The American Psychological Association has been exposed again in a new report, "All the President’s Psychologists," and numerous other articles from various sources. Some of this isn't new and there is some evidence to indicate that more may have been revealed already that hasn't received much attention.
Those with political and media clout, who understand psychological manipulation tactics often use them to manipulate the masses, many of whom don't understand psychological manipulation tactics, including many that aren't to difficult to understand if people take the time to understand them..
Also at least one of the individuals, Phillip Zimbardo, that has claimed to expose some of the problems with the CIA and been critical of the Bush administration may have also been involved in the research to develop some of these tactics and to revise the ethics guidelines. I have written more about this in
Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, and The Stanford Prison Experiment and several other posts about this subject and will review some of it here; also there might be more information indicating that he was involved in this report, although they don't put much emphasis on it. As I indicated in previous posts Amy Goodman has interviewed him as well but didn't inquire about possible connections to the torture. I don't know if she had any knowledge of it; but if she didn't she probably should have.
The following is an excerpt from Democracy Now followed by several other excerpts including some from the new report:
Emails Show American Psychological Association Secretly Worked with Bush Admin to Enable Torture
New details have emerged on how the American Psychological Association, the world’s largest group of psychologists, aided government-sanctioned torture under President George W. Bush. A group of dissident psychologists have just published a 60-page report alleging the APA secretly coordinated with officials from the CIA, White House and the Pentagon to change the APA ethics policy to align it with the operational needs of the CIA’s torture program. Much of the report, "All the President’s Psychologists: The American Psychological Association’s Secret Complicity with the White House and US Intelligence Community in Support of the CIA’s 'Enhanced' Interrogation Program," is based on hundreds of newly released internal APA emails from 2003 to 2006 that show top officials were in direct communication with the CIA. The report also reveals Susan Brandon, a behavioral science researcher working for President Bush, secretly drafted language that the APA inserted into its ethics policy on interrogations. We are joined by two of the report’s co-authors: Dr. Steven Reisner, a founding member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology and member of the APA Council of Representatives, and Nathaniel Raymond, director of the Signal Program on Human Security and Technology at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative.
Much of the report is based on hundreds of newly released internal APA emails from 2003 to 2006 that show top officials were in direct communication with the CIA. In 2004, for example, the APA secretly took part in a meeting with officials from the CIA and other intelligence agencies to discuss ethics and national security. In one email, the APA stated that the aim of the meeting was, quote, "to take a forward looking, positive approach, in which we convey a sensitivity to and appreciation of the important work mental health professionals are doing in the national security arena, and in a supportive way offer our assistance in helping them navigate through thorny ethical dilemmas," unquote.
One attendee was Kirk Hubbard, then the chief of operations for the CIA Operational Assessment Division. He would later leave the CIA to work for the private firm set up by James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, the psychologists who were hired as private contractors to set up the CIA interrogation program including the waterboarding of prisoners. In one 2003 email, Hubbard wrote to a top APA official, quote, "You won’t get any feedback from [Dr. James] Mitchell or Jessen. They are doing special things to special people in special places, and generally are not available," unquote. While the APA has attempted to distance itself from Mitchell and Jessen, the newly disclosed emails show the men attended a 2003 invite-only conference called "The Science of Deception," sponsored by the APA, the CIA and RAND Corporation, to discuss so-called enhanced interrogations.
Complete article
This article and the accompanying report clearly indicates that a large portion of the work that some of the most prominent psychologists, or at least some of those with the most political power, do is shrouded in secrecy and designed to deceive and manipulate the public. This includes changes in the ethical guidelines which were done in secret meetings and even many members of the American Psychology Association weren't informed about them; which might explain why Susan Linn was surprised to see the new 2003 guidelines as I mentioned in a previous article and will get to more below. As I indicated in past articles about the subject there are plenty of good psychologists and some of them help expose the bad ones; however they often don't get nearly as much attention in the traditional media as those with political support so it takes time to sort through the details and check the facts. I covered what I consider some of the basics in a manner most people can understand and confirm in
Fundamentals of Psychology and Washington's Blog provided some additional information in the following excerpt:
Who’s Crazy Now? American Psychological Association Supported Torture “At Every Critical Juncture”
Like Nazi and Soviet Psychologists, American Psychologists Aided Abuse
While most psychologists are good people, tyrannies have always deployed corrupt psychologists to punish dissenters, and label them “crazy”.
