The Ability To Change: A Fundamental Psychological Belief Undermined By APA


John Caccavale, Ph.D.

The ability of a person to make positive changes in their behavior is a fundamental belief that underlies all of clinical and learning psychology. The events of the past few years, however, are starting to erode my confidence in a concept that I have always firmly held onto. As a practitioner the proof was always before me. Time and time again I would see patients and non-patients, alike, make positive changes in some of the most destructive behaviors that had dogged them for life. In even my most challenging times as a therapist, I assured my patients that change was possible. I now am beginning to wonder whether the ability to understand past behavior can be the foundation to learn new ones.

In today's informational society, many people have readily available access to almost any type of information that they desire to inquire about. From making cakes to making bombs, it's all there. Yet, even with this ability to access data and history, most societies remain chained to destructiveness and stupidity. It seems the human condition is not getting better with all the technology and information that swarms around us. In many ways, our times appear more reminiscent of the turn of many previous centuries. Mass numbers of people are starving, killed, and cast aside as rubble. Wellbeing is a commodity and not a human right. Education seems to not be a factor in logic or rationale. Economic wellbeing resembles a lottery more than an individual's effort. But nevertheless, we need to believe that these could all change. These are not political statements or ideological ramblings. As a psychologist I have always accepted the responsibility and duty to be honest but non-judgmental in my work. Of course, outside of work those values, most of the time, should also prevail. Yet, with all of the issues confronting us as a society, I do not see anyone care what psychologists have to say about anything meaningful. Aside from the pabulum filling the pages of Psychology Today and the mass media, where are our skills solicited in policy circles? Only in the military, it seems, can we see where psychology is perceived with some value.

For example, many thought the torture issue was finally being resolved when APA decided to pass some ineffectual and meaningless resolution in Toronto at their August conference. Although in previous articles I have written that the toothless resolution and arguments by some against the validity of the Hoffman Report were part of a new cover up, my hope and belief in change has quickly dissipated. A recent New York Times article by James Risen1 reports that the Department of Defense has formally asked the APA to reconsider its ban on psychologists participating in interrogations. The APA responded that they will consider the request. This is the beginning of a new assault on our profession. Apparently, as the only healthcare profession to allow its practitioners to engage in torture and then cover it up, the APA is now manipulating a return to the same policies that have been explicitly rejected by a majority of psychologists and other healthcare providers. Recall, the APA has yet to modify their ethics code to reflect the subject matter of the Toronto resolution. We can expect some bureaucratic maneuver by APA to go right back to doing what they swore to denounce.

Clearly, there is a need for people trained in interrogating suspected terrorists. There is a need for psychologists to be part of a military effort. From our beginnings as psychologists in the military, however, the role appropriately has been that of a healthcare provider. That is our real training. The military has its own training for interrogators. Psychologists who purport to offer their services as interrogators are not acting as psychologists. Psychologists who purport that information gathered under distress and torture are not acting as psychologists or being honest about the validity of any information obtained under those circumstances. This is not a complex issue. Clinical training is not the basis or skill set that should or can be used to distress, harm, or help the military extract information from prisoners. We treat veterans, their families, and those currently serving who are experiencing trauma and psychological issues. This is our patriotic and role as psychologists serving in the military.

I believe that psychologists have much to offer in solving some of the most important problems confronting society and policymakers. Our knowledge of changing attitudes, motivating people to move forward, getting people to work cooperatively, and dealing with conflict are just some examples of where our talents can be useful and effective. Our input into policy about human behavior is far more extensive and more realistic than the economic behaviorists and game theorists that many policymakers turn to for assistance and help. The question always is why not? Why have we been shut out of the almost everything except for the needs of the military? It's time that psychologists accept the realization that The APA can no longer represent the interests of professional psychology. They have forfeited that right and responsibility because they have demonstrated their rejection of positive change. Despite the hope for change in APA, it was clear from the onset that these folks have disgraced psychology because they are characteristically committed to feeding their egos and salaries. Little will change because their training as psychologists has not impacted or overcome their personal shortcomings. Who and what they are remain separate entities with little connection or integration.

How can we expect to elevate our reputations as agents of positive change when we are mired in the mud of an organization that can care less about honesty, integrity, and commitment to change? How can we as psychologists continue to try and convince our patients about change if, as psychologists, those who purport to represent us demonstrate a desire to remain committed to aiding a military establishment that seeks to turn psychologists from healthcare providers into interrogators? On both fronts, we cannot. I believe that psychologists, who are honest about our profession and care about our role and reputation as agents of positive change, need to force change in APA by removing their real source of funding. Current APA members would help this change by considering terminating their membership and demand their dues be returned. Those psychologists solicited by APA to join can help by rejecting membership in an organization that does not advance the best efforts of professional psychology. Those who continue to enable APA's bad behavior must take responsibility for the decline of psychology. There will be no denial, rationalization or other excuse. We have to know better and continue to believe that psychologists and psychology stands for positive change.

References
1. New York Times. Pentagon Wants Psychologists to End Ban on Interrogation Role James Risen. January. 24, 2016.