By Sally C. Harvey, Ph.D.
NOTE: The following letter from Dr. Harvey is in response to an announcement by Stephen Soldz, Jean Maria Arrigo and Bradley Olson, that they had convened an "Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop" on 20 September 2015, and that the workshop participants had developed the "Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology." Of special note is the fact that none of the workshop facilitators nor participants are or have ever been operational psychologists, and have no experience in the field of operational psychology.
To: DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG; nkaslow@emory.edu; susanh2_mcdaniel@urmc.rochester.edu
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015
Subject: Brookline Principles: A different call for action
Good day...
The following comments do not reflect any official position of Division 19, nor that of the DoD. These comments do reflect my personal opinions, and those of many of the operational psychologists within the DoD.
Our nation is built on the bedrock of freedoms, one of which is the freedom of speech. Those of us who have served in the military - from the Revolutionary War to the current conflicts - have been willing to pay the ultimate price in defense of this right, as the central concept of democracy depends upon a multitude of voices. However, in the cacophony that occurs during periods of dissent, a true democracy strives to hear all words in its efforts to ensure that the majority rules while, concurrently, protecting the rights of the minority, regardless of how that minority is defined. In sum, even in times of impassioned disagreement, there are basic rules to the process. My experience within APA over the past 6 months has not proven to be a shining example of these ideals, given my sense that the voices of some are magnified, while those of others are dismissed. With the recent posting of the "Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology," I am compelled to contribute to this conversation, if only to remind others of those ideals.
In the original posting from group at Brookline, their manifesto was described as the product of a workshop. Ethics Code 5.03 (Description of Workshop) states, in part, that psychologists "...ensure that they accurately describe the audience for which the workshop is intended, the educational objectives, the presenters, and the fees." APA Ethics Code 5.04 (Media Presentations) states, again in part, that psychologists ...take precautions to ensure that the statements are based on their professional knowledge, training, or experience in accordance with appropriate psychological literature and practice."
NOTE: The following letter from Dr. Harvey is in response to an announcement by Stephen Soldz, Jean Maria Arrigo and Bradley Olson, that they had convened an "Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop" on 20 September 2015, and that the workshop participants had developed the "Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology." Of special note is the fact that none of the workshop facilitators nor participants are or have ever been operational psychologists, and have no experience in the field of operational psychology.
To: DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG; nkaslow@emory.edu; susanh2_mcdaniel@urmc.rochester.edu
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015
Subject: Brookline Principles: A different call for action
Good day...
The following comments do not reflect any official position of Division 19, nor that of the DoD. These comments do reflect my personal opinions, and those of many of the operational psychologists within the DoD.
Our nation is built on the bedrock of freedoms, one of which is the freedom of speech. Those of us who have served in the military - from the Revolutionary War to the current conflicts - have been willing to pay the ultimate price in defense of this right, as the central concept of democracy depends upon a multitude of voices. However, in the cacophony that occurs during periods of dissent, a true democracy strives to hear all words in its efforts to ensure that the majority rules while, concurrently, protecting the rights of the minority, regardless of how that minority is defined. In sum, even in times of impassioned disagreement, there are basic rules to the process. My experience within APA over the past 6 months has not proven to be a shining example of these ideals, given my sense that the voices of some are magnified, while those of others are dismissed. With the recent posting of the "Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology," I am compelled to contribute to this conversation, if only to remind others of those ideals.
In the original posting from group at Brookline, their manifesto was described as the product of a workshop. Ethics Code 5.03 (Description of Workshop) states, in part, that psychologists "...ensure that they accurately describe the audience for which the workshop is intended, the educational objectives, the presenters, and the fees." APA Ethics Code 5.04 (Media Presentations) states, again in part, that psychologists ...take precautions to ensure that the statements are based on their professional knowledge, training, or experience in accordance with appropriate psychological literature and practice."
Naming this event as the "Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop" is misleading and irresponsible. To my knowledge, this workshop was not announced in any forum through which psychologists currently engaged in this challenging field could have opted to participate, nor was Division 19 queried for interest. Of the 17 participants in attendance, only one could plausibly lay claim to having any direct experience in operational psychology, and that experience ended over 20 years ago. While one member continues serve in the military reserves as a JAG officer, the others with military experience have been retired for some time. This group's membership did not include a single military psychologist, irrespective of the field of practice, nor any representative of the DoD intelligence community. Additionally, I would question the credibility as ethicists of two of the former national security/military members of the panel. One was convicted for disclosing classified information and another was relieved of command due to an inappropriate relationship.
When one compares this with the PENS Task Force, a group that was heavily criticized for the composition of its membership, I am left to conclude that what is good for the goose is not so true for the gander. In sum, the Brookline workshop was a close-hold event - transparency is apparently a one-way mirror. Despite an audience devoid of expertise in the very topic under discussion, the group felt confident in providing edicts for the practice and oversight of operational psychology without any representation from the very group they choose to regulate. By taking this approach, they are repeating the very process errors that they alleged against the PENS Task Force.
Most concerning is that the apparent failure to reach out to operational psychologists for participation may well be a symptom of a persistent anti-military sentiment. The implication is that military psychologists are so weak and malleable that, in the presence of institutional pressures, unethical behavior is inevitable. As a result, their actions require additional monitoring by those outside the realm of the military and national security. These are disturbing themes. As was stated in the article "Adversarial Operational Psychology is Unethical Psychology: A Reply to Staal and Greene," written by one of the members of the Brookline group, "The public assertions of psychologists involved in AOP cannot reasonably be presumed credible, nor understood as their sincere positions. Indeed this reality represents one of our essential concerns about AOP: it draws psychology into a realm where no one is to be trusted and discourse and scholarship fail."
