By the Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychology (SIOP)
March 26, 2016
General Comments
The Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychology (SIOP), with over 8,000 members and affiliates, appreciates the intent of the revised guideline proposals, but is opposed to revisions to the APA Ethics Code that (a) establish precedent for limiting the settings in which psychologists can practice, rather than identifying unacceptable behavior; (b) presume only an individual mental healthcare provider role (e.g., when considering the concept of “do no harm”), (c) fail to recognize the positive contributions that psychologists are uniquely positioned to offer in ethically challenging situations; and (d) seek to define unacceptable behavior so precisely that the effort becomes a self-defeating exercise in the search for clarity. Given these concerns, we see great potential for unintended consequences that will inhibit rather than promote the extent to which science-based practice of psychology can and should advance human welfare goals.
Comments on Version A
This statement is a clear and concise ethical guideline that avoids the significant issues the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology (SIOP) has with Version B. Although we do not necessarily believe that this addition to the APA Ethics Code is necessary given our interpretation of the current code, we do not see negative unanticipated consequences for including it.
Comments on Version B
Although the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology appreciates the intent of the revised guideline and wholeheartedly supports guidelines for avoiding harm, we feel Version B limits the ways in which psychologists can use their expertise to advance the health, safety, and well-being of individuals and collective entities. We have several concerns about the proposed language in Version B and believe it could lead to a range of unintended consequences. Due to the 1,000 character limit on comments, we have posted specific concerns separately. We summarize here by noting that we view Version B as an overcorrection to events leading to the revised ethics guidelines. The effect of this would be that our profession would be cut off from a wide range of work in which our expertise is sorely needed, and the health/safety/well-being of individuals and organizations is compromised as a result. If the revisions in this version were employed, it would stand to reduce the meaningful and numerous ways that psychology has a meaningful impact on organizations and society.
Detailing our summary comments #1: 3.04 (c) identifies settings in which psychologists cannot be present, rather than focusing on the conduct of psychologists. Psychologists working within organizations or institutions are often better positioned to advocate broader protections for vulnerable populations, particularly those psychologists who are not in individually focused health care provider roles. For applied psychologists, stance of the revision presumably would limit psychologists performing a variety of important tasks, including job analysis, training, or selection work – areas in which I-O psychologists have expertise – which could have critical implications for ensuring the protection and advancement of humanitarian interests at both the individual and group levels. By indicating that psychologists cannot participate in a number of activities, it opens a door for non-psychologists without research and ethics training to engage in services for which they are unqualified.
Detailing our summary comments #2: The language considers only the potential harm that can come from psychologists’ involvement in these settings. Providing research-based advice on interrogation and conditions of confinement can benefit both the military or intelligence entity and the detainee. The rationale for 3.04 (c) also reflects a mistaken view of military and intelligence entities. Safeguarding human welfare and avoiding harm is exactly what those entities aim to do, but on a collective level, rather than at the individual level. Furthermore, the perceived conflict of interest described in 3.04 (c) is not unique to national security settings. Psychologists working in law enforcement and corrections settings act on behalf of the public’s interests, or a prison population as a whole, or of an individual prisoner. Although national security prompted these revisions, the psychologist’s activities themselves are not sufficiently unique to warrant this distinction.
Detailing further our summary comments #3: 3.04 (b) and 3.04 (c) use a number of terms that describe psychologists’ activities for purposes unrelated to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For example, 3.04 (b) does not distinguish the different possible definitions of “punishment” relevant to psychology. In addition, including statements about interrogations and torture in the same ethics guideline implicitly associate the two, when they are not generally related. It is also unclear what is meant by the word “facilitate” in 3.04 (b). Could psychologists’ activities related to, for example, leadership training programs, employment testing, employee engagement/job satisfaction surveys for interrogation-related organizations be interpreted as “facilitating”? Similarly, the terms “national security” and “intelligence” also carry many ambiguities.
Detailing further our summary comments #4: 3.04 (b) specifies activities deemed unethical, and which are also expressly illegal. An ethics code does not need to describe illegal activities.
