Historicizing the Role of Psychologists in the U.S. Military: Introduction to Issue on Coercive Interrogations and the Mental Health Profession

This special issue addresses the disturbing events that emerged in the aftermath of 9/11 in the United States with regard to the role of mental health professionals in coercive interrogations of detainees held in detention centers and military “black sites.” While other professional associations condemned such practices, the American Psychological Association maintained a position of collaboration, despite activist members' protests.

These events will be examined in an effort to reconstitute our history as a profession through the actions of what Freud called “nachtraeglichkeit’, (deferred action) in which the unassimilated experiences of the past relationship between psychology and the military will be used to transform our perceptions and future directions. This introduction also summarizes the papers in this issue. These include a history of the interrogation practices and the controversy within the APA; a history of the long-standing relationship between the profession of psychology and government, military, and intelligence organizations; analyses of the psychology of torture and evidence of how this psychology is manifested in the consulting room; a comparison of psychological structures within the population and mental health professions in the United States today and Argentina during recent totalitarian regimes; and an interview with Robert Lifton, eminent psychohistorian, psychiatrist and political activist.     

Militarism,Human Welfare,and the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists

A case study is presented of the American Psychological Association (APA), as a health care organization that promotes human welfare. APA includes policies on human welfare in its Ethical Principles of Psychologists and even lists the advancement of psychology "as a means of promoting human welfare" on its letterhead. Nevertheless, APA has other policies and activities based on military and weapons work that appear to conflict with its promotion of human welfare. Although military work in and of itself may not necessarily be problematic, work that contributes to people purposely being harmed or killed should be squared with the association's ethical guidelines. The results presented here show that this may not be the case: There currently appears to be little justification in the Ethical Principles for work intended to harm people. APA's active lobbying, research, and development for the military are documented here, in relation to an analysis of the Ethical Principles. APA's uncritical support for Operation Desert Storm is examined specifically, with regard to weapons technology and therapeutic treatment of U.S. soldiers on the battlefield. This one-sided support for victims of the war is not in keeping with a Hippocratic health care ethic to treat patients needing care, and to do so with neutrality and impartiality. Similarities to a historical example of nationalistic mental health ethics are discussed, with a review of the development of the German Institute for Psychological Research and Psychotherapy and of the German Society for Psychology in the Nazi wartime effort and the Holocaust. The results here show similar deficiencies in APA's ethical standards, not the least of which is that the code applies to individual members but not to APA policies, committees, or activities. This article concludes with suggested criteria for the Ethical Principles that would at least (a) recognize the ambiguities in systematically developing and using weapons to hurt people and (b) provide an initial rationale of potential justifications.     

Militarism, human welfare, and the APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists

A case study is presented of the American Psychological Association (APA), as a health care organization that promotes human welfare. APA includes policies on human welfare in its Ethical Principles of Psychologists and even lists the advancement of psychology "as a means of promoting human welfare" on its letterhead. Nevertheless, APA has other policies and activities based on military and weapons work that appear to conflict with its promotion of human welfare. Although military work in and of itself may not necessarily be problematic, work that contributes to people purposely being harmed or killed should be squared with the association's ethical guidelines. The results presented here show that this may not be the case: There currently appears to be little justification in the Ethical Principles for work intended to harm people. APA's active lobbying, research, and development for the military are documented here, in relation to an analysis of the Ethical Principles. APA's uncritical support for Operation Desert Storm is examined specifically, with regard to weapons technology and therapeutic treatment of U.S. soldiers on the battlefield. This one-sided support for victims of the war is not in keeping with a Hippocratic health care ethic to treat patients needing care, and to do so with neutrality and impartiality. Similarities to a historical example of nationalistic mental health ethics are discussed, with a review of the development of the German Institute for Psychological Research and Psychotherapy and of the German Society for Psychology in the Nazi wartime effort and the Holocaust. The results here show similar deficiencies in APA's ethical standards, not the least of which is that the code applies to individual members but not to APA policies, committees, or activities. This article concludes with suggested criteria for the Ethical Principles that would at least (a) recognize the ambiguities in systematically developing and using weapons to hurt people and (b) provide an initial rationale of potential justifications.     

Military Psychology: Applicable Research1

Many psychologists and social scientists are unaware of the field of military psychology. Although marginally aware of Division 19: Military Psychology of the American Psychological Association (APA), a number of psychologists have very mistaken ideas about what military psychology includes and the uses thereof (APA Monitor, 1984). The purpose of this special issue is to present some research conducted under the rubric of military psychology. This issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology (JASP) may provide some preliminary answers to the frequently asked questions: What is this creature called military psychology? Who does it? What kinds of research are classified as military psychology?What Is Military Psychology?     

