The American economy: New jobs numbers do little to illuminate the Fed's...
Free exchange
WHEN James Risen, a New York Times reporter, published a book last autumn accusing the American Psychological Association (APA), the largest professional organisation of American psychologists, of working with the Bush administration on torture, the APA issued a swift rebuttal: “APA is committed to fostering the highest ethical standards for the profession… We will continue to proactively communicate our strict and explicit no torture under any circumstances policy to federal officials so they are fully aware of the appropriate restrictions on psychologists’ roles.” In a spirit of transparency, the APA commissioned an independent investigation to confirm that neither the association nor its members, who number around 122,500, endorsed the government’s use of enhanced interrogation tactics.
The investigation, led by David Hoffman of the law firm Sidley Austin, concluded this month with the publication of a 542-page report. Its findings diverge considerably from the APA’s expectations. Far from upholding their Hippocratic oath to “do no harm”, APA psychologists did indeed work with officials from the Defense Department and the CIA to facilitate the torture of detainees. This involved issuing loose ethical guidelines that endorsed existing DoD interrogation policies and permitted psychologists to participate at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere—unlike their colleagues in the field of psychiatry, who refused to back the government’s evolving interrogation tactics. Though the APA’s policies adhered to US law, they violated medical ethics.
Stephen Behnke, ethics director of the APA, was at the heart of this effort. In a series of e-mail exchanges, he sought pre-clearance from leaders in the US Army Special Operations Command before determining what APA’s position should be. Perhaps the most disturbing discovery is the self-serving, amoral tenor of APA’s approach to this issue generally. The report notes:
While we found many emails and discussions regarding how best to position APA to maximize its influence with and build its positive relationship with the Defense Department…we found little evidence of analyses or discussions about the best or right ethical position to take in light of the nature of the profession and the special skill that psychologists possess regarding how our minds and emotions work—a special skill that presumably allows psychologists to be especially good at both healing and harming.
It seems Mr Risen’s argument that a rising “homeland security-industrial complex” co-opted medical expertise for military ends holds up. But why did the Department of Defense seek the APA’s blessing in the first place? And what did the APA stand to gain from co-operating?
In 2002 the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department issued memos defining torture, narrowly, as acts that intentionally cause physical or severe mental pain. It follows that actions could not be considered torture if interrogators could show that they did not intend to cause such pain. Seeking out the APA’s approval was a way for DoD officials to prove that they did not harbour this intent. This lent a veneer of professionalism and legitimacy to interrogators’ dubious practices.
It was a veneer the APA was happy to lend. This is in large part because the DoD is one of the largest employers of psychologists in the country. Today, 7% of APA members work with or for the department in a range of roles, including as clinicians and researchers. As of 2010, 3,400 psychologists were employed by the Veterans Administration alone. Since 2007, the DoD has also spent more than $730m to fund research on psychological health, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury, according to the Hoffman report. At least $120m in grants were awarded for research on behavioural, cognitive and psychological therapies between 2007 and 2011.
This partnership is mostly a good thing. Many psychologists are hired to help military personnel and veterans grapple with PTSD and other mental maladies. But this alliance also apparently encouraged the APA to accommodate less savoury practices. With evidence from correspondence, documents and interviews, Mr Hoffman and his associates concluded that the APA’s endorsement of torture was largely motivated by a desire to promote the profession and strengthen its relationship with the DoD. When the department was negotiating its torture guidelines, it was also figuring out how psychologists and psychiatrists might play a role in intelligence operations. E-mails show APA officials were eager to be involved and, especially, to not lose out to psychiatrists—an expression of the long-standing rivalry between the professions. (As PhDs rather than MDs, psychologists are often defensive about their medical credibility.)
By 2006, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association had both issued decrees prohibiting their members from participating in interrogations. APA had not, and this support was duly rewarded. In 2006 William Winkenwerder, the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Health Affairs, issued a DoD instruction prioritising psychologists over psychiatrists as behavioural-science “consultants”. Mr Winkenwerder explained that the APA’s “clear support” for the role of psychologists in interrogations “influenced our thinking”.
The APA is now scrambling to distance itself from the military’s intelligence activities and to reaffirm its commitments to medical ethics. An initial set of policy and procedural changes includes a new prohibition on psychologists participating in interrogations by military or intelligence services. The proposals have been accompanied by an exodus of high-level APA officials. Mr Behnke was removed from his position at APA on July 8th. Norman Anderson, the chief executive, and Michael Honaker, his deputy, announced their retirement shortly thereafter. Rhea Farberman, director of communications, has resigned. The association is now left to answer some thorny questions about how a profession devoted to mental health could so easily be persuaded to pursue mental anguish instead.
