In this essay we respond to Staal and Greene's (2015) critique of our ethical rejection of "adversarial operational psychology" (AOP; Arrigo, Eidelson, & Bennett, 2012). We rebut their evasive attempt to expand AOP beyond the security sector, and we explain how AOP elements of power, resources, secrecy, ideological control, and strategic deception defy civic-sector norms. We also discuss their failure to address our foundational questions, including purported military necessity as the justification for AOP and the limited capacity of civic institutions to monitor conduct in AOP. We conclude that the demands of psychological and military ethics point to exclusion of AOP from professional psychology.
We appreciate the participation of Drs. Staal and Greene in this dialogue, and we respond to four representative issues raised in their preceding rebuttal. We conclude with a call to all stakeholders to grapple with foundational issues that they evaded.JEAN MARIA ARRIGO holds a PhD and has been a social psychologist since 1995. She's given voice to military intelligence professionals of conscience through oral histories, documentation, speaking engagements, and joint activities with scholars. She established the Intelligence Ethics Collection at
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.