The Nazi government substantially supported psychologists … many of whom, in turn, espoused extermination of the people they considered to be “racially and cognitively compromised”.
Soviet psychiatrists famously aided Stalin in applying fake insanity diagnoses to political dissenters. The official explanation was that no sane person would declaim the Soviet government and Communism.
And authoritarian American psychologists are eager to label anyone “taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, … and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook” as worthy of a trip to the insane asylum. (Those traits may also get one labeled as a potential terrorist.) Indeed, Americans are literally being thrown in the loony bin after they question those in power.
As prominent forensic psychiatrist James Knoll – psychiatry professor at SUNY-Syracuse and director of a forensic fellowship program – writes in the Psychiatric Times:
When psychiatric science becomes co-opted by a political agenda, an unhealthy alliance may be created. It is science that will always be the host organism, to be taken over by political viruses…. Psychiatry may come to resemble a new organism entirely — one that serves the ends of the criminal justice system.
Indeed, American psychologists created the American program of torture which was specially-crafted to produce false confessions to justify U.S. military policy.
Complete article
It seems extreme to many people to claim that American psychologists behaved as bad as Nazi or Soviet psychologists and but a close look at a lot of past work by the CIA indicates that if they aren't as bad they're much closer than most people would want to believe. And a lot of it is more subtle, and harder to understand without review, although most of the details aren't that complicated if people take the time to review them.
The following excerpts of the
report (PDF) indicate some of the highlights that I considered notable including admissions to working for the CIA, at least by some of them, and claims that they wanted to keep their activities secret, some discussion about favorable financial treatment for those working for the CIA, at least one reference to the discussions about the changes in the ethical guidelines that were decided on in August 2002 which either went into effect immediately or in 2003, and at the end is a brief mention of Zimbardo, who has indicated that he is critical of the abuses of the CIA and Bush administration; but the decisions to make changes in the ethical guidelines happened on his watch; and Kirk Hubbard refers to him as if he thinks he might be willing to act on his behalf. In addition to Hubbard some of the psychologists directly implicated are James Mitchell, Bruce Jessen, Susan Brandon and Stephen Behnke, who is supposed to be their expert on ethics but clearly doesn't seem to be too concerned about them. Philip Zimbardo isn't directly implicated but as I previously wrote there seems to be plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that he probably is involved with some of this research, including his own admissions and research by professor Alfred McCoy, and this provides some additional information that supports this assumption.
All the President’s Psychologists: The American Psychological Association’s Secret Complicity with the White House and US Intelligence Community in Support of the CIA’s 'Enhanced' Interrogation Program.
The APA secretly coordinated with officials from the CIA, White House, and the Department of Defense to create an APA ethics policy on national security interrogations that comported with then-classified legal guidance authorizing the CIA torture program. .....
The complicity between APA and government entities appears to have directly influenced the
APA ethics policy changes, codified into the June 2005 report of the APA’s Presidential Task
Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). The PENS report, in
combination with associated, past APA ethics code changes, permitted psychologists to take
on the roles of monitoring and evaluating the safety and efficacy of the “enhanced”
interrogation program. ...
The Gerwehr emails, together with independent documents in the public record, demonstrate
that APA’s secret coordination with the Bush administration both generated and critically
shaped APA’s 2005 ethics policy on interrogations. .... Presenting misleading information to APA membership, the public, and the press that obscured or falsified the history of complicity with Mitchell and Jessen, the CIA and/or the Bush White House. .....
(memo sent in 2004)
In his memo, addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Tenet made clear
just how high the stakes were during this period and how much conflict appears to have
arisen among the leadership prior to his resignation. Tenet reminded the key players of the
Administration that they had all approved the program: “From the outset, the policy to employ
these techniques against terrorist HVD has been reviewed and endorsed by senior
Administration policymakers; in August 2002, the Vice President, the Council to the
President, the Attorney General and you were briefed and approved CIA going forward with
the Program...” he wrote: “Given all this increased scrutiny now upon us in the wake of
treatment of prisoners in Iraq and all the questions the administration is being asked, I
strongly believe that the Administration needs to review its previous legal and policy
positions with respect to detainees to assure that we all speak in a united and unambiguous
voice about the continued wisdom and efficacy of those positions in light of the current
controversy.” 15
Soon after Mumford’s “savethe date” was sent, APA’s Ethics Director, Stephen Behnke sent
an official invitation to potential participants. Behnke framed the purpose of the meeting as a
response to the Abu Ghraib scandal:
Dear Invitee,
Events in our recent history, most notably the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
and the Abu Ghraib prison situation, have stimulated a great deal of interest in the
ethics of using psychology and psychological techniques as tools in national security
investigations. (Email 3)
Behnke reassured invitees that the APA Ethics Office would “neither assess nor investigate
the behavior of any specific individual or group.” Instead, Behnke conveyed the APA’s
deference to the needs of psychologists in the intelligence community:
The Ethics Office and Science Directorate would like to take a forward looking,
positive approach, in which we convey a sensitivity to and appreciation of the
important work mental health professionals are doing in the national security arena,
and in a supportive way offer our assistance in helping them navigate through thorny
ethical dilemmas, if they feel that need (informal conversations with people in the
field suggest the need is there).