I vehemently disagree with this premise, as it is inconsistent with everything I know about myself and my colleagues. Operational psychologists have been wrestling with the difficult ethical issues of this field for decades. Ethics in operational psychology has been the subject of books, chapters in books, and articles in peer- reviewed journals. Ethical practice is a core of our entire profession, regardless of the field in which one works. Psychology, as practiced today, involves a diversity of roles – we all have much to learn, from each other and other disciplines. However, if a core belief of this group is, as has been stated, that operational psychologists lack credibility, are unworthy of trust and so weak in character and deed that they are pawns of the military-industrial complex, I fear that we will never build a bridge between our groups. That would be a tragedy, not only for APA, but for the field of psychology. I read the call, post this workshop, for operational psychologists to become involved with this group, with the caveat that they are "engaged and helpful and good." Well, based upon the description of our character and service, it appears that no operational psychologist – nor, perhaps, any military psychologist - could qualify for inclusion.
Despite the intensity of my disagreements, I will continue to support their freedom to speak, as to do otherwise is unthinkable. But I also have a voice. By their actions, this group routinely seeks to create controversy, criticism and conflict outside of the normal governance structure and processes of APA. When does it stop? When operational psychologists are booted out of APA? When psychology, as a profession, is restricted to psychodynamic therapy? When everyone who has an opinion different from theirs is recused from participation?
I urge others who share these concerns regarding the substance, process and tactics of this group to register direct and vocal complaints with the APA Board of Directors; the major Boards and Committees, to include the Ethics Committee, and Divisions 17, 29, 39 and 48. I call for fairness, an end to the ad hominem campaign, to include to the specific targeting and exclusion strategies aimed at operational, and by extension, military psychology. I request that other GAP divisions, to include Division 19, have representation on the Commission charged with examining ethics processes and procedures. Finally, there must be a mechanism by which the nominations of the “external experts,” a group that will comprise 50% of this Commission’s membership, can be reviewed. I do agree with the critics on this issue – the heart and soul of the APA is at the center of this battle.
Honored to serve,
Sally Harvey
When one compares this with the PENS Task Force, a group that was heavily criticized for the composition of its membership, I am left to conclude that what is good for the goose is not so true for the gander. In sum, the Brookline workshop was a close-hold event - transparency is apparently a one-way mirror. Despite an audience devoid of expertise in the very topic under discussion, the group felt confident in providing edicts for the practice and oversight of operational psychology without any representation from the very group they choose to regulate. By taking this approach, they are repeating the very process errors that they alleged against the PENS Task Force.
Most concerning is that the apparent failure to reach out to operational psychologists for participation may well be a symptom of a persistent anti-military sentiment. The implication is that military psychologists are so weak and malleable that, in the presence of institutional pressures, unethical behavior is inevitable. As a result, their actions require additional monitoring by those outside the realm of the military and national security. These are disturbing themes. As was stated in the article "Adversarial Operational Psychology is Unethical Psychology: A Reply to Staal and Greene," written by one of the members of the Brookline group, "The public assertions of psychologists involved in AOP cannot reasonably be presumed credible, nor understood as their sincere positions. Indeed this reality represents one of our essential concerns about AOP: it draws psychology into a realm where no one is to be trusted and discourse and scholarship fail."
I vehemently disagree with this premise, as it is inconsistent with everything I know about myself and my colleagues. Operational psychologists have been wrestling with the difficult ethical issues of this field for decades. Ethics in operational psychology has been the subject of books, chapters in books, and articles in peer- reviewed journals. Ethical practice is a core of our entire profession, regardless of the field in which one works. Psychology, as practiced today, involves a diversity of roles – we all have much to learn, from each other and other disciplines. However, if a core belief of this group is, as has been stated, that operational psychologists lack credibility, are unworthy of trust and so weak in character and deed that they are pawns of the military-industrial complex, I fear that we will never build a bridge between our groups. That would be a tragedy, not only for APA, but for the field of psychology. I read the call, post this workshop, for operational psychologists to become involved with this group, with the caveat that they are "engaged and helpful and good." Well, based upon the description of our character and service, it appears that no operational psychologist – nor, perhaps, any military psychologist - could qualify for inclusion.
Despite the intensity of my disagreements, I will continue to support their freedom to speak, as to do otherwise is unthinkable. But I also have a voice. By their actions, this group routinely seeks to create controversy, criticism and conflict outside of the normal governance structure and processes of APA. When does it stop? When operational psychologists are booted out of APA? When psychology, as a profession, is restricted to psychodynamic therapy? When everyone who has an opinion different from theirs is recused from participation?
I urge others who share these concerns regarding the substance, process and tactics of this group to register direct and vocal complaints with the APA Board of Directors; the major Boards and Committees, to include the Ethics Committee, and Divisions 17, 29, 39 and 48. I call for fairness, an end to the ad hominem campaign, to include to the specific targeting and exclusion strategies aimed at operational, and by extension, military psychology. I request that other GAP divisions, to include Division 19, have representation on the Commission charged with examining ethics processes and procedures. Finally, there must be a mechanism by which the nominations of the “external experts,” a group that will comprise 50% of this Commission’s membership, can be reviewed. I do agree with the critics on this issue – the heart and soul of the APA is at the center of this battle.
