Whew; that's a long one!

• Boundary Violation or needless worry? by Lillian, 3/24/99
  • Always use your powers for good, my son/daughter by William Reid, 3/19/99
    • More Details by Lillian, 3/24/99
      
      

It would be impossible (and unwise) to attempt a long-winded or definitive answer. (If you want a real consultation, let me know. It's part of what I do for a living.) ..... A few thoughts come to mind, though. If they get long-winded, click on a different forum. ..... (1) In general, employers and organizations (in the U.S., at least) can often be considered responsible for certain things their employees, consultants, or leaders do in their name. Thus your group may be responsible for checking the qualifications of those who work for/in it, reasonably monitoring their activities, taking action when one is reasonably suspected of being unethical or unqualified, etc. The organization leaders should think about this when contemplating any member who they know is screwing up (especially when there is a pattern, or others are being harmed). ..... (2) The participants in the exercises you describe should probably be given sufficient notice of what kinds of things may happen, and the reasonably foreseeable consequences. It doesn't seem to me that anyone has to tell them exactly what will happen, provided this is not "research" or some kind of treatment (and even then there are exceptions). You said participation is voluntary and people know generally that it will be stressful. ..... (3) It should be clear, and you might want to notify participants, that the experience is NOT any form of treatment or research. ..... (4) With regard to whether or not psychologists' ethics still apply: In medical ethics, it is often said that the physician cannot shed the raiment of "physician" and then act badly (e.g., torture someone and say he's acting as a member of the Nazi SS and not as a doctor). One would suppose that the same would be true of psychology; however, (a) there may be exceptions, (b) "ethics" is not a universal term (no matter how much some philosophers wish there were a universal or "human" ethic, it generally applies to the organization making the rules; if you're not in the organization, then the ethics don't strictly apply -- sad, but technically true), and (c) I don't know whether or not all the people who are doing this are "psychologists." ..... I don't see a "boundary" issue here, in the sense of a therapeutic setting (since you said it's not therapeutic). ..... (5) You said everyone is treated the same at these gatherings and that it doesn't get "personal," but your description suggests the opposite. It may be that everyone has the same opportunity for a "personal" onslaught. ..... (6) A period of debriefing for all participants would be an important consideration. ..... (7) I can't resist another comment about the "gamey" nature of the whole experience and premise. I've done a bit of consultation to government and industry, including some organizations and sections that I'd consider pretty high stress and high stakes groups. What you describe sounds more like it's designed to LOOK and FEEL psychologically meaningful than having any validated usefulness for, say, security teams, corporate boards, special forces, etc. I spoke with a friend who was a senior psychologist with a European country's elite international sports teams (they REALLY take their sports seriously), and she agreed, though neither of us knows the details of what your group is about. No offense intended. ..... Finally, the webmaster for Behavior.net is going to start limiting the length of queries and responses. Do you suppose he means me??

• You did ask - and thanks for the reply by Lillian, 4/8/99