Operational psychology: Proactive ethics in a challenging world.

Abstract

The chapters in this volume provide the basis for an ethical foundation and framework for the various roles and responsibilities of operational psychologists. It is evident that operational psychologists experience special demands and bear social responsibilities in providing services in difficult and demanding nontraditional settings. Therefore, psychologists must find a way, as did the founding members of the profession, to reconcile the science, practice, law, and ethics with national security threats posed by avowed enemies of our way of life (Yerkes, 1918).A code of ethics cannot anticipate all the ethical concerns that psychologists may face and reflects the reality that practical issues may arise that result in a conflict between the law and ethics (Knapp & VandeCreek, 2003. Indeed, the American Psychological Association's "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" (APA Ethics Code; APA, 2010a) anticipates this conflict. Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority, which was amended

Psychology under fire: Adversarial operational psychology and psychological ethics.

“…X worked ‘against’ U.S. service members as much as he or she worked against Jawad” through “the lowering of standards and ethical compromises inflicted on inexperienced interrogators who complied with Dr. X's advice.” This case may represent rarer abuses of AOP, but proponents need to address the lack of a systematic means of addressing excessive zeal. Williams and Kennedy (2011) seem to incorporate this fervor into the AOP program with alarmist exaggerations such as this: “If psychologists view [the extremists] as individuals, they are terrorists, but if psychologists view their larger true intent, they are genocidists” (p. 137).…”

“…The ethical risks associated with AOP are further magnified by the absence of a reliable system for monitoring and deterring wrongful behavior. AOP advocates themselves have noted, “there must also be established procedures for monitoring and observing the actions of those within the profession along with the sanctioning mechanisms for those who deviate from the accepted standards” (Williams & Kennedy, 2011, p. 132). However, there is no provision in military regulations for the independent monitoring of BSCT psychologists in regard to psychological ethics (Department of the Army, 2010), no recommendation for independent monitoring in the APA PENS Report (APA, 2005), and no advocacy for independent monitoring of which we are aware from any of the proponents of AOP we have cited.…”

“…This case may represent rarer abuses of AOP, but proponents need to address the lack of a systematic means of addressing excessive zeal. Williams and Kennedy (2011) 2) where otherwise permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations" (APA, 2010). Case Officer A (2011, July 4) remarked: "Government agencies will pass whatever institutional regulation needed to accomplish the mission.…”

How practitioners perceive ethics in psychology

“…The literature shows that ethics in applied psychology and psychotherapy have become a crucial topic since the beginning of the 21 st century-for example, the Hoffman report, its perception (see, for example, Kryuchkov, 2021), and the general discussion around ethical issues and ethical status of so-called operational psychology (see, for example, Staal & DeVries, 2020;Soldz et al, 2017;Williams & Kennedy, 2011).…”