APA 2002 ethics, amphibology, and the release of psychological test records: a counterperspective to Erard

APA ethics have sought to uphold the practice of psychology and protect its invaluable contribution to psychological assessment, namely the development and validation of tests and other psychometric measures. Faced with formidable challenges from the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) regulations, the 2002 revision of the American Psychological Association (APA) ethical standards abandoned its protective stance. It makes previously protected material (i.e., answers, notes about testing, other forms of raw data, scoring, and test items included on protocols with answers) almost completely accessible to clients and others. Without any professional protections, the worldwide dissemination of these materials via the Internet is virtually assured. In this article, I examine the confused language of Ethical Standard 9.04 (a) with its permissive language and concatenated use of the or conjunction. I evaluate the release of test materials in light of nonmaleficence as both an aspirational principle and an enforceable standard (3.04). Relying on official statements from APA and other prestigious organizations, I document the substantial harm to clients, the community, and the profession of psychology in eroding test security.     

Editorial policies of the American Psychologist

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the American Psychologist (AP). Since the publication of its first issue in January 1946, AP has served as the flagship journal for the American Psychological Association (APA) and has played an important and unique role for the field of psychology. Because of the quality of the articles published in AP, the journal has evolved into one of the most influential and widely cited publications in psychology. The purpose of this editorial is to outline a revised set of policies for the journal that builds on and expands those developed by previous editors (see, e.g., Fowler, 1993; Goodstein, 1987; Kiesler, 1976; Pallack, 1981). Before outlining these policies, I would like to explore the relative status and influence of AP within the universe of psychological and social science journals.     

American Psychology of Religion and the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

It is doubtful whether there ever has been a rise‐fall‐rebirth of the psychology of religion. While the claim has marginal merit for American academic psychology, it has little application in other cultures or even within American psychology of religion outside mainstream psychology. The psychology of religion has always been and remains tied to key individuals who sustain the field. This historical fact is important in understanding the role of the JSSR in the field. Early psychologists of religion such as Hall and James set the pattern for two distinctively different approaches to the psychology of religion. Hall's approach was methodologically restrictive, inherently reductive, and came to dominate the academic psychology of religion. James ‘approach was methodological plural, receptive to the evidential force of religious experience, and quickly marginalized within American psychology. These opposing orientation continue to influence the psychology of religion in societies such as the SSR and its journal. A review of the psychologist editors of JSSR illustrates that the psychology of religion remains a marginal interest of mainstream psychology. It survives because of the interdisciplinary nature of the SSSR and its journal.     

The Silence of Psychologists

Unlike certain Israeli historians or sociologists who have developed a critical "post-Zionist" approach, Israeli psychologists display few signs of this critical trend. This is especially disquieting in light of the latest back and forth movement between warfare to the peace process—a movement that created many new social and individual dilemmas that would benefit from an open debate within social and clinical psychology. This paper tries to account for this deficiency by looking at its possible historical, political, and cultural roots. The historical aspects relate to the influence of European and American psychological traditions. Two political aspects are presented: (1) Israeli psychologists, through their involvement in the military and their acceptance of the Zionist claim for security, tend to belong to the political mainstream (Gergen, 1973, 1989); and (2) a hyper-political atmosphere scared Israeli psychologists into neutrality and objectivism. This provided a convenient rationale for apoliticism, especially when Israeli political polarization in the 1980s and 1990s was perceived as threatening psychologists' professional authority. Culturally, the psychologists, like the European social strata from which most of them originated, tended to adopt the American tradition of individualism as a reaction to the strong collectivist trend that dominated Israeli society during its early years. This may account for their weak and delayed social response of humanism, feminism, and constructivism. Exceptions to this general trend are highlighted, and the question of how Israeli psychology might become more politically sensitive and critical is explored. This discussion may have relevance for the development of political psychology in other societies, especially those going through transition of values or suffering from long, violent conflicts.     

Does psychology make a significant difference in our lives?

