Finkelstein contends that the complexity of the superego has been underappreciated, particularly its role in moral responsibility and in an individual's conflicting value systems. Analysts are more likely to notice the harsh superego than the superego problems in the patient who defensively avoids appropriate guilt for his or her actions. It may be difficult to question immoral behavior in a way the patient can accept. The analytic situation itself may obscure such issues by overemphasizing the superego's prohibitions (e.g., against free association) and by the patient's efforts to "behave" for the analyst. Finkelstein agrees with the position of Wallace, who holds that the individual is morally responsible for his or her actions, regardless of whether they are driven or freely chosen. He surveys some modern thinkers on superego development, particularly Gilligan on gender differences and Hoffman on socialization. He suggests that analysts must expand their understanding of the complexity of the superego concept and must address moral issues in treatment, albeit without moralizing.