Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human RightsI

Moving Human Rights to the

Forefront of Psychology

THE FINAL REPORT OF THE APA

TASK FORCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

APA TASK FORCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

FEBRUARY 2021

IIAPA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

acknowledgment is given to the American Psychological Association. This material may not be reprinted, translated, or distributed electronically without

prior permission in writing from the publisher. For permission, contact APA, Rights and Permissions, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.

Correspondence regarding the Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology:

The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights should be addressed to the American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington,

20002-4242.

Suggested Citation

American Psychological Association, APA Task Force on Human Rights. (2021) Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology:

The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/report-human-rights.pdf

Moving Human Rights to the

Forefront of Psychology

THE FINAL REPORT OF THE APA

TASK FORCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

APA TASK FORCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

FEBRUARY 2021

APA Task Force on Human Rights

Maureen O’Connor, PhD, JD (Chair)

Palo Alto University

Kathleen Dockett, EdD, LP

University of the District

of Columbia (emerita)

Kirby Huminuik, PhD

Simon Fraser University

Diya Jacob Kallivayalil, PhD

Cambridge Health Alliance/Harvard

Medical School

Sam G. McFarland, PhD

Western Kentucky University (emeritus)

Jessica M. Wyndham, LLM

American Association for the

Advancement of Science

APA Staff

Gabriel Twose, PhD

Senior International Affairs Officer

Clinton Anderson, PhD

Deputy Chief, Public Interest Directorate, and

Director, Office on Sexual Orientation and

Gender Diversity

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 

Section One Definition of human rights as related to psychology 

Background and legal definitions of human rights 

Defining human rights in relation to psychology 

Section Two The relationship between human rights and the concepts that have

historically guided APA 

Section Three The Five Connections An analytical framework for human rights 

Applying the Five Connections framework to psychology 

Applying the Five Connections framework to APA 

Section Four Review of APA engagement with human rights using the

Five Connections framework 

Connection  How has APA protected the human rights of psychologists? 

Connection  How has APA supported the application of psychological knowledge

and methods to the greater understanding and realization of human rights? 

Connection  How has APA opposed the misuse of psychological science

practice and applications and their negative impact on human rights? 

Connection  How has APA strived to ensure that all people receive the

benefits of psychological science and practice? 

Connection  How has APA advocated for human rights and

supported advocacy for human rights by its members? 

Conclusions drawn from the Five Connections analysis 

Section Five Recommendations 

References 

Appendices 

2APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

INTRODUCTION

In July 2016, the American Psychological Association (APA) Board of Directors appointed a task

force to advise the organization in its work to promote and protect human rights (American

Psychological Association, 2016a). This was sparked by the Independent Review (addressed in

section 4 of the report) but reflected a long-standing interest in expanding APA’s work on human

rights. The Task Force on Human Rights members were selected for their expertise in human rights,

their engagement on issues that demonstrate a relationship between psychology and human

rights, and their knowledge of APA’s programs and constituencies.

The Task Force was charged with three overarching tasks

1. To provide a definition of human rights as related to psychology that would both clarify the

relationship of human rights to APA’s mission and relate it to concepts that have historically

guided APA (human welfare, social and ethical responsibility, public interest and social jus-

tice);

2. To review APA’s recent and ongoing human rights activities and, in particular, to analyze

recent comments and recommendations regarding human rights that had been solicited from

APA boards and committees; and,

3. To provide recommendations for ensuring APA’s ongoing and visible commitment to human

rights with consideration given to potentially interested internal and external constituencies

who could be involved in APA’s programmatic activities going forward.

To accomplish these tasks, the Task Force consulted the literature at the nexus of psychology and

human rights, reviewed existing APA resources with relevance to human rights, and surveyed APA

Divisions, ethnic minority psychological associations, and active human rights scholars. The find-

ings and recommendations of the Task Force are summarized in this report in five sections.

1. The first section provides a brief background and offers a definition of human rights that is

grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent United Nations (UN)

human rights treaties.

2. The second section discusses the relationship between human rights and concepts that have

historically guided APA’s activities: human welfare, social and ethical responsibility, public

interest, and social justice. It also briefly reviews milestones of APA’s more direct engagement

with human rights.

3. The third section introduces an established framework that makes five explicit connections

between science and human rights, and adapts that framework for psychology and APA. This

framework provides a nuanced and productive way to define the breadth and scope of the

possible integration of human rights into APA’s mission and activities.

4. The fourth section tests the value of the framework by using it to examine the Task Force’s

findings from a review of past human rights activities undertaken by APA entities, and from

input on this issue from APA Boards and Committees.

5. the final section looks to the future and recommends that APA explicitly adopt the human

rights framework as its organizing structure for ensuring that a commitment to human rights

remains at the forefront of the Association’s work. This section concludes with a number of

specific recommended actions that APA can take to move forward as “an ethical, values-based,

scientific, and professional organization committed to human rights” (McDaniel & Kaslow,

2015).

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights3

SECTION ONE

DEFINING OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS RELATED TO

PSYCHOLOGY

Background and Legal Deﬁnitions of

Human Rights

Human rights are fundamental entitlements that are inherent to all

human beings, derived from the mere fact of being human (United

Nations General Assembly, 1948). Within this framework, human

rights are universal and inalienable; they apply to all and cannot

rightfully be taken away. They are defined in international law,

encompassing civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights.

