REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. REPORT DATE (DD MMYVYY)July 2002 The espionage database we discuss in this report consists of information collected and derived from unclassified sources on the personal and job characteristics of 150 individuals, and on the characteristics of the acts of espionage or attempted espionage they committed. Our analysis begins with the personal characteristics of Americans who spied, including employment and clearance status, how and when the espionage was carried out, and consequences these individuals suffered. In the second section of analysis, we compare cases by the length of their espionage. Subsequent sections compare military offenders with civilians, and volunteers with recruits, and if the individual was recruited, whether by a foreign intelligence service or by family or friends. A fifth section compares motivations for espionage in the various time periods and how motives have changed over time. Additional sections compare lone spies with those who worked with partners or in groups, and characteristics of American female spies.In the Results and Discussion section, we next apply some of our analytical findings on espionage to various aspects of the personnel security system, including the criteria for personnel security that are expressed in the federal Adjudicative Guidelines, patterns in espionage that could be used to improve the security clearance system, and applications to security awareness issues, including co-worker reporting and position vulnerability assessment. The last sections explore trends in the number of Americans actively spying over the last half-century and the recipients of their information, changes in espionage by Americans since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and two key trends that are affecting espionage in the post-Cold War period.These results will be useful to Department of Defense (DoD) policy-makers in framing security countermeasures and security policy. It will also assist DoD component specialists who conduct coimterintelligence and security countermeasures education, training, and securityThis documen...

T HE revision of "Ethical Standards of Psychologists" (APA, 1959) has appeared within the past year. In format, it is surprisingly unlike the original edition (APA, 19S3), being greatly condensed in length and somewhat so in content. This seems to reflect the increased experience of the Committee on Ethical Standards for Psychology that certain of the formerly spelled out rules were attached to problems of little difficulty for psychologists.Since the original Code was accepted, there has been continuing confusion regarding interpretation of some of the less clearly defined principles, because the ultimate decision as to ethical behavior remained for the practitioner. Primary among these principles are those that may be subsumed under the general heading of defining divided loyalty situations, that is, where on the one hand a psychologist feels obligated to protect his client, on the other hand to protect society, but finds it difficult to serve the best interest of both. 3 The past IS years have witnessed attempts by psychologists to devise all inclusive codes of ethics, while less attention has been directed to the divided loyalty question. In this latter context are the efforts of Sutich (1944), the Minnesota Society for Applied Psychology (1947), andSeashore (1949).

No abstract

No abstract

Pacific St., Bldg. 455-E >nterey, CA 93940 7b ADDRESS (Ciry. State. and ZIP Coae) The Pentagon Room 2B371 Washiraton. DC 20301 NAME OF FUNDING /SPONSORING ORGANIZATION office of the Asst icretary of Defense (FM&P) 8b OFFICE SYMBOL (It juplKjble) OASD (FM&P) 9 PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ADDRESS (City. State, and ZIP Code) ie Pengaton an 2B371 ishington, DC 20301 10 SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS