Psychology and the Aims of Normative Ethics

Rini, Regina

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4_162

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These competencies, which go into effect in September 2016, provide a framework for program administrators to identify aspects of the program where they can add ethics training. As an illustration, the competency area of “intervention” (APA, 2015a, p. 12) can include evidence on cognitive (e.g., Seiler, Fischer, & Ooi, 2010), affective (e.g., Rogerson, Gottlieb, Handelsman, Knapp, & Younggren, 2011), and physiological (e.g., Clausen & Levy, 2014; Reynolds, 2006; Rini, 2014) influences on ethical decision-making. Social psychology concepts that provide a scholarly understanding of why military personnel participated in, colluded with, and neglected to report torture is an area that DCTs can incorporate into a course on social bases of behavior (e.g., Bandura, 2015; Burger, 2014; Costanzo & Gerrity, 2009).…”

Section: Ethics Topicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling torture: APA, clinical psychology training and the failure to disobey.

LoCicero

Marlin

Jull-Patterson

et al. 2016

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The American Psychological Association (APA) has historically had close ties with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Recent revelations describe problematic outcomes of those ties, as some in the APA colluded with the DOD to allow psychologists to participate, with expectation of impunity, in harsh interrogations that amounted to torture of Guantanamo detainees, during the Bush era. We now know that leaders in the APA purposely misled psychologists about the establishment of policies on psychologists' roles in interrogations. Still, the authors wondered why, when the resulting policies reflected a clear contradiction of the fundamental duty to do no harm, few psychologists, in or out of the military, protested the policies articulated in 2005 by the committee on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). Previous research suggested that U.S. graduate students in clinical psychology receive little or no training in the duties of psychologists in military settings or in the ethical guidance offered by international treaties. Thus psychologists might not have been well prepared to critique the PENS policies or to refuse to participate in interrogations. To further explore this issue, the authors surveyed Directors of Clinical Training of doctoral programs in clinical psychology, asking Editor's Note. Continue the conversation by submitting your comments and questions about this article/book review to PeacePsychology.org/ peaceconflict. (The Editor of PeacePsychology.org reserves the right to exclude material that fails to contribute to constructive discussion.) This article was published Online First August 8, 2016. ALICE LOCICERO holds a PhD. She is a 2016 -2017 Visiting Scholar at the Wright Institute in Berkeley, California. She also served as a core faculty member at the Center for Multicultural Training in Psychology from 2012-2015. Her recent research has focused on sociocultural factors affecting youth recruitment to groups using terrorism, and on how doctoral students are prepared for ethical dilemmas in an era where widespread fear challenges decision-making.ROBERT P. MARLIN holds PhD and MD. He is a staff physician in the

show abstract