An examination of “adversarial” operational psychology.

Abstract

Operational psychology has remained under pressure from its critics. Arrigo, Eidelson, and Bennett (2012) proposed a split of operational psychology activities into 2 categories: "collaborative" and "adversarial," on the basis of their concerns that certain professional activities are unethical and inappropriate for psychology practitioners. Arguments to separate these activities are examined along with the authors' recommendations to bar psychologists from practicing in areas deemed "adversarial" by the Arrigo et al. criteria. Implications for military, government, public safety, and industrial psychologists are discussed. The applicability of the American Psychological Association's (2010) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct is also addressed.

Military operational psychology.

“…They are, however, of particular concern in areas of emerging practice and when providing consultative services where informed consent and dual agency considerations are common. Operational psychology is no stranger to ethics-related controversy, and several notable exchanges have already taken place in addressing these concerns (Arrigo, Eidelson, & Bennett, 2012; Staal, 2018; Staal & Greene, 2015). The following provides a brief exposition of three common areas of ethical consideration facing operational psychologists.…”

Second response to Staal: Independent moral assessment, an essential requirement for ethical practice in operational psychology.

“…Staal is correct that these procedural risks sometimes characterize psychologists' activities in nonsecurity-sector domains. However, as Arrigo et al (2015) have previously responded to Staal and Greene (2015), unlike the AOP context, harm to the target of intervention in the civil sector is seldom the psychologist's intent, and, in many cases, there is a reasonable level of (sometimes implicit) informed consent. But, most importantly, in civil society there are external mechanisms-investigative journalism, citizen action groups, courts, government regulations, rights to independent consultants, ability to file lawsuits and ethics complaints, and unclassified institutional review boards-that significantly constrain professional autonomy, inform the public about abuses, and provide potential remedies.…”

Turning psychology against militarism

“…Crucially, “… the psychologist engaged in AOP activities is a fully deployable soldier, typically a member of a highly coordinated and interdependent team, obligated to put the operational mission first, under national security criteria that supersede the APA Ethics Code … The moral autonomy of the military psychologist is quite limited …” (Arrigo et al, , p. 271) (incidentally, doctors and other health workers, lawyers, and chaplains working for the military share some of the same ethical dilemmas: Nathanson, ; Bourke, ; Virden, ). Staal & Greene (), operational psychologists at U.S. Special Operations Command, and both current or retired Colonels in the United States Air Force, objected, arguing that OP was not alone in posing such dilemmas and requiring ultimate loyalty to the institution for which psychologists work.…”