Thoughts and opinions on America’s kinetic brand of politics. The blog is named after Alexis de Tocqueville’s study of American politics and society
Advertisement
The American economy: New jobs numbers do little to illuminate the Fed's...
Free exchange
Emerging economies: Turbulent markets in the suspect six
Free exchange
Daily chart: A discussion with the Donald
Graphic detail
Tasting menu: September 4th 2015 edition
International
Biden ridin': The vice president woos Atlanta's Jews and talks about a...
Democracy in America
The music business: The dry stream of musicians' royalties
Prospero
Refugees and the EU: Europe is finally confronting the migrant crisis
Europe
Advertisement
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you’ll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I wrote my last comment on a mobile, rereading it I found some strange typos, so here is a cleaned up version:
There are several points of views mixed in this article. First off I'll put forward three definitions, just to be clear about what I mean.
A psychologist is a scientist who follows the scientific method of formulating generalised assumptions and devising experiments to validate them. With the goal of formulating general and causal statements about human behaviour. I'm aware this us not the popular definition, but let's use that for this arguments sake. By the way, a lot of a psychologists education concerns theories and research. Introducing therapeutic approaches later in the clinical education for those who take that. So a psychologist may or may not have therapy training.
A therapist is someone who specialises in forming a relationship with an individual. Observing and understanding their patterns of behaviour, needs and intentions. With the goal of providing experiences that help said individual to better access their resources in order to navigate their life having more and better informed choices to act. Leading to their increased wellbeing.
A psychiatrist is an MD who may or may not have training in some therapeutic modality - school of therapy - but who is empowered to use pharmaceuticals. They have extensive training in neurology, anatomy and the causal understanding of the human body. Their training focuses on interventions with therapeutic goals. Yet generally based on a categorical system of pathology, which is a generalised approach.
Devising a generalised theory concerning as complex a phenomena as human beings bears some risks of missing some important details. This difficulty in finding the right simplification of context - what to take into account and what to dismiss - is one of the major reasons why psychological research has such a low prestige in science politics compared to physics for example. This will be an important distinction later.
If you take a close look at the work of Dr. Paul Ekman - the worlds leading expert on interrogation and deception - you'll find he's offering extensive training in observation skills, questioning skills and skills of building rapport. He also emphasizes the importance of connecting with the detainee, finding out their needs and offering them credible choices to better their situation by volunteering information. This also requires them realising the impact of their acts on other people. It helps if they feel some connection to those ppl. Humans being social animals and all.
Now this approach - which is proven to be the most effective - stands in strong contrast with both the causal generalization approach of researchers (Requires a lot of context to be accounted for on a personal level.) And the power distance and time efficiency driven approach of military in general. Showing strength - ignoring the other person - and force them to do your bidding. Applied to someone who has hardly anything to lose. (I mean life at Guantanamo suffering torture daily or die and let it all end. Is that even a real choice? What would You choose if You experienced near drowning several times a day, only to be exposed to unbearable noise for the rest of the day, with no end in sight?)
Also, if you hate someone it's rather hard to form a relationship with them. In order to shoot them though it's best if you hate them. So what kind of attitude are You going to foster in military personnel who are to go out and risk their lives daily?
This setup lends itself for believers of a generalised theory and time efficiency to be natural allies. Proving both their points at the same time.
Coupling this with the political and financial pressures of getting funding and acquiring prestiege in a scientific world which values general theories and causal explanations strengthens this bond. Not to mention the prestige fight in the hierarchy of healing practices - backed by science politics. And all these of course translate easily to funding and salaries.
Looking at this issue through this triple lens of personal motivations and beliefs, politics and economy and socioeconomic status shows how there are multiple incentives coupled for supporting this practice. Despite valuable data showing it being ineffective and at times counterproductive. And we didn't even mention the human tendency to fall for simple and convenient explanations & theories giving the illusion of security through providing quick and easy choices.
I have yet to see quantitative research about different interrogation techniques and their results in eliciting information which helps preventing actual acts of hostilities. I'm afraid such a research would show that the messy, personalised interrogation methods are far more effective if less swift.
nts of views mixed in this article. First off let's put forward three definitons, just to be clear about what I write.
A psychilogist is a scientist who follows the scientific methid of formulating generalized assumptions, devising experiments to validate them with the goal of formulating generalized causal statements about human behavior. I'm aware this us not the popular definition, but let's use tapproachargumentings sake. They may or may not have therapy training.
A therapist is someone who specializes in forming a relationship with an individual. Observapproachunderstanding their patterns of behavior, needs and intentions. With the goal of providing experiences that help said individual to better access their resources in order to navigate their life having more and better informed choices to act. Leading to their increased wellbeing.