Honored to serve,
Sally Harvey
The "Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology"
From: APA Division Officers list [DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG] On Behalf Of Bradley Olson
To: DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 2:29 PM
Subject: [DIVOFFICERS] FW: Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology
Folks,
In the aftermath of controversy surrounding the roles of psychologists in national security interrogations, heightened attention has focused upon broader questions regarding ethical practices in operational psychology -- the use by psychologists of psychological skills and principles to support military and intelligence operations. In response, we (Stephen Soldz, Jean Maria Arrigo, and Brad Olson) convened a workshop to discuss ethical practices in this area. Participants included psychologists, physicians, and social science professionals; military and intelligence professionals; and attorneys, ethicists, and human rights advocates. The discussion also drew upon years of dialogue between participants and members of the military and intelligence community. The workshop met at in Brookline, MA over the September 18-20 weekend.
Participants in the workshop agreed upon the following consensus statement of basic principles. This statement is included below and is also attached. It can also be accessed at Caution-tinyurl.com/EOPW-Statement1. Feel free to freely distribute this statement. We hope it will stimulate a productive dialog among those concerned with the ethical practice of psychology.
The Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology
Produced by the Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop
September 20, 2015
The emergent specialty of operational psychology, the use by psychologists of psychological skills and principles to support military and intelligence operations, has the potential to improve national security and general wellbeing. This specialty currently includes personnel selection; soldier resilience training; Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training; behavioral consultation; outcome assessment; hostage negotiation; interrogation support; and personality profiling for high-risk, high-stakes missions. It is widely accepted that some of these applications constitute ethical practice while the ethicality of others is widely disputed.
Impassioned domestic and international controversies indicate that this field of practice is fraught with exigencies that challenge, and potentially violate, ethical principles for psychologists. The involvement of psychologists in abusive interrogation operations during recent conflicts demonstrates the need for careful examination of the ethical foundations of operational psychology practice.
Concerns about the ethics of operational psychology are further heightened because such operations are often necessarily conducted in secrecy. This can pose a significant challenge for state licensing boards, charged with providing ethics oversight, in those cases where the identities of the psychologists involved are unknown to the board or where the necessary evidentiary documents are unavailable.
For the profession of psychology to fulfill its potential, psychologists must uphold the public trust in the profession’s ethical and scientific integrity across all domains. Some activities that fall within the field of operational psychology carry a high risk of undermining that trust and integrity, thereby diminishing the reputation and effectiveness of the entire profession and its service to national security.
Stephen Soldz, Jean Maria Arrigo, and Brad Olson of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology organized a three-day workshop to engage in a deep and thoughtful dialogue about the specific ethical challenges faced by psychologists practicing in the field of operational psychology. Participants included psychologists, physicians, and social science professionals; military and intelligence professionals; and attorneys, ethicists, and human rights advocates. The discussion also drew upon years of dialogue between participants and members of the military and intelligence community. The workshop took place September 18-20, 2015, at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis in Brookline, Massachusetts, with support from the Meyer Foundation.
From this workshop a consensus emerged that the ethical issues confronting the field of operational psychology are particularly pressing. We therefore believe it is important to clarify relevant ethical principles and develop additional guidance for ethical practice for psychologists in this field. The current American Psychological Association Ethics Code, while providing an excellent foundation and while applicable and binding on all APA members, does not in all cases provide adequate guidance to facilitate the moral discernment necessary for such activity; it would benefit from supplementary ethical guidance in this specialty area. The following Fundamental Principles and Guidelines are intended as a preliminary framework for that supplemental guidance. Consistent with their preliminary nature, these principles and guidelines highlight problem areas rather than provide definitive solutions.
Fundamental Principles and Guidelines
1. Psychology as a profession is based upon the core ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, or “do no harm.” These principles apply to all psychologists, including those working in military or national security contexts. The ethical obligations of professional psychologists are not diminished or altered in times of national emergency or perceived crisis. Operational psychologists serve best when they consistently uphold the moral and scientific integrity of their profession in the military or intelligence context.
2. Ethical concerns are at their highest when psychological expertise is employed to cause harm to the targets of an intervention. The awareness, expectation, or intention of inflicting harm, with whatever justification, is in direct tension with these core ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. The greater the harm, the greater the likelihood that participation in the activity is not ethically permissible for psychologists.
3. Ethical concerns are heightened when the target of the psychological intervention is unaware of the intervention or the purposes or risks of the intervention. Interventions conducted without the awareness and agreement of the target are in tension with the core ethical principle of voluntary informed consent.
4. The risk of compromised professional ethics is also heightened when, because of secrecy, compartmentalization, or strategic manipulation in the mission, psychologists lack full awareness of the scope of an operation in which they are participating. Ethical guidance and evaluation of operational psychology must address the implications of military and intelligence operations where full awareness is not available.
5. The ethical acceptability of any particular action to be undertaken by operational psychologists must be evaluated independently of the purported effectiveness of the proposed technique or operation. The fact that a particular action is considered necessary or has been determined to have been successful with respect to the mission does not thereby make it ethical for psychologists.
6. The ethical practice of psychology in every domain requires mechanisms for ethical monitoring and accountability by other professional psychologists and for ethics consultation and support. To be effective these mechanisms must be independent of chain-of-command pressures and must exhibit a degree of transparency and public accountability consistent with human rights standards. The development of comprehensive oversight, accountability, and consultation mechanisms for psychologists practicing in operational contexts is thus essential.
7. Members of professions have a duty to refuse to participate in activities that violate their professional ethics, and they must have a realistic opportunity to do so. However, some operational psychologists, by virtue of their position within the military or intelligence chain of command or their critical roles in certain operations, will face enormous challenges in refusing participation in actions that are deemed lawful (under the law of armed conflict or other relevant bodies of law) but that violate their professional psychological ethics.