The intellectual tension between the virtues of basic versus applied research that characterized an earlier era of psychology is being replaced by an appreciation of creative applications of all research essential to improving the quality of human life. Psychologists are positioned to "give psychology away" to all those who can benefit from our wisdom. Psychologists were not there 35 years ago when American Psychological Association (APA) President George Miller first encouraged us to share our knowledge with the public. The author argues that psychology is indeed making a significant difference in people's lives; this article provides a sampling of evidence demonstrating how and why psychology matters, both in pervasive ways and specific applications. Readers are referred to a newly developed APA Web site that documents current operational uses of psychological research, theory, and methodology (its creation has been the author's primary presidential initiative): www.psychologymatters.org.     

125 years of the American Journal of Psychology: a historical overview

The American journal of Psychology celebrates 125 years of publication this year. From its inception, the Journal has attempted to record and communicate the results of research conducted in laboratories of psychology. It has also provided its readers with laboratory plans and designs for apparatus for research and demonstrations and described experimental procedures to facilitate the conduct of research. Its attention to reviews of books over a wide range of psychological topics and its inclusion of articles that provide historical perspectives on the development of psychology and its concerns broaden the context in which laboratory research is carried out. This brief overview of the Journal's history offers a perspective on the role of the Journal in, and its contributions to, the development of scientific psychology.     

The state of the psychology health service provider workforce

Numerous efforts to describe the health service provider or clinical workforce in psychology have been conducted during the past 30 years. The American Psychological Association (APA) has studied trends in the doctoral education pathway and the resultant effects on the broader psychology workforce. During this period, the creation and growth of the PsyD degree and the formalization of the predoctoral internship placement system (the APPIC Match) have been well noted, but efforts to gain a complete understanding of professional practice are lacking. Specifically, piecemeal research on the provider workforce has led to the study of specific subpopulations using varying approaches and definitions of those providing direct clinical service. Consequently, estimates of the supply and need for health service providers are distinctly divergent and generate protracted debate in organized psychology. The APA membership directory and the APA Doctorate Employment Surveys have traditionally been relied on for workforce analyses. Yet, these data have become characterized by limited generalizability in recent years because of declining survey response rates and the fact that APA member data may not be as representative of the entire psychology health service provider population as they were previously. The 2008 APA Survey of Psychology Health Service Providers targeted these limitations by including nonmember psychologists in the sampling frame. Results revealed emerging themes in the demographics, work settings, and delivery of health services of the psychology health service provider workforce. Future areas of research for APA and organized psychology to undertake in addressing need and demand are suggested.     

Policy and Financing of the Professional Psychology Workforce

The federal government has played a significant role in the financing the education of healthcare professionals since the introduction of Medicare in 1965. However, professional psychology's limited ability to argue the critical nature of its services to the welfare of the nation, and its lack of national workforce information and policy, has hindered its inclusion in Medicare's Graduate Medical Education (GME) program. This paper discusses the evolution and current status of healthcare workforce policy in the United States, and the implications for psychology and the training of future professionals. Also described are recent efforts by the American Psychological Association (APA) and a few psychologists to include professional psychology in the GME program. The importance of organized psychology's sustained involvement in national health policy is emphasized.     

Is culture a problem for social psychology?

Culture has been regarded as an anathema to psychology as an empiricist research tradition. Despite the explosive growth of research on culture and psychology over the last decade of the 20th century and its importance in Asian social psychology, the ontological and epistemological tension between psychology as a science and psychology as a cultural/historical discipline introduced in the writings of the thinkers of the Enlightenment and counter-Enlightenment still lingers on in the contemporary discourse of psychology. Clifford Geertz once ominously suggested that cultural psychology may have chewed more than it can. In the present paper, the interpretive turn in social science as exemplified by writings of Charles Taylor and Paul Ricoeur is reviewed and how it may impinge on the practice of Asian social psychology as an empirical science in methodological, epistemological, and ontological respects is discussed. It is argued here that the current practice of Asian social psychology is largely, though not entirely, free of the challenges mounted by these theorists, and that Asian social psychology has an advantage of not being encumbered by this traditional tension due to a monist ontology that is prevalent in Asia.     

The Founding of the Association for Psychological Science: Part 2. The Tipping Point and Early Years

ABSTRACT— The founding of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) occurred in the context of long-standing dialectical tensions within organized psychology. It represents the most recent breakaway effort from the American Psychological Association (APA), psychology's parent association in the United States. Beginning in the 1970s, numerous APA committees deliberated the Association's structure, making recommendations designed to appease the various constituencies within the changing organization; all but the last of these proposals were ultimately rejected by the APA Council. In 1987, the Assembly for Scientific and Applied Psychologists (ASAP) formed to encourage APA reorganization, and in early 1988, the APA Council approved a reorganization plan; that plan was, however, rejected by the membership. In August 1988, the ASAP became the APS. The early years of the APS were shaped by challenges and successes that would lay the groundwork for the APS to become a prominent organization in the promotion of scientific psychology. An understanding of these events may provide insight into the nature of organized psychology and its future.     

