Military psychologists often find themselves in situations having the potential to compromise their professional ethics. Although conflicts in confidentiality are frequently the issue, multiple relationship development is also a significant concern. Case examples involving multiple relationship issues are presented, and the American Psychological Association's (APA's; 1992) guidelines concerning multiple relationship expectancies are considered. Decision-making frameworks are reviewed, and an adaptation of M. C. Gottlieb's (1993) model for multiple relationship resolution is proposed. The authors suggest recommendations for training and supervision, and they encourage continued collaboration between the APA and Department of Defense so that these dilemmas may be more adequately addressed.The military environment presents several unique situations infrequently encountered in most traditional health care settings.One significant concern for the military psychologist is the inherent risk of multiple relationship development. According to Johnson (1995), military settings may be the most likely environments for these conflicts to occur. Such a state of affairs is particularly striking because of the military's increasing emphasis on avoiding fraternization. Adherence to what the military refers to as "good order and discipline" was recently expanded. In July of 1998, the Secretary of Defense announced that all of the Armed Services would be expected to follow consistent (and more restrictive) multiple relationship standards.Complicating this picture further for psychologists working within a military setting is the recognition that in many instances, the client is considered to be the government. Decision making for the military psychologist is often difficult given the potential conflict that arises when considering the needs of multiple clients simultaneously (the individual and the organization

There has been recognition across the Department of Defense (DoD) that psychologists are increasingly called on by military commanders to support military operations in unique and diverse ways. This call has resulted in the expansion of the role of military psychology. Military psychologists are treading where they have not previously, and this has raised a number of concerns in terms of training preparation and ethics. In this article we explore an emerging subdiscipline in behavioral science, operational psychology. A series of vignettes illustrates this subdiscipline in practice, and a discussion of training implications and ethical considerations follows accordingly.In recent years a new subdiscipline has emerged in psychology: operational psychology. This subdiscipline has revealed itself predominantly within military psychology, although other government agencies employ psychologists and behavioral science experts who perform duties similar to those performed by operational psychologists. Although psychology has been applied to nontraditional (nonmedical) areas for many decades, the nature of these applications and the frequency with which they are occurring has increased significantly since 9/11 and the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). One result of this change has been recognition by many that a new area of specialization is emerging. As a relatively new area of practice, operational psychology has remained somewhat obscure and is often misunderstood by psychologists, including those within the military.

No abstract

Operational psychology continues to expand at a rapid rate. Over the course of the last decade, it has emerged from relative obscurity and developed into an exciting, and somewhat controversial, professional subdiscipline within psychology. As the community of operational psychologists has increased and matured, it has reached a tipping point, creating the need for practice guidelines, training programs, and a greater emphasis on operationally relevant empirical research. The starting point for these developments is an integrative definition of operational psychology. In this article, we revisit previous definitions, relevant research literature, and recent developments in this specialty. We propose a definition that emphasizes consultation to an operational decision maker concerning issues of national security and defense.

Following the American Psychological Association (APA)’s release of the Independent Review (Hoffman Report), a small group of psychologists, analysts, and human rights activists convened in order to discuss and draft practice guidelines for operational psychology. Motived by concerns about irreconcilable ethical issues, this group produced a document entitled, “The Brookline Principles,” and published it under the banner of the Coalition for Ethical Psychology. Despite the absence of military or operational psychologists, the working group proposed ethics-related practice guidelines for operational practitioners. Their report, focused its attention on military and national security psychologists; however, more global implications are present for the practice of applied professional psychology across public safety, law enforcement, and other organizational consulting domains. The following response provides a review of their report and its recommendations.