8. Operational psychologists who nevertheless choose to participate in activities that violate psychological ethics, in fulfillment of their military, intelligence, or other contractual commitments, should first be required to surrender their professional licenses and memberships in professional psychological organizations and must not present themselves, or be represented by others, as professional psychologists. Those who make this choice then are serving not as psychologists but as military or intelligence professionals with the corresponding ethical standards of those professions.
Endorsed by the following participants in the Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop, Brookline, Massachusetts, September 18-20, 2015:
(Endorsement represents only the positions of individual signers and not those of employers or other organizations, which are listed for identification purposes only.)
Stephen Soldz
Jean Maria Arrigo
Brad Olson
To: DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 2:29 PM
Subject: [DIVOFFICERS] FW: Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology
Folks,
In the aftermath of controversy surrounding the roles of psychologists in national security interrogations, heightened attention has focused upon broader questions regarding ethical practices in operational psychology -- the use by psychologists of psychological skills and principles to support military and intelligence operations. In response, we (Stephen Soldz, Jean Maria Arrigo, and Brad Olson) convened a workshop to discuss ethical practices in this area. Participants included psychologists, physicians, and social science professionals; military and intelligence professionals; and attorneys, ethicists, and human rights advocates. The discussion also drew upon years of dialogue between participants and members of the military and intelligence community. The workshop met at in Brookline, MA over the September 18-20 weekend.
Participants in the workshop agreed upon the following consensus statement of basic principles. This statement is included below and is also attached. It can also be accessed at Caution-tinyurl.com/EOPW-Statement1. Feel free to freely distribute this statement. We hope it will stimulate a productive dialog among those concerned with the ethical practice of psychology.
The Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology
Produced by the Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop
September 20, 2015
The emergent specialty of operational psychology, the use by psychologists of psychological skills and principles to support military and intelligence operations, has the potential to improve national security and general wellbeing. This specialty currently includes personnel selection; soldier resilience training; Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training; behavioral consultation; outcome assessment; hostage negotiation; interrogation support; and personality profiling for high-risk, high-stakes missions. It is widely accepted that some of these applications constitute ethical practice while the ethicality of others is widely disputed.
Impassioned domestic and international controversies indicate that this field of practice is fraught with exigencies that challenge, and potentially violate, ethical principles for psychologists. The involvement of psychologists in abusive interrogation operations during recent conflicts demonstrates the need for careful examination of the ethical foundations of operational psychology practice.
Concerns about the ethics of operational psychology are further heightened because such operations are often necessarily conducted in secrecy. This can pose a significant challenge for state licensing boards, charged with providing ethics oversight, in those cases where the identities of the psychologists involved are unknown to the board or where the necessary evidentiary documents are unavailable.
For the profession of psychology to fulfill its potential, psychologists must uphold the public trust in the profession’s ethical and scientific integrity across all domains. Some activities that fall within the field of operational psychology carry a high risk of undermining that trust and integrity, thereby diminishing the reputation and effectiveness of the entire profession and its service to national security.
Stephen Soldz, Jean Maria Arrigo, and Brad Olson of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology organized a three-day workshop to engage in a deep and thoughtful dialogue about the specific ethical challenges faced by psychologists practicing in the field of operational psychology. Participants included psychologists, physicians, and social science professionals; military and intelligence professionals; and attorneys, ethicists, and human rights advocates. The discussion also drew upon years of dialogue between participants and members of the military and intelligence community. The workshop took place September 18-20, 2015, at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis in Brookline, Massachusetts, with support from the Meyer Foundation.
From this workshop a consensus emerged that the ethical issues confronting the field of operational psychology are particularly pressing. We therefore believe it is important to clarify relevant ethical principles and develop additional guidance for ethical practice for psychologists in this field. The current American Psychological Association Ethics Code, while providing an excellent foundation and while applicable and binding on all APA members, does not in all cases provide adequate guidance to facilitate the moral discernment necessary for such activity; it would benefit from supplementary ethical guidance in this specialty area. The following Fundamental Principles and Guidelines are intended as a preliminary framework for that supplemental guidance. Consistent with their preliminary nature, these principles and guidelines highlight problem areas rather than provide definitive solutions.
Fundamental Principles and Guidelines
1. Psychology as a profession is based upon the core ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, or “do no harm.” These principles apply to all psychologists, including those working in military or national security contexts. The ethical obligations of professional psychologists are not diminished or altered in times of national emergency or perceived crisis. Operational psychologists serve best when they consistently uphold the moral and scientific integrity of their profession in the military or intelligence context.
2. Ethical concerns are at their highest when psychological expertise is employed to cause harm to the targets of an intervention. The awareness, expectation, or intention of inflicting harm, with whatever justification, is in direct tension with these core ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence. The greater the harm, the greater the likelihood that participation in the activity is not ethically permissible for psychologists.
3. Ethical concerns are heightened when the target of the psychological intervention is unaware of the intervention or the purposes or risks of the intervention. Interventions conducted without the awareness and agreement of the target are in tension with the core ethical principle of voluntary informed consent.
4. The risk of compromised professional ethics is also heightened when, because of secrecy, compartmentalization, or strategic manipulation in the mission, psychologists lack full awareness of the scope of an operation in which they are participating. Ethical guidance and evaluation of operational psychology must address the implications of military and intelligence operations where full awareness is not available.
5. The ethical acceptability of any particular action to be undertaken by operational psychologists must be evaluated independently of the purported effectiveness of the proposed technique or operation. The fact that a particular action is considered necessary or has been determined to have been successful with respect to the mission does not thereby make it ethical for psychologists.
