Operational psychology: An ethical practice—A reply to Arrigo, Eidelson, and Rockwood (2015).

Staal, Mark A.; Greene, Carroll H.

doi:10.1037/pac0000097

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to our original proposal (Arrigo, Eidelson, & Bennett, 2012), Staal and Greene (2015) offer no coherent ethical framework for operational psychology in the intersection of psychological ethics and military ethics. Their ad hoc beliefs-such as "we assert that [operational psychologists'] primary responsibility is to their client organization" (p. 279) and "we believe the APA's definition of 'reasonable' oversight is sufficient" (p. 279)-accommodate abuses characteristic of the Bush Administration's "war on terror" operations (U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, 2008) or even Soviet psychiatry (Reich, 1983).…”

Section: Accountabilitycontrasting

confidence: 68%

“…In 2011, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists dismissed an ethics complaint filed against Mitchell for his abuse of detainees (Robbins, 2011). Staal and Greene (2015) similarly err in construing psychologists engaged in adversarial operational psychology (AOP) as morally autonomous agents committed to defending psychological ethics. In fact, the AOP psychologists selected for the American Psychological Association's (APA) Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) Task Force deferred to the Bush Administration's characterization of war-onterror detention and interrogation operations as not constituting torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.…”

Section: Platitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adversarial operational psychology: Returning to the foundational issues.

Arrigo¹,

Eidelson²,

Rockwood³

2015

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Accountabilitycontrasting

confidence: 68%

Section: Platitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adversarial operational psychology: Returning to the foundational issues.

Arrigo¹,

Eidelson²,

Rockwood³

2015

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arrigo et al () evoked rebuttals from adversarial operational psychologists (Arrigo, Eidelson, & Rockwood, ; Staal & Greene, ). However, in our opinion, these critiques failed to seriously engage the issues raised, presenting, rather, a rosy picture of operational psychology.…”

Section: Operational Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Interrogating the ethics of operational psychology

Soldz

Olson

Arrigo³

2017

Community & Applied Soc Psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commissioned amidst allegations of collusion between American Psychological Association officials and Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense officials involved in the enhanced interrogation programme, the July 2015 Hoffman Report documented a decade of collusion between American Psychological Association and Department of Defense officials in unethical national security interrogations. However, interrogation support is but one of numerous areas where psychologists are directly aiding military and intelligence operations, an area known as operational psychology. The ethical issues posed by the larger field of operational psychology have received little public discussion apart from apologia by operational psychologists themselves. To stimulate public review of operational psychology, leaders of the movement to remove psychologists from national security interrogations convened, in September 2015, a group of experts to work towards a consensus set of principles to guide future discussion. Participants included psychologists, physicians, and social scientists; military and intelligence professionals; and attorneys, ethicists, and human rights advocates. The discussion also drew upon years of dialogue between participants and military health and intelligence professionals. The workshop produced "The Brookline Principles on the Ethical Practice of Operational Psychology," with implications for the profession of psychology and for civil society. KEYWORDS APA, Hoffman Report, interrogations, PENS Report, torture 1 | BACKGROUNDIn the wake of the 9/11 attacks, there were increased demands for psychologists to aid U.S. military and intelligence operations, roles that have come to be known as "operational psychology" as they contrasted from traditional health provider and personnel selection roles for military psychologists. Among these roles was participation in national security interrogations conducted by the military and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), interrogations that sometimes constituted torture.

show abstract

“…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.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We welcome this opportunity to respond to Staal and Greene’s (2015) critique of our essay, “Psychology Under Fire: Adversarial Operational Psychology and Psychological Ethics” (Arrigo, Eidelson, & Bennett, 2012). In that article we distinguished adversarial operational psychology (AOP) from collaborative operational psychology (COP).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Adversarial operational psychology is unethical psychology: A reply to Staal and Greene (2015).

Arrigo¹,

Eidelson²,

Rockwood³

2015

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Operational psychology: An ethical practice—A reply to Arrigo, Eidelson, and Rockwood (2015).

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Adversarial operational psychology: Returning to the foundational issues.

Adversarial operational psychology: Returning to the foundational issues.

Interrogating the ethics of operational psychology

Adversarial operational psychology is unethical psychology: A reply to Staal and Greene (2015).

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About