A psychiatrist is an md who may or may not have training in some therapeutic modality - school of therapy - but who is empowered to use pharmaceuticals. With therapeutic goals. Yet generally their training is focused on a categorical system of pathology, which is a generalized approach.
Devising a generalized theory conserning as complex a phenomena as human beings bears some risks of missing some important details. And thats an understatement.
If you take a close look at the work of Paul Ekman - the worlds leading expert on interrogation and deception - you'll find he's offering extensive training in observation skills, questioning skills and skill of building rapport. He also emphasizes the importance of connecting with the detainee, finding out their needs and offering them credible choices to better their situation by offering information. This also requires them realising the impact of their acts on other people. It helps if they feel some connection to thise ppl.
Now this approach - which is proven to be the most effective - stands in strong contrast with both the causal generalization approach of researchers (one method fits all. Really?) And the power distance and time efficiency driven approach of military in general. Showing strength - ignoring the other person - and force them to do your bidding. Applied to someone who has hardly anything to lose. (I mean life at Guantanamo suffering torture daily or die, is that even a real choice?)
Also, if you hate someone it's rather hard to form a relationship with them. In order to shoot them though it's best if you hate them. This setup lends itself for believers of a generalized theory and time eddiciency to be natiral allies. Proving both their points in the same time.
Coupling this with the political and financial pressures of getting funding and acquiring prestiege in a scientific world which values general theories and causal explanations strengthens this bond. Not to mention the prestiege fight in the hierarchy of healing practices - backed by science politics. And all these of course translate easily to funding and salaries.
Looking at this issue through this triple lens of personal motivations and beliefs, politics and economy and sociological staus shows how there are coupled incentives for supporting this practice. Despite valuable data showing it being inefective and at times counterproductive. And we didn't even mention the human tendency to fall for simple and convenient explanations, theories lending the illusion of security.
I have yet to see a conclusive research showing data about different interrogation texhniques and their results in eliciting information which helps preventing actual acts of hostilities. I'm afraid tsuch a research would show that the messy, personalized interrogation methods are far more effective if less swift. And it would also be quite an inconveniemce to give up our beliefs that Jack Bauering our way through our enemies is the best possible solution. (Pardon my sarcasm.)
As PhDs rather than MDs, psychologists are often defensive about their medical credibility.
And yet, by their actions here they have done serious damage to their medical credibility. (Not to mention to their credibility generally.)
Psychologists are not physicians, they don't take the Hippocratic oath to begin with in the first place. The writer of this article should get the facts straightened out
They do not take the Hippocratic Oath. Another reason to run from them as fast as we can.
I'm surprised the economist finally caught wind of this story that broke a month or so ago. Some time around when they were debating homosexuality and Jenner ad nauseam. I was starting to regret my renewal after the long period of not keeping up with truly awful things happening in the world..."news". Maybe we can get an article on the recent revelation of Thai fishing boats acting as slave ships or any of the other truly horrific things happening right now. Probably not.
Of course on the other hand what does it matter? Nothing from recent publication has resolved anything and articles simply spin more and more in a partisan direction as if the magazine has given up on Economics and decided to become a tabloid.
Unfortunately commenters here are uninformed about PhD-psychologists. Of course some in any profession will turn for profit, power, and prestige, and the APA had these issues brewing, but to imply less competence at the outset of training makes them vulnerable to "moral compromise" is ignorant and wrong. It is more difficult to get accepted into an accredited, respected doctoral clinical psych program than medical school and typically includes tuition waiver in exchange for research & teaching assistantships. Only a few students are accepted each year. The clinical PhD psych program is a scientist-practictioner model (research, evaluation, & clinical), and partly what makes them amenable to domains psychiatrists are not typically trained. From beginning to end it takes 7 to 9 years, nearly the same as MDs though considerably less salary, and the training is often more simultaneously diverse and specialized. PsyD-psychologists, which someone else confused PhDs for, are being educated and graduated in shorter periods, in droves and oversatuate the "therapy" market. PsyDs also pay for their degrees like MDs, and have narrower training - and no original research, no dissertation. People like Tony Robbins are self-proclaimed "life coaches," which any one can claim and requires no formal training or licensure, internships, residency or post-docs. It does no good, however, to comment about a profession one doesn't really know about. Let's please be more thoughtful.
In the Middle Ages, astrologers also underwent years of training via apprenticeship.
But, of course, there is a vast difference between yesterday's astrologers and today's psychologists.
Astrologers charged less.
Go to get some help with a couple issues and get water boarded. Was that my Psychiatrist or the CIA? Teach me to trust the medical establishment!
Psychiatrists and psychologists are vastly different, and the range of knowledge, competence, and professional ethics is far wider among the latter. An MD has put so much of himself and of his life into the prerequisites for his profession, that it is natural that greater self-respect and respect for venerable traditions of medicine will impede the kind of moral compromise that seems to have been easy to find among psychologists.