It is important to note that while human rights are guaranteed

to all, the degree to which they are actualized in practice is depen-

dent upon power and privilege, often denied to those with marginal-

ized identities, such as individuals of diverse age, gender, gender

identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orien-

tation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status. When the

rights of marginalized populations are not actively promoted and

defended, they remain disproportionately affected by factors such

as violence, poverty, and migration, as well as disparities in educa-

tion, health, income, and wealth. Human rights thus serve as a frame-

work for action: a normative structure with persuasive and legal

authority that can be used in pursuit of human freedom, dignity, and

equality.

The modern human rights movement began with the adoption

of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the UN

General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The UDHR includes

general protections and specific provisions of relevance to psychol-

ogy, encompassing civil and political, as well as economic, social,

and cultural rights to which all people are entitled “without distinc-

tion of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political

or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other

status” (Article 2.1). Civil and political rights encompass such rights

as the rights to life, freedom from torture, and freedom of informa-

tion and expression (Articles 3-21). Economic, social, and cultural

rights include the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to

health, the right to housing, the right to education, and the right to

the benefits of science and culture (Articles 22-28). These rights

became international law through the adoption of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR; adopted by the UN

General Assembly in 1967) and the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR; adopted by the UN

General Assembly in 1967). Seven other human rights treaties and

nine optional protocols were later adopted to clarify and expand

human rights law. The nine UN human rights treaties and their

optional protocols now comprise the core of international human

rights law and are listed in Appendix I.

Additional documents and resources relevant to international

human rights law include the UN declarations and statements on the

rights of indigenous peoples and on sexual orientation and gender

identity. These are listed in Appendix II. Human rights principles and

standards are also reflected in the UN’s Sustainable Development

Goals (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human

Rights, 2020), an ambitious framework aimed at achieving sustain-

able development worldwide by 2030.

Finally, also of relevance is the Genocide Convention and the

International Humanitarian Law, or “Geneva” conventions (the laws

of war), which are regarded as “human rights law applicable to

armed conflict” (Dosweld-Beck & Vité, 1993, p. 94). In this context,

it is relevant to point out that international human rights law recog-

nizes that in limited circumstances—principally in time of war or

other public emergency threatening the life of a country—human

rights may be derogated, that is, temporarily suspended. However,

some human rights are recognized as being of such importance that

in no circumstances can they be suspended. These are the right to

life, the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or

degrading treatment or punishment, the right to be free from slavery

or servitude, and the right to be free from retroactive application of

penal laws.

As noted in Appendices I and II, the United States (US) has

ratified three of the nine UN human rights treaties, including the

International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, International

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment. However, the US has not ratified the Inter-

national Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Conven-

tion on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the

Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Convention on

the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their

Families, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, nor

the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from

Enforced Disappearances. Also, the US has not ratified the Mine Ban

Treaty nor the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Although climate change and environmental justice were not

originally considered human rights issues, in recent years there has

been increasing awareness that the realization of many human rights

depends upon “a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment”

(e.g., UN Human Rights Council, 2018). This awareness is particu-

larly salient for social and economic rights such as the rights to food,

clean water, and other rights essential to life and health. Impover-

ished and minority populations, indigenous peoples, women, and

children are most immediately at risk from environmental degrada-

tions (United Nations General Assembly, 2018). Also, the Office of

the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has argued for the

fundamental interconnectedness of human rights and the environ-

ment, embodied by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and

the Environment (Office of the High Commissioner for Human

Rights, nd). For these reasons, the Task Force acknowledges that

4APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

climate change and environmental protection are relevant to its

mandate.

In 2011, the UN Human Rights Council adopted the Guiding

Principles on Business and Human Rights, noting on the three “Pillars”

of Protect, Respect, and Remedy. First, member states have the

responsibility to protect persons from human rights abuses by

businesses or others. Second, businesses must respect and avoid

abusing human rights. Third, member states should create legisla-

tive and judicial remedies when human rights have been abused by

businesses, and businesses should accept responsibility to remedy

human rights abuses in which they were complicit (United Nations

Human Rights Council, 2011).

The UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals,

Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recog-

nized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms recognized the

important role of non-state actors in defending and promoting

human rights (United Nations General Assembly, 1998). It declared

that individuals, non-governmental organizations, and relevant insti-

tutions have a responsibility to promote human rights and funda-

mental freedoms, contribute to democratic processes, and increase

public awareness through education, training, and research (United

Nations General Assembly, 1998). For individuals, and for scientific

associations such as APA, a concern for human rights is strongly

rooted in a sense of global citizenship -- a sense that one is a part of

and responsive to all of humanity (e.g., International Organization for

Standardization, 2010; McFarland & Hornsby, 2015).

The Task Force on Human Rights proposes that beyond a

general human responsibility, psychologists and their associations

have a special obligation to promote and protect human rights and

ensure accountability when human rights are violated, based on their

unique body of knowledge and scope of practice. Moreover, psycho-

logical associations like APA that hold consultative status with the

UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) are required to support

the work of the UN and to promote knowledge of its principles,

programs, and activities, including its work on human rights

(ECOSOC Resolution 1995/31). Further, we believe that APA, as the

leading organization of psychologists in the US, has a critical role in

establishing human rights as a normative frame for its members.

Defining Human Rights in Relation to Psychology to the benefits of

science and medicine, including mental health and healthy develop-

ment, in multiple documents:

• Article 27, UDHR: “Everyone has the right freely … to share in

scientific advancement and its benefits.”

• Article 7, ICCPR: “No one is to be subjected to