↓ Skip to main content

The ethics of interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A critique of policy and process

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The ethics of interrogation and the American Psychological Association: A critique of policy and process
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2008
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-3-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brad Olson, Stephen Soldz, Martha Davis

Abstract

The Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force was assembled by the American Psychological Association (APA) to guide policy on the role of psychologists in interrogations at foreign detention centers for the purpose of U.S. national security. The task force met briefly in 2005, and its report was quickly accepted by the APA Board of Directors and deemed consistent with the APA Ethics Code by the APA Ethics Committee. This rapid acceptance was unusual for a number of reasons but primarily because of the APA's long-standing tradition of taking great care in developing ethical policies that protected anyone who might be impacted by the work of psychologists. Many psychological and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as reputable journalists, believed the risk of harm associated with psychologist participation in interrogations at these detention centers was not adequately addressed by the report. The present critique analyzes the assumptions of the PENS report and its interpretations of the APA Ethics Code. We demonstrate that it presents only one (and not particularly representative) side of a complex set of ethical issues. We conclude with a discussion of more appropriate psychological contributions to national security and world peace that better respect and preserve human rights.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Philippines 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 54%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2012.
All research outputs
#3,322,115
of 12,366,641 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#116
of 173 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,796
of 130,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,366,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 173 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 130,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.