Behnke further guaranteed that APA would keep the meeting, its participants, and their
contributions confidential:
I would like to emphasize that we will not advertise the meeting other than this letter
to the individual invitees, that we will not publish or otherwise make public the names
of attendees or the substance of our discussions...
Indeed, the substance of the discussions and the names of the attendees at the July 20,
2004 meeting have never been disclosed. 16 Similarly, it is unknown whether followup meetings took place between APA and CIA personnel, although the invitation and
subsequent emails refer to the possibility of such meetings.
What is known is that the same day APA leadership was meeting with top national security
psychologists from the CIA, the officials at the highest levels of the Bush administration were
meeting to address the legality of the enhanced interrogation program: “In a meeting on July
20, 2004, National Security Council principals, including the vice president, provided their
authorization for the CIA to use its enhanced interrogation techniques... They also directed
the Department of Justice to prepare a legal opinion on whether the CIA's enhanced
interrogation techniques were consistent with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution.” 17 The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were
central to the U.S. interpretation of what constituted CIDT. 18 ....
n addition, the weekend meeting was attended by numerous unacknowledged observers,
whose presence, according to Task Force Chair MooreheadSlaughter, had been vetted by
herself and the two Board liaisons who later became APA Presidents, Koocher and Anton. 23
Secret observers included Brandon, recently of the White House, Dr. Mel Gravitz, a
psychologist formerly at the National Security Agency, and APA staff members Newman,
Mumford, Farberman, Breckler and Dr. Heather Kelly. 24 It is unknown, aside from Brandon
(see below), whether these observers contributed to the report, which Task Force
”rapporteur” Stephen Behnke wrote during meeting breaks and in the evenings. As the public
record reflects, Behnke finalized the Report and distributed it to the Task Force members six
hours after the Task Force meeting ended. ....
Additional pressure on the “enhanced” interrogation program and the use of medical
personnel came through the CIA Office of the Inspector General (OIG). At the time, the
program faced increasing calls for review and oversight following damaging revelations
about the treatment of “ghost detainees.” 34
In May 2004, the OIG recommended that the CIA
conduct a study of the effectiveness of the interrogation techniques. In response to OMS
concerns that studying the results of these interrogations “would amount to human
experimentation,” the OIG issued a clarification in January 2005:
I fear there was a misunderstanding.
OIG did not have in mind doing additional,
guinea pig research on human beings.
What we are recommending is that the
Agency undertake a careful review of its experience to date in using the various
techniques and that it draw conclusions about their safety, effectiveness, etc., that
can guide CIA officers as we move ahead. 35 .....
2002: Previous Changes to APA Ethics Code
It is important to note that previous changes to the APA Ethics Code appear to have helped
set the stage for psychologists to conduct research on a vulnerable population (e.g.
detainees) without their consent. While such conduct has been deemed unethical for health
professionals since Nuremberg, the APA ethics code had been revised in 2002 in ways that
weakened key research protections established by the Nuremberg Code 42 under customary
international law and the Common Rule under US Federal Law. One such change,
apparently drafted into the code after 9/11, determined that the requirement to obtain
informed consent could be dispensed with when “permitted by law or federal or institutional
regulations” (Ethical Standard 8.05: American Psychological Association, 2002b). 4
Other changes, already being considered prior to 9/11 but made APA policy in August 2002,
included permitting psychologists to more readily employ deception, restricting only
“research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress”
(Ethical Standard 8.07), and most strikingly, to fore-go their ethical obligations altogether, if
these “conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority” (Ethical Standard
1.02). 44 ....