-------------
Note from PsychCoalition:
Please go to the following APA website to read and comment about the proposed revisions to the ethics code:
http://apacustomout.apa.org/commentCentral/default.aspx?site=43
March 26, 2016
General Comments
The Society of Industrial-Organizational Psychology (SIOP), with over 8,000 members and affiliates, appreciates the intent of the revised guideline proposals, but is opposed to revisions to the APA Ethics Code that (a) establish precedent for limiting the settings in which psychologists can practice, rather than identifying unacceptable behavior; (b) presume only an individual mental healthcare provider role (e.g., when considering the concept of “do no harm”), (c) fail to recognize the positive contributions that psychologists are uniquely positioned to offer in ethically challenging situations; and (d) seek to define unacceptable behavior so precisely that the effort becomes a self-defeating exercise in the search for clarity. Given these concerns, we see great potential for unintended consequences that will inhibit rather than promote the extent to which science-based practice of psychology can and should advance human welfare goals.
Comments on Version A
This statement is a clear and concise ethical guideline that avoids the significant issues the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology (SIOP) has with Version B. Although we do not necessarily believe that this addition to the APA Ethics Code is necessary given our interpretation of the current code, we do not see negative unanticipated consequences for including it.
Comments on Version B
Although the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology appreciates the intent of the revised guideline and wholeheartedly supports guidelines for avoiding harm, we feel Version B limits the ways in which psychologists can use their expertise to advance the health, safety, and well-being of individuals and collective entities. We have several concerns about the proposed language in Version B and believe it could lead to a range of unintended consequences. Due to the 1,000 character limit on comments, we have posted specific concerns separately. We summarize here by noting that we view Version B as an overcorrection to events leading to the revised ethics guidelines. The effect of this would be that our profession would be cut off from a wide range of work in which our expertise is sorely needed, and the health/safety/well-being of individuals and organizations is compromised as a result. If the revisions in this version were employed, it would stand to reduce the meaningful and numerous ways that psychology has a meaningful impact on organizations and society.
Detailing our summary comments #1: 3.04 (c) identifies settings in which psychologists cannot be present, rather than focusing on the conduct of psychologists. Psychologists working within organizations or institutions are often better positioned to advocate broader protections for vulnerable populations, particularly those psychologists who are not in individually focused health care provider roles. For applied psychologists, stance of the revision presumably would limit psychologists performing a variety of important tasks, including job analysis, training, or selection work – areas in which I-O psychologists have expertise – which could have critical implications for ensuring the protection and advancement of humanitarian interests at both the individual and group levels. By indicating that psychologists cannot participate in a number of activities, it opens a door for non-psychologists without research and ethics training to engage in services for which they are unqualified.
Detailing our summary comments #2: The language considers only the potential harm that can come from psychologists’ involvement in these settings. Providing research-based advice on interrogation and conditions of confinement can benefit both the military or intelligence entity and the detainee. The rationale for 3.04 (c) also reflects a mistaken view of military and intelligence entities. Safeguarding human welfare and avoiding harm is exactly what those entities aim to do, but on a collective level, rather than at the individual level. Furthermore, the perceived conflict of interest described in 3.04 (c) is not unique to national security settings. Psychologists working in law enforcement and corrections settings act on behalf of the public’s interests, or a prison population as a whole, or of an individual prisoner. Although national security prompted these revisions, the psychologist’s activities themselves are not sufficiently unique to warrant this distinction.
Detailing further our summary comments #3: 3.04 (b) and 3.04 (c) use a number of terms that describe psychologists’ activities for purposes unrelated to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For example, 3.04 (b) does not distinguish the different possible definitions of “punishment” relevant to psychology. In addition, including statements about interrogations and torture in the same ethics guideline implicitly associate the two, when they are not generally related. It is also unclear what is meant by the word “facilitate” in 3.04 (b). Could psychologists’ activities related to, for example, leadership training programs, employment testing, employee engagement/job satisfaction surveys for interrogation-related organizations be interpreted as “facilitating”? Similarly, the terms “national security” and “intelligence” also carry many ambiguities.
Detailing further our summary comments #4: 3.04 (b) specifies activities deemed unethical, and which are also expressly illegal. An ethics code does not need to describe illegal activities.
-------------
Note from PsychCoalition:
Please go to the following APA website to read and comment about the proposed revisions to the ethics code:
http://apacustomout.apa.org/commentCentral/default.aspx?site=43