Unless there is a very strong basis for resistance, whose bread I eat, his song I sing.
Don't bet on it. The title of MD may add a veneer of confidence, but engratiating one's self and one's profession to institutions that lend even greater status is a strong intoxicant.
A degree is no talisman against that.
Recognizing that the piece is about the APA endorsing the interrogation activity of the DOD and condemning them for their lack of ethical standards, what about an overall outright condemnation of the DOD, CIA, DOJ, Homeland Security, Dick Cheney and George Bush who completed co-opted not only the APA but every value that they said America stood for when they opened Guantanamo and brought people their without due process and tortured them? The APA is but a bit player in one of the most sordid and reprehensible periods in American history. Any wonder that America is absolutely hated by its enemies and no longer highly respected by its allies?
The difference between psychologists and psychiatrists is that psychologists are PhDs while psychiatrists are MDs. As in most fields, PhDs are massively overproduced, thus creating a pipeline of desperate postdocs. Often people end up in postdoc positions for more than 5-10 years as postdocs.
MDs, on the other hand, are a different class, as the AMA limits the number of MDs that graduate every year.
The decisions taken in these respective fields is just indicative of the desperation of people in them, and not of the professions themselves. The larger malaise, however, is that of overproduction of PhDs everywhere, and that is another can of worms altogether.
What, exactly, is a "psychologist?"
I know what a psychiatrist is -- a medical doctor with an especial interest in the neuro-chemical operation of the brain and subject to explicit ethics -- but just what IS a psychologist?
A psychologist tries to resolve one's mental and emotional conflicts. So does Tony Robbins and so did Pastor Schuller of the "Crystal Cathedral."
A skilled psychologist can be an understanding and consoling presence. But, then, so also can a pastor or understanding teacher be similarly valuable assets to a community.
Since just what constitutes a psychologist is vague than why shouldn't the ethics of psychologists be similarly undefined?
The ethics of psychology are not vague because of the studies conducted in the 1940's. Watch the video's of Milgram's Obedience studies. People are twitching and smoking there cigarettes like chimney's. Furthermore being a psychologist is no more vague than being a physicist, biologist or chemist. Zoology is not Micro-biology as Behavioral Psychology is not Industrial/Organizational Psychology. The independent fields within psychology are very much not vague and all of the branches are upholden to APA guidelines. Guidelines established exactly because there were so many sketchy studies done in the 30's and 40's that harmed the subjects so deeply.
No, that's a therapist.
Psychologists are scientists.
Psychiatrists are doctors.
Baloney.
The work of a physicist, biologist or chemist is replicable and can be used to make successful exact predictions.
Psychologists have none of this about them and their dismal failure with such problems as substance addiction (high recidivism rate) is, by itself, ample evidence this is so.
Psychologists are scientists?
Why -- because they like to wear white coats in the lab?
Mostly mumbo-jumbo and mostly out-the-window with the advances in pharmacy and neurology.
Pscychology is to science as astrology was to astronomy.
Psychologist conduct experiments that are repeatable and peer reviewed. Ive done lab work in physics and psychology. If you ever had youd know that both are prone to bias and error. Look up ash's line study and explain to me how that isn't repeatable.
Pharmacy and neurology are sub-fields of psychology. The results of their experiments are collated and decrypted by psychometricians, another type of psychologist. Social psychology, the "softest" of the cognitive sciences, is still scientific in its methodology. Therapists and psychiatrists apply the information gleaned by psychologists to treat patients.
Your proclamations are incredibly confident for being so wrong. Frankly it sounds like you have haven't encountered any information about psychology since the idiotic promulgations of Freud and are assuming the field hasn't advanced since then.
And, psychologist are not harming people now? What about them completely ignoring the Rind Meta Analysis https://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.pdf#search=%22%22A%20meta-an...
That is a violation of "Due Process". The psychologist that does that should be sued.
It is probably better that a report such as this was produced now, rather than having to wait for a publication like, "Hitler's Scientists", written decades after the fact from the victor's point of view. The madness of crowds all to often leads to shameful behaviour. Moral courage seems to be rarer than physical bravery.
Physical bravery has always been held up as an attribute of our greatest paragons. More, it's easy to recognise when you see it, and it's easy to spot opportunities to show it.
Moral courage is much less clearly defined, and is a much more controversial attribute to begin with. For every person who thinks "moral courage" means "doing the right thing no matter the cost", there's another who thinks that it means "doing what needs to be done, no matter how repugnant".
You can find examples of both these (diametrically opposed) outlooks in culture being held up as equally "heroic".
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary. Hillel, Talmund. Judaism