6. The ethical practice of psychology in every domain requires mechanisms for ethical monitoring and accountability by other professional psychologists and for ethics consultation and support. To be effective these mechanisms must be independent of chain-of-command pressures and must exhibit a degree of transparency and public accountability consistent with human rights standards. The development of comprehensive oversight, accountability, and consultation mechanisms for psychologists practicing in operational contexts is thus essential.
7. Members of professions have a duty to refuse to participate in activities that violate their professional ethics, and they must have a realistic opportunity to do so. However, some operational psychologists, by virtue of their position within the military or intelligence chain of command or their critical roles in certain operations, will face enormous challenges in refusing participation in actions that are deemed lawful (under the law of armed conflict or other relevant bodies of law) but that violate their professional psychological ethics.
8. Operational psychologists who nevertheless choose to participate in activities that violate psychological ethics, in fulfillment of their military, intelligence, or other contractual commitments, should first be required to surrender their professional licenses and memberships in professional psychological organizations and must not present themselves, or be represented by others, as professional psychologists. Those who make this choice then are serving not as psychologists but as military or intelligence professionals with the corresponding ethical standards of those professions.
Endorsed by the following participants in the Ethics of Operational Psychology Workshop, Brookline, Massachusetts, September 18-20, 2015:
(Endorsement represents only the positions of individual signers and not those of employers or other organizations, which are listed for identification purposes only.)
- Scott A. Allen: University of California Riverside, School of Medicine
- Jean Maria Arrigo: Coalition for an Ethical Psychology; Member, Council of Representatives, American Psychological Association
- Trudy Bond: Psychologist; Coalition for an Ethical Psychology
- Yosef Brody: President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility
- Martha Davis: Psychologist; John Jay College of Criminal Justice (ret.); Director, Doctors of the Dark Side
- Roy Eidelson: Eidelson Consulting; Coalition for an Ethical Psychology
- Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban: Professor Emerita of Anthropology, Rhode Island College; Adjunct Professor of African Studies, Naval War College; President, World Affairs Council of RI (WACRI)
- David J. R. Frakt: Attorney; Human Rights Advocate; Lt Col, US Air Force JAG Corps Reserve
- John Kiriakou: Former CIA Counterterrorism Operations Officer
- Paul Lauritzen: Department of Religious Studies, John Carroll University
- Bradley Olson: National Louis University; Coalition for an Ethical Psychology
- Steven Reisner: Coalition for an Ethical Psychology; Member, Council of Representatives, American Psychological Association
- Monisha Rios: Saybrook University, College of Social Sciences; Service-Disabled US Army Veteran
- Gabor Rona: Visiting Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School
- Chuck Ruby: Psychologist; Chairman of the Board of Directors, International Society for Ethical Psychology & Psychiatry; Lieutenant Colonel (retired), United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations
- Stephen Soldz: Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis; Coalition for an Ethical Psychology
- Stephen N. Xenakis, M.D.: Brigadier General (Ret), USA
Stephen Soldz
Jean Maria Arrigo
Brad Olson
Emails following Dr. Harvey's Response to the "Brookline Principles"
-----------------------------------------------
From: Bradley Olson <Bradley.Olson@NL.EDU>
To: Sally Harvey (Posted on DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: October 12, 2015
Subject: Brookline Principles: A different call for action
Sally,
I won¹t begin to counter the many misconceptions I see here in your post. I am happy to talk to you Sally, or anyone, off this list and discuss the issues. And Sally I encourage you to share your open critique and information about the Brookline principles to the Div. 19 listserv. I would think the members would want to know about this dialogue.
Just one mischaracterization here I do want to touch on. That is the generalization, throughout the critique, that this conference is somehow negatively or unjustly targeting ³military psychology². That is incorrect. You quote the authors from an important paper, and the sentence you chose is clearly about AOP (Adversarial Operational Psychology), and you treated that statement as if it were about all of operational psychology. That is inaccurate. You also use critiques of A(adversarial)OP critiques as if they target all of military psychology. That is even more inaccurate.
I encourage you and others to read (and even disagree with) the original article in this series: Arrigo, J. M., Eidelson, R. J., & Bennett, R. (2012). Psychology under fire: Adversarial operational psychology and psychological ethics. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18, 384 400.
If anyone wants to request a pdf off list from me, I¹ll be happy to send it. One should read this article and the subsequent back and forth critiques. If one reads the actual article the structure of the critique is quite simple: There is
1. The broader field of "Military Psychology", and
2. "Operational Psychology" (which one would categorize under military psychology¹², and,
3. Breaking it up further, according to the authors,
a. Operational Psychology (COP) and
b. Adversarial Operational Psychology (AOP).
The authors¹ ethical concerns primarily focus on this last, relatively small subspecialty referred to as AOP.
Sally¹s post, and maybe even Ron¹s message, might also be attempting to defend Adversarial Operational Psychology (AOP). That¹s a conversation we like to have as well. If that¹s the case, and if all AOP should be free from critique, we¹re asking for that conversation too. Then let¹s talk about the ³content² of the Brookline Principles.
If "Do No Harm² (not sure if this is what Ron¹s post was saying) is seen as a quirky, historical artifact of a different day and age, some of us clearly disagree. But we did have that conversation about Do No Harm at the workshop. Ron¹s points were on the table, and we spent a lot of time on it, and we will continue to do so. Attitudes toward the ethics of harm and beneficence, and the individual vs. society, have huge implications for the field.
And again, I and others are happy to discuss them off list. Just send me an email or give me a call (773) 308-6461.
Best,
Brad
-------------------
-----------------------------------------------
From: Bradley Olson <Bradley.Olson@NL.EDU>
To: Sally Harvey (Posted on DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015
Subject: Brookline Principles: A different call for action
Oh, and just one correction on a typo of mine. The author¹s use COP as the acronym for 'Collaborative Operational Psychology¹. Not simply ³Operational Psychology², as I have it written.