Rethinking education in psychology and psychology in education. The inaugural Education Leadership Conference

The inaugural Education Leadership Conference was convened by the American Psychological Association (APA) in October 2001 to provide a forum for groups and organizations across all levels of education and training to address issues of mutual concern, to promote a shared disciplinary identity among education and training leaders in psychology, and to influence public policy regarding education in psychology and psychology in education. Participants from 23 national education and training organizations, 25 APA divisions, and national credentialing organizations in psychology identified 8 major issues for education and training in psychology and addressed a number of specific questions relevant to ongoing work of the Board of Educational Affairs.     

LETA STETTER HOLLINGWORTH SPEAKS ON "COLUMBIA'S LEGACY"

At the 1983 APA convention in Anaheim, CA, Divisions 1 and 26 co-sponsored a lecture series to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the publication of Edna Heidbreder's Seven Psychologies. Aimed at the general audience, Heidbreder's book described the roots of American psychology and the seven schools of thought most representative of the discipline in this country: structuralism, the psychology of William James, functionalism, behaviorism, Gestalt psychology, Freud and the psychoanalytic movement, and the dynamic psychology of Columbia's Robert Woodworth. At the 1983 APA meetings five scholars with backgrounds in one of the seven psychologies lectured as a figure from the past on the legacy of that school of thought. Stephanie Shields represented Leta Hollingworth (1886–1939), the only woman in the group. Hollingworth was charged with discussing the legacy of Columbia University for contemporary psychology. Her lecture reviews psychological research at Teachers College and Columbia University from 1911 through the 1920s and then evaluates the lasting contribution made by that research to present-day psychology. This paper is the text of that talk, with a few modifications tailored for an audience of feminist psychologists. As an historical fiction the material for this talk is drawn primarily from Hollingworth's own writings, and, insofar as it is possible, it tries to represent accurately the theoretical and ideological concerns she expressed during her career. It attempts to bring her concerns as a psychologist, as an educator, and as a feminist, to bear on the state of present-day psychology, particularly from the perspective of the testing movement between the two world wars. All of the events described here did happen or could have happened. Those that are fictional or represent inference are clearly indicated. Direct quotes from her published work appear within quotation marks.     

Institutional conflicts in Jungian analysis

This paper explores how the institutional life of analytical psychology has been beset by its historical and continuing conflictual relationship with psychoanalysis. Stemming from a division in Jung's identity, that of the spiritual seeker and that of a mental health practitioner, the organizations of analytical psychology have repeatedly enacted that division, resulting in an unclear mission and considerable conflict. In England those conflicts have led to schisms; in America they have played out in internal conflicts within training institutes. Examples of areas of conflict are provided, along with suggestions for addressing these conflicts by recognizing them more openly.     

Group psychology and the structural theory: a revised psychoanalytic model of group psychology.

It has been my aim in this paper to revise the existing psychoanalytic theory of group psychology in accordance with current structural concepts. The need for fundamental revision in the existing theory of group organization is demonstrated by its restriction to an oedipal paradigm, which cannot account for the regression to an oral paradigm of group organization during group formation. Freud's explanation of regression in crowds is reviewed. The limitations inherent in Freud's topographic and narcisistic models are demonstrated; irreconcilable contradictions are shown to exist between the two theories. A structural model of group psychology that is free from internal contradictions and provides a unifying explanation for both regression and merging in the crowd is developed. As a consequence of these revisions it is possible to conceptualize preoedipal organizations of group structure in addition to the oedipal paradigm proposed by Freud.     

Control of Psychological Testing: The Threat and a Response

Who has the right to use psychological tests? Until recently, most qualified professionals had access to these tests. The American Psychological Association (APA), however, has supported several legal interventions as well as legislation that would allow only licensed psychologists to use most psychological tests. The position of the Fair Access Coalition on Testing (FACT) is that the APA efforts will reduce needed services to the general public, violate existing professional policies of both the American Counseling Association and APA, initiate counterproductive turf wars, and turn existing collaboration among professional organizations into time-consuming, resource-devouring, nonproductive conflict. FACT's efforts to reaffirm its policy statement are outlined.