxiety on social media increases self-diagnosis of anxiety: The mediating effect of identification (but not stigma). Journal of Health Communication, 28(9), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2023.2235563

Naslund, J. A., Bondre, A., Torous, J., & Aschbrenner, K. A. (2020). Social media and mental health: Benefits, risks, and opportunities for research and practice. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, 5(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-020-00134-x

Ononuju, U. A., & Ujari, C. A. (2025). Stigma and misinformation about autism spectrum disorder (ASD) on tiktok and instagram: Content analysis using #ASD, #Autism and #ASDinfo. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-025-07057-7

Sieferle, K., Guidi, T., Dorr, F., & Bitzer, E. M. (2025). Quality and perception of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder content on tiktok: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Infodemiology, 5, e75973. https://doi.org/10.2196/75973