Email 3: Mumford, July 14, 2004 ..... I would like to emphasize that we will not advertise the
meeting other than this letter to the individual invitees, that we will not publish or otherwise
make public the names of attendees or the substance of our discussions, and that in the
meeting we will neither assess nor investigate the behavior of any specific individual or
group. ..... Sincerely, Stephen Behnke Director, APA Ethics Office .....
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:16 AM To: Mumford, Geoff .....
3. In July 2003, the APA and the RAND corp. cohosted a workshop entitled, “Science of
Deception: Integration of Practice and Theory,” which was funded by the CIA. Can you tell
me who initiated the workshop and provide a little more description of the event? Topics
included the use of pharmaceutical truthtelling agents. Can you tell me who led that
workshop and what conclusion they arrived at?
Katherine Eban
From: Mumford, Geoffrey
Subject: RE: Dinner on the 17th
Date: June 27, 2003 5:44:31 PM EDT
To: kirk hubbard
Cc: Scott Gerwehr (RAND), Susan Brandon (NIH/NIMH)
Kirk,
I concur and only just now saw Scott's reference...glad he's on our side;)
Sorry to hear your getting grief about the room but have I got a deal for you...as a special
promotion for APA members, who also work in CIA Ops AND are willing to share their last
names, I will pull that pawltry (poultry?) room fee out of my policy budget and put you up for
the night. This is the very least APA can do given the remarkable generosity your agency
has shown in supporting the wrkshop.
Enjoy the weekend!
geoff
Email 12: Hubbard, June 13, 2003 ....
If you are looking for another scientist/researcher, a colleague here suggested Richard
Rogers, Ph.D. He wrote a book titled "Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception"
and apparently continues to conduct research in the area of deception. Last we know, he is a
Professor of Psychology at the Univ of North Texas. My colleague was impressed by his
work, for what it's worth.
Email 15. Hubbard, April 2, 2003
kirk hubbard
To: sbrandon, gmumford, gerwehr
Date: April 2, 2003 2:24 PM
RE: Workshop on Science of Deception
Susan, Your reply sounds fine to me.
Pretty slick-you should be handling agents for us!
Another approach in addition to your note might be to find someone like Sternberg,
Zimbardo, etc. who knows Ekman and could cajole him. Joe Matarazzo knows him and has
called on my behalf before, but I don't know if they have any personal relationship. Joe loves
to strong arm people, but I don't know what effect that might have on Ekman. We don't want
him to be disruptive at the forum!
Kirk
Complete article
In the final E-mail cited Kirk Hubbard refers to Zimbardo as someone that he might consider asking to "cajole" Ekman on his behalf. This hardly seems likely if Phillip Zimbardo really was as concerned about preventing torture or participating with the CIA as his public statements indicate; however in previous statements, including his book and the introduction to a recent edition to Stanley Milgram's "Obedience to Authority" book he has admitted that he was the charismatic one of the two in high school and college and that he could be manipulative, and his so called Stanford Prison Experiment was about manipulation. He claimed to put those things behind him when he was admonished by his girlfriend and future wife; but he also admits to further experiments after that change of heart, and he was the president of the American Psychological association when they had a meeting, previously mentioned, in august 2002 to decide on the new ethical guidelines that went into effect in the summer of 2003. This report indicates that at least some of those changes went into effect immediately.
Phillip Zimbardo has provided conflicting claims in the past and it may be difficult to figure out exactly what his objective is. If he was trying to advance the CIA's goal in the most effective way possible and keep this secret it wouldn't seem reasonable for him to disclose some of their tactics as he did in his book. However if he wanted to expose them in the most effective way possible he could have done a much better job and he could have written his book in the seventies exposing some of his research much earlier, possibly preventing his research being used to develop interrogation techniques or indoctrination techniques in boot camp, by informing the public how to avoid being misled. and if he really was an anti-war protester during the Vietnam war it is hard to imagine why he would have done research financed by the Office of Navel Research that could be used to develop boot camp policies among other things.
He didn't take either of these options, which may make his objective a little more complicated. As I indicated in previous posts it might be because they want to disclose as much and only as much information when it suits their purposes, not the purposes of the majority of the public.
This report also implicated at least two new psychologists who later became president of the American Psychological Association. Alfred McCoy also implicated several previous presidents of the APA in his research. Neither of them directly implicated Zimbardo, who was president in 2002 but McCoy made a compelling case to implicate both Stanley Milgram and Irving Janis, who were closely tied to Zimbardo and worked together on several related projects including the Obedience experiments and the so-called Prison experiment which were part of a much larger series of experiments that were related. If McCoy had substituted Zimbardo for Milgram or Janis his argument would have been even stronger, especially after Zimbardo wrote his book which might look like a partial confession to those that are familiar with his work and apply scrutiny.
