Psyche, Science, and Society

Arrigo on APA referendum emphasis on settings

August 30th, 2008

In her customary succinct style, Jean Maria Arrigo has expressed in a few words the reason why the APA Referendum focuses upon banning participation in certain setting [US detention centers] rather than the actions of individual psychologists. This statement complements yesterday’s statement by the Referendum authors:

Why does the referendum focus on the national security settings of interrogation rather than on the conduct of individual psychologists?  Because we are psychologists!

Because we all know the studies of Solomon Asch on conformity, of Stanley Milgram on obedience, and of Phil Zimbardo on prison behavior-plus bystander, minority deviance, and whistle blower research.   Where is the psychological research supporting the APA model of the morally autonomous BSCT psychologist?  Unlike the randomly selected and disinterested experimental subjects of Asch, Milgram, and Zimbardo, the military and government-contract psychologists were selected for conformity, obedience, and role acceptance in national security settings; the career and financial stakes are very high; they have prior loyalties to co-workers in these settings; and there are legal constraints on disobedience.

The place for national defense psychologists to show their mettle as morally autonomous agents was in the PENS task force meeting itself.  In fact, all six present as task force members-in spite of the obvious moral reservations of some-supported a psychological ethic that adhered to the permissive U.S. definition of torture.  They did not vote their consciences, so to speak, but their institutional positions.   We cannot expect more individualistic acts of dissent from BSCT psychologists at detention centers.

Jean Maria Arrigo

Entry Filed under: APA, Guantanamo, Interrogation, Psychology, Torture