Thanks,
Brad
-------------------
-----------------------------------------------
From: Sally Harvey
To: Bradley Olson (Posted on DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Subject: Brookline Principles: A different call for action
Dr. Olson,
In concert with your request, and to allay any fears that my original post was not shared with my colleagues, I have taken the liberty of including the following response from Dr. Staal - his name will be familiar, I suspect, as he, and Dr. Carrol Greene, penned several responses to Dr. Arrigo's article regarding Adversarial Operational Psychology. I, as does Mark, do appreciate your stated openness to differences of opinion.
Sally
-------------------
-----------------------------------------------
From: Mark Staal
To: Bradley Olson (Forwarded by Sally Harvey via DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Brad,
Let me start off by saying thanks for being open to receive feedback on your response to Sally. I read your response with keen interest. I was particularly intrigued by your affirmation of Dr. Arrigo et al’s (2012) splicing of Operational Psychology. What I found most curious was your assertion that Operational Psychology constitutes two things, Collaborative (COP) and Adversarial (AOP) practices. Now, I am aware that Dr. Arrigo and her colleagues have stated as much; however, I trust you recognize that just because someone says something is so, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it really is. Since Dr. Arrigo is not experienced in Operational Psychology nor does she appear overly familiar with the research literature in this area or the community of practitioners, she is not the best source on what is and is not operational psychology. I appreciate your offer to review Dr. Arrigo’s article as it raises many provocative questions. As a seeker of the truth and someone who can appreciate multiple perspectives to any argument, I would ask that you take seriously the responses to this series as well, particularly in light of the fact that Dr. Arrigo’s team does not consist of any operational psychologists, while the respondents represent 30 years or more of operational psychology practice.
Let me say from the get go, that the separation of Operational Psychology into COP and AOP activities is a false dichotomy and unnecessary. Moreover, Arrigo et al.’s (2012) recommendation for isolation and separation of COP from AOP practitioners is ill-advised and not in keeping with the best practices of our profession.
The categorical model (AOP/COP) and subsequent exclusion criteria that Dr. Arrigo has suggested, is based on a number of troubling assumptions. Sally rightly points out that Arrigo et al. (2012), in their focus on government and military operational psychologists, seem to imply that only operational psychologists working in such organizations are involved in professional activities that would be classified as adversarial. The reality is, as you know, if we were to apply the criteria used by Dr. Arrigo to separate COP from AOP we would in fact, implicate many subspecialties within applied psychology.
For example, psychologists who consult to the jury selection process routinely serve the interests of their attorney client by either training the lawyers or advising firsthand in the retention or removal of potential jurors who are more likely to decide against their client. This is done without recourse on the juror’s part and without any stipulation of potential harm to the opposing attorney/client. Second, psychologists who advise marketing firms, run focus groups, or help shape advertising messages work to the benefit of their organizational client with limited, if any, obligation of concern for the consumer who is the subject of their influence focus. Third, psychology teachers/professors in academic settings work to serve the learning motivations of their students. But they are also agents of the institution and deliver painful consequences to students who produce unacceptable results. Fourth, psychologists who advise police and public safety organizations provide consultation often designed to sway public opinion against criminals and to reward citizens who help them arrest and imprison criminals. All of this is done without permission, informed consent, or legal recourse by the criminal. And finally, psychologists who advise corporations on identification of internal and external threats to information security or safety engage in development of managerial messages and detection processes to thwart the desires of people who are the focus of their efforts.
I absolutely agree with you, Brad - if we are to adopt the COP/AOP dichotomy, then we certainly should not be focused selectively toward the military or intelligence psychology communities. We should be casting a much wider net. I suspect that if all the psychologists who conduct “adversarial” activities (as defined by Arrigo et al.) were to be ejected from the psychology profession, the number would reflect a group much larger than that of government and military operational psychologists and the outcry from our colleagues would be substantial. Of course, that is part of the reason that the criteria suggested by Dr. Arrigo isn’t being applied to these other groups. It is much easier to target a small group of professional public servants who are not at great liberty to defend themselves or their work.
There is one additional issue I would like to address regarding the Brookline group. It is curious to learn that this external group, largely (if not completely) devoid of operational psychologists has taken it upon themselves to define applied practice standards and ethical guidelines for another specialty community. This is odd in part, because they don’t have the requisite knowledge and experience to define the specialty’s parameters based on their membership. They could no more define such boundaries of practice for operational psychology than I could do so for neuropsychology or forensic psychology. Secondly, this group appears to be unaware that there is a pre-existing literature base that has already identified and defined the field and started to address specialty specific practice guidelines and ethical standards (Civiello, 2009; Kennedy, Borum, & Fein, 2011; Kennedy & Williams, 2011; Staal & Stephenson, 2006; Stephenson & Staal, 2007; Staal & Stephenson, 2013; Williams & Johnson, 2006; Williams, Picano, Roland, & Banks, 2006).
In summary, the separation of Operational Psychology into COP and AOP activities is a false dichotomy and unnecessary. Dr. Arrigo’s criteria, if equitably applied, would implicate many areas of specialization within applied psychology in this country. The outrage would be widespread and literally tens of thousands of APA members and practitioners would find themselves cloven from the APA and their professional peers. As a result, this group seems content to target, with prejudice, the small community of military and intelligence psychologists working in operational psychology. Lastly, it is presumptuous at best, and simply silly at worst, that an informal body of practitioners in one area would attempt to define parameters of practice for another.