The clear implication, from a lot of this research, is that they've been using psychological manipulation for the advantage of war profiteers and oil companies among other people with enough political clout, regardless of how much damage it does to the rest of society. However they have to realize that this could eventually backfire, even on those with the most political clout, when the damage escalates too much so it is possible that they might support a controlled transition, to some degree. If this is happening, and it isn't exposed, then we could get what they consider enough reform, and only enough reform, to prevent it from backfiring on those with the most political clout, although they might abandon some scapegoats.
Phillip Zimbardo has also encouraged hero worship, although he doesn't phrase it that way. The most practical solutions don't involve dramatic actions; instead they involve teaching people about the root causes of problems and avoiding them before dramatic action seems appropriate. A good argument could be made that teachers and other ordinary people that take preventive action are the real heroes, however it doesn't seem as dramatic and is rarely accompanied by hype by the media.
Unfortunately the media that does cover Zimbardo rarely if ever seems to bring this up. Instead they often give him a good chance to make his case and present himself as being opposed to the torture practices that he almost certainly helped develop. This includes Democracy Now who interviewed him when he published his book in 2007 and didn't mention the support for torture by the APA until the end of the interview when there was no time to discuss it, nor did they find extra time posted on the web, as they do with some guests, as indicated in the following excerpt:
Understanding How Good People Turn Evil: Renowned Psychologist Philip Zimbardo on His Landmark Stanford Prison Experiment, Abu Ghraib and More 03/30/2007
..... AMY GOODMAN: Professor Zimbardo, we have held several debates on the American Psychological Association’s position on psychologists participating in military interrogations, quite different from the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association. Can you comment on the organization you were formerly the president of?
PHILIP ZIMBARDO: Well, I have to begin by saying that psychologists really want to make their research relevant to society, that we want to give back. We get—our research gets funded. Our students get—students’ education gets funded. And so, we are eager to do things—and certainly I, all my life, have tried to make our research relevant to the needs of society. And so, many psychologists are military psychologists. Many psychologists work for the government in various capacities, doing really important good things. Psychologists were critical in the Second World War. And so, some psychologists work to give advice to interrogators about how to be more effective, the same way some psychologists give advice to police detectives on how to be more effective. The problem comes when you’re giving—
AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.
PHILIP ZIMBARDO: —specific advice about a particular individual being interrogated. And at that point, you step across the line, that you cannot—you cannot abuse your role as psychologist to help an interrogator break a prisoner psychologically. And that, I am strongly against.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Zimbardo, we’re going to have to leave it there. I want to thank you very much for being with us. The book is called The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.
Complete article
Amy Goodman and others have had plenty of time to ask him more question or raise them for the benefit of the public since then; unfortunately few of them have, even many relatively high profile alternative media outlets; but one one brief occasion she did report give him more good press about a petition drive,
Appointment of Rumsfeld Stirs Protest at Stanford. 09/25/2007 "The petition effort is led in part by famed psychologist Philip Zimbardo." Ironically Phillip Zimbardo has acknowledged some criticism, which I haven't seen on the internet, in the 2008 edition of his book, which says that while promoting it that many people came to the conclusion that he might have used his research to develop the torture techniques later used at Abu Ghraib; but he didn't say who these people were, but it clearly indicates that others came to similar conclusions before me.
The problems with the use of psychological manipulation goes well beyond international affairs and torture. It also includes manipulation of children through advertising that starts at a young age, manipulating workers, often through union busing tactics, and manipulating of voters for political purposes. Advertising to children is what Susan Linn was writing about, in her book "Consuming Kids" when she expressed concern and surprise at the removal of the social responsibility clause. Susan Linn and several other researchers, including Juliet Schor and Roy F. Fox have also expressed concern, if not outrage by laws that protect the secrecy of "proprietary research" done regarding advertizing to children.
This essentially means that instead of protecting children or other people, including voters and workers, from psychological manipulation by psychologists the government is protecting the secrecy of the manipulators. It essentially means that conspiracy is protected by law. The fact that conspiracy to manipulate the public is protected by law isn't actually a conspiracy theory, since this conclusion is based on information that is available to the public. A conspiracy theory would be when people speculate about conspiracies before they have all the information they need to establish facts. However it does indicate that there are conspiracies going on and this report has exposed some of them; and it has indicated that
conspiracy theorists are justified in some of their speculations as long as they do their best to sort out the details with accurate information that is available.
