El largo camino de la American Psychological Association hacia la redención / The long road of the American Psychological Association to redemption

En su convención anual de Agosto 2015, la American Psychological Association finalmente comenzó a enfrentar su vergonzosa historia de colusión con la inteligencia y el ejército de los Estados Unidos en el marco de la "guerra contra el terrorismo". De particular interés es la importante, recientemente adoptada política que ahora prohíbe a los psicólogos participar en interrogatorios de seguridad nacional. Pero el daño causado por el fracaso de la APA en defender el principio ético de no dañar es muy amplio, y una reparación significativa requerirá un compromiso integral y permanente con la transparencia, la rendición de cuentas y la reforma. Este breve ensayo ofrece una revisión y evaluación crítica del momento actual, el inquietante pasado y el futuro incierto. Se identifican y discuten algunos retos y obstáculos específicos que enfrenta la APA en su búsqueda de la redención...

At its recent annual convention, the American Psychological Association finally began to confront its shameful history of "war on terror" collusion with the U.S. military and intelligence establishment. Of particular note, an important, newly adopted policy now prohibits psychologists from participating in national security interrogations. But the damage caused by the APA's failure to defend the profession's do-no-harm ethics is extensive, and meaningful repair will require a comprehensive and ongoing commitment to transparency, accountability, and reform. This brief essay offers a review and critical assessment of the current moment, the disturbing past, and the uncertain future. Specific challenges and obstacles the APA faces in pursuing redemption are identified and discussed.

The dark side of comprehensive soldier fitness.

Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF), the focus of the January 2011 special issue of the American Psychologist, is a $125 million resilience training initiative designed to reduce and prevent the adverse psychological consequences of combat for soldiers and veterans. These are worthy goals. Soldiers and veterans deserve the best care possible, and military psychologists have critically important roles to play. But the special issue is troubling in several important respects. Elsewhere, we have offered a detailed review (Eidelson, Pilisuk, & Soldz, 2011). Here we offer only a summary of our concerns. The CSF program is a massive research project launched without pilot testing to determine, first, the effectiveness of the training in a military environment. This is highly irregular and obviously worrisome considering the stakes. No evidence was provided indicating that CSF received preliminary review by an independent ethics review board. There are other ethically fraught possibilities.This special issue reveals much about current moral challenges facing the profession of psychology.

Collective narcissism and its social consequences.

This article introduces the concept of collective narcissism--an emotional investment in an unrealistic belief about the in group's greatness--aiming to explain how feelings about an ingroup shape a tendency to aggress against outgroups. The results of 5 studies indicate that collective, but not individual, narcissism predicts intergroup aggressiveness. Collective narcissism is related to high private and low public collective self-esteem and low implicit group esteem. It predicts perceived threat from outgroups, unwillingness to forgive outgroups, preference for military aggression over and above social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and blind patriotism. The relationship between collective narcissism and aggressiveness is mediated by perceived threat from outgroups and perceived insult to the ingroup. In sum, the results indicate that collective narcissism is a form of high but ambivalent group esteem related to sensitivity to threats to the ingroup's image and retaliatory aggression.

Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: integrating theoretical perspectives.

Building on the contributions of diverse theoretical approaches, the authors present a multidimensional model of group identification. Integrating conceptions from the social identity perspective with those from research on individualism-collectivism, nationalism- patriotism, and identification with organizations, we propose four conceptually distinct modes of identification: importance (how much I view the group as part of who I am), commitment (how much I want to benefit the group), superiority (how much I view my group as superior to other groups), and deference (how much I honor, revere, and submit to the group's norms, symbols, and leaders). We present an instrument for assessing the four modes of identification and review initial empirical findings that validate the proposed model and show its utility in understanding antecedents and consequences of identification.

Dangerous ideas. Five beliefs that propel groups toward conflict.

The toll in death, suffering, and displacement caused by conflicts engaging groups defined by ethnicity, nationality, religion, or other social identities has reached staggering proportions over the past decade. With expertise in research and intervention, psychologists have critical contributions to make to more fully understanding and more effectively confronting this distressing global phenomenon. The authors focus on the parallels between the core beliefs of individuals and the collective worldviews of groups that may operate to trigger or constrain violent struggles. On the basis of a review of relevant literatures, 5 belief domains--superiority, injustice, vulnerability, distrust, and helplessness--are identified as particularly important for further study.