Thank you again for being open to hear my response. I too welcome an open dialogue. It is the very thing that has been lacking in this debate.
v/r,
Mark Staal
-------------------
-----------------------------------------------
From: Mark Staal
To: Bradley Olson (Forwarded by Sally Harvey via DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: (Unknown)
Brad,
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my statement. You made it clear in your response to Sally that your position, and that of the Brookline group, is not to target military psychology. In contrast, you stated that you are pursuing “adversarial operational psychology”.
I am in agreement with you. You are not targeting a single community of practitioners but a much larger group of applied specialty areas. Your use of AOP, a construction of Dr. Arrigo and her team, relies on several criteria separating AOP from COP. These criteria includes 1) the absence of traditional informed consent, 2) the presence of potential unstipulated harm, and 3) the absence of direct external oversight from outside agencies.
You have based your argument on a practice framework, not on a particular specialty. Therefore, when I said, "I absolutely agree with you, Brad - if we are to adopt the COP/AOP dichotomy, then we certainly should not be focused selectively toward the military or intelligence psychology communities. We should be casting a much wider net", I was addressing this clear distinction that you have made. You have not targeted a single community, you have targeted a series of communities (any and all that meet the AOP criteria). I have identified a number that do in fact meet these criteria in my previous response, all of which are well beyond the scope of military or intelligence community practitioners.
I hope that addresses the confusion. My intention is not to misquote you, it is to help add clarity to the differences in our positions.
v/r,
Mark Staal
-------------------
From: Bradley Olson <Bradley.Olson@NL.EDU>
To: Sally Harvey (Posted on DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: October 12, 2015
Subject: Brookline Principles: A different call for action
Sally,
I won¹t begin to counter the many misconceptions I see here in your post. I am happy to talk to you Sally, or anyone, off this list and discuss the issues. And Sally I encourage you to share your open critique and information about the Brookline principles to the Div. 19 listserv. I would think the members would want to know about this dialogue.
Just one mischaracterization here I do want to touch on. That is the generalization, throughout the critique, that this conference is somehow negatively or unjustly targeting ³military psychology². That is incorrect. You quote the authors from an important paper, and the sentence you chose is clearly about AOP (Adversarial Operational Psychology), and you treated that statement as if it were about all of operational psychology. That is inaccurate. You also use critiques of A(adversarial)OP critiques as if they target all of military psychology. That is even more inaccurate.
I encourage you and others to read (and even disagree with) the original article in this series: Arrigo, J. M., Eidelson, R. J., & Bennett, R. (2012). Psychology under fire: Adversarial operational psychology and psychological ethics. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18, 384 400.
If anyone wants to request a pdf off list from me, I¹ll be happy to send it. One should read this article and the subsequent back and forth critiques. If one reads the actual article the structure of the critique is quite simple: There is
1. The broader field of "Military Psychology", and
2. "Operational Psychology" (which one would categorize under military psychology¹², and,
3. Breaking it up further, according to the authors,
a. Operational Psychology (COP) and
b. Adversarial Operational Psychology (AOP).
The authors¹ ethical concerns primarily focus on this last, relatively small subspecialty referred to as AOP.
Sally¹s post, and maybe even Ron¹s message, might also be attempting to defend Adversarial Operational Psychology (AOP). That¹s a conversation we like to have as well. If that¹s the case, and if all AOP should be free from critique, we¹re asking for that conversation too. Then let¹s talk about the ³content² of the Brookline Principles.
If "Do No Harm² (not sure if this is what Ron¹s post was saying) is seen as a quirky, historical artifact of a different day and age, some of us clearly disagree. But we did have that conversation about Do No Harm at the workshop. Ron¹s points were on the table, and we spent a lot of time on it, and we will continue to do so. Attitudes toward the ethics of harm and beneficence, and the individual vs. society, have huge implications for the field.
And again, I and others are happy to discuss them off list. Just send me an email or give me a call (773) 308-6461.
Best,
Brad
-------------------
-----------------------------------------------
From: Bradley Olson <Bradley.Olson@NL.EDU>
To: Sally Harvey (Posted on DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015
Subject: Brookline Principles: A different call for action
Oh, and just one correction on a typo of mine. The author¹s use COP as the acronym for 'Collaborative Operational Psychology¹. Not simply ³Operational Psychology², as I have it written.
Thanks,
Brad
-------------------
-----------------------------------------------
From: Sally Harvey
To: Bradley Olson (Posted on DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Subject: Brookline Principles: A different call for action
Dr. Olson,
In concert with your request, and to allay any fears that my original post was not shared with my colleagues, I have taken the liberty of including the following response from Dr. Staal - his name will be familiar, I suspect, as he, and Dr. Carrol Greene, penned several responses to Dr. Arrigo's article regarding Adversarial Operational Psychology. I, as does Mark, do appreciate your stated openness to differences of opinion.
Sally
-------------------
-----------------------------------------------
From: Mark Staal
To: Bradley Olson (Forwarded by Sally Harvey via DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Brad,
Let me start off by saying thanks for being open to receive feedback on your response to Sally. I read your response with keen interest. I was particularly intrigued by your affirmation of Dr. Arrigo et al’s (2012) splicing of Operational Psychology. What I found most curious was your assertion that Operational Psychology constitutes two things, Collaborative (COP) and Adversarial (AOP) practices. Now, I am aware that Dr. Arrigo and her colleagues have stated as much; however, I trust you recognize that just because someone says something is so, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it really is. Since Dr. Arrigo is not experienced in Operational Psychology nor does she appear overly familiar with the research literature in this area or the community of practitioners, she is not the best source on what is and is not operational psychology. I appreciate your offer to review Dr. Arrigo’s article as it raises many provocative questions. As a seeker of the truth and someone who can appreciate multiple perspectives to any argument, I would ask that you take seriously the responses to this series as well, particularly in light of the fact that Dr. Arrigo’s team does not consist of any operational psychologists, while the respondents represent 30 years or more of operational psychology practice.