As I've said in the past many so-called conspiracy theories don't fit the strictest definition of conspiracy, since the information used to come to conclusions isn't completely secret. Instead they're often mentioned very briefly in low profile locations where large percentages of the public never read them; and contradictory claims that often don't stand up to scrutiny are repeated over and over again. This is propaganda, which is similar to conspiracy, and it often involves psychological manipulation. The advantage of this is that if there is public information even without the help of the media the word can get out eventually but as Mark Twain once said, “A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
And another popular quote often ironically attributed to Vladimir Lenin, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," or at least it seems to. This is one of the most basic principles of propaganda, which is why we need a more diverse media.
Edit: In one of the previous posts about Phillip Zimbardo and the American Psychological Association,
"Corruption or Bias in the American Psychological Association," I mentioned that I informed both Phillip Zimbardo, through his web site, and an associate of his, Sharon Presley, through Facebook about my articles on their work and received no response. This was in 2011; before writing this article I sent him two tweets and after I sent him one more informing him of this article. I received no response once again. This isn't surprising, since if my views raise legitimate points, then from a public relations point of view, which is similar to a legal point of view, the best way to address it might be to avoid drawing any additional attention to it and avoid providing a response that might not adequately address the situation and make it seem worse. If on the other hand there is a legitimate problem with my concerns, it might be in his best interest to address them
The following are the tweets that I sent him:
May 16 @PhilZimbardo Hi wondering why you accepted money from ONR while opposing war and if you were involved in ethical changes decided Aug. 2002
@PhilZimbardo for more info see http://zacherydtaylor.blogspot.com/2015/03/philip-zimbardo-lucifer-effect-stanford.html … sent you an E-Mail years ago but got no reply thanks
May 19 @PhilZimbardo Why would Kirk Hubbard think you might help him "cajole" Ekman in new torture disclosure? http://zacherydtaylor.blogspot.com/2015/05/american-psychological-association.html … Thanks
Also since writing this a study Zimbardo wrote in 1979,
On Resisting Social Influence Susan Andersen and Philip Zimbardo Stanford University, was brought to my attention through an
ATS discussion. This study has some of the same advantages and disadvantages of his book, only, since it seems to have drawn less attention it may have done more to educate those who want to conduct scams than those who want to avoid them. Like the Obedience to Authority experiments, it could be used to better understand manipulation tactics and use them assuming, the target doesn't understand them, or to warn the public about them so that they can avoid being scammed. Since this was almost certainly not available to a large number of people outside the academic world, it almost certainly did little or nothing to warn people that might be susceptible to these scams. In all fairness the media is much more responsible for that; if they wanted to do more to inform people o this type of research they could but, instead they often use propaganda that often indicates that they understand it, since they're using manipulation tactics.
I have written several posts about related subjects in the past including the following:
Fundamentals of Psychology
Manipulation Tactics
Political Manipulation
Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment
Corruption or Bias in the American Psychological Association
Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize
Political Psychologist Are Suppressing Democracy
There are also plenty of additional other reports, some of which were used to deve3lop some of the reporting hear or were cited in this report including the following:
Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. (2005). PDF 11 pages
Counterpunch: The Ethical Demise of the American Psychological Association 05/13/2015
Psychological Warfare? A Debate on the Role of Mental Health Professionals in Military Interrogations at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Beyond 08/11/2005
A Secret E-Mail Argument Among Psychologists About Torture 05/08/2009
APA Interrogation Task Force Member Dr. Jean Maria Arrigo Exposes Group’s Ties to Military 08/20/2007
June 4 letter from Tenet to National Security Adviser (Rice?) Review of CIA Interrogation Program
Salon: Psychological warfare 07/26/2006 Angered that their professional organization has adopted a policy condoning psychologists' participation in "war on terror" interrogations, many psychologists are vowing to stage a battle royal at the APA's annual meeting.
Psychologists group still rocked by torture debate 08/04/2006 In an angry response to Salon, the American Psychological Association defends its policy on participating in terror suspects' interrogation -- as some members still push for change.
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Executive Summary of the Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program. (2014), p. 136. United States Senate PDF study 500 pages and hard if not impossible to download
