Adversarial Operational Psychology Is Unethical Psychology: A Reply to Staal and Greene (2015)

In this essay we respond to Staal and Greene's (2015) critique of our ethical rejection of "adversarial operational psychology" (AOP; Arrigo, Eidelson, & Bennett, 2012). We rebut their evasive attempt to expand AOP beyond the security sector, and we explain how AOP elements of power, resources, secrecy, ideological control, and strategic deception defy civic-sector norms. We also discuss their failure to address our foundational questions, including purported military necessity as the justification for AOP and the limited capacity of civic institutions to monitor conduct in AOP. We conclude that the demands of psychological and military ethics point to exclusion of AOP from professional psychology.