Let me say from the get go, that the separation of Operational Psychology into COP and AOP activities is a false dichotomy and unnecessary. Moreover, Arrigo et al.’s (2012) recommendation for isolation and separation of COP from AOP practitioners is ill-advised and not in keeping with the best practices of our profession.
The categorical model (AOP/COP) and subsequent exclusion criteria that Dr. Arrigo has suggested, is based on a number of troubling assumptions. Sally rightly points out that Arrigo et al. (2012), in their focus on government and military operational psychologists, seem to imply that only operational psychologists working in such organizations are involved in professional activities that would be classified as adversarial. The reality is, as you know, if we were to apply the criteria used by Dr. Arrigo to separate COP from AOP we would in fact, implicate many subspecialties within applied psychology.
For example, psychologists who consult to the jury selection process routinely serve the interests of their attorney client by either training the lawyers or advising firsthand in the retention or removal of potential jurors who are more likely to decide against their client. This is done without recourse on the juror’s part and without any stipulation of potential harm to the opposing attorney/client. Second, psychologists who advise marketing firms, run focus groups, or help shape advertising messages work to the benefit of their organizational client with limited, if any, obligation of concern for the consumer who is the subject of their influence focus. Third, psychology teachers/professors in academic settings work to serve the learning motivations of their students. But they are also agents of the institution and deliver painful consequences to students who produce unacceptable results. Fourth, psychologists who advise police and public safety organizations provide consultation often designed to sway public opinion against criminals and to reward citizens who help them arrest and imprison criminals. All of this is done without permission, informed consent, or legal recourse by the criminal. And finally, psychologists who advise corporations on identification of internal and external threats to information security or safety engage in development of managerial messages and detection processes to thwart the desires of people who are the focus of their efforts.
I absolutely agree with you, Brad - if we are to adopt the COP/AOP dichotomy, then we certainly should not be focused selectively toward the military or intelligence psychology communities. We should be casting a much wider net. I suspect that if all the psychologists who conduct “adversarial” activities (as defined by Arrigo et al.) were to be ejected from the psychology profession, the number would reflect a group much larger than that of government and military operational psychologists and the outcry from our colleagues would be substantial. Of course, that is part of the reason that the criteria suggested by Dr. Arrigo isn’t being applied to these other groups. It is much easier to target a small group of professional public servants who are not at great liberty to defend themselves or their work.
There is one additional issue I would like to address regarding the Brookline group. It is curious to learn that this external group, largely (if not completely) devoid of operational psychologists has taken it upon themselves to define applied practice standards and ethical guidelines for another specialty community. This is odd in part, because they don’t have the requisite knowledge and experience to define the specialty’s parameters based on their membership. They could no more define such boundaries of practice for operational psychology than I could do so for neuropsychology or forensic psychology. Secondly, this group appears to be unaware that there is a pre-existing literature base that has already identified and defined the field and started to address specialty specific practice guidelines and ethical standards (Civiello, 2009; Kennedy, Borum, & Fein, 2011; Kennedy & Williams, 2011; Staal & Stephenson, 2006; Stephenson & Staal, 2007; Staal & Stephenson, 2013; Williams & Johnson, 2006; Williams, Picano, Roland, & Banks, 2006).
In summary, the separation of Operational Psychology into COP and AOP activities is a false dichotomy and unnecessary. Dr. Arrigo’s criteria, if equitably applied, would implicate many areas of specialization within applied psychology in this country. The outrage would be widespread and literally tens of thousands of APA members and practitioners would find themselves cloven from the APA and their professional peers. As a result, this group seems content to target, with prejudice, the small community of military and intelligence psychologists working in operational psychology. Lastly, it is presumptuous at best, and simply silly at worst, that an informal body of practitioners in one area would attempt to define parameters of practice for another.
Thank you again for being open to hear my response. I too welcome an open dialogue. It is the very thing that has been lacking in this debate.
v/r,
Mark Staal
-------------------
-----------------------------------------------
From: Mark Staal
To: Bradley Olson (Forwarded by Sally Harvey via DIVOFFICERS@LISTS.APA.ORG)
Sent: (Unknown)
Brad,
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my statement. You made it clear in your response to Sally that your position, and that of the Brookline group, is not to target military psychology. In contrast, you stated that you are pursuing “adversarial operational psychology”.
I am in agreement with you. You are not targeting a single community of practitioners but a much larger group of applied specialty areas. Your use of AOP, a construction of Dr. Arrigo and her team, relies on several criteria separating AOP from COP. These criteria includes 1) the absence of traditional informed consent, 2) the presence of potential unstipulated harm, and 3) the absence of direct external oversight from outside agencies.
You have based your argument on a practice framework, not on a particular specialty. Therefore, when I said, "I absolutely agree with you, Brad - if we are to adopt the COP/AOP dichotomy, then we certainly should not be focused selectively toward the military or intelligence psychology communities. We should be casting a much wider net", I was addressing this clear distinction that you have made. You have not targeted a single community, you have targeted a series of communities (any and all that meet the AOP criteria). I have identified a number that do in fact meet these criteria in my previous response, all of which are well beyond the scope of military or intelligence community practitioners.
I hope that addresses the confusion. My intention is not to misquote you, it is to help add clarity to the differences in our positions.
v/r,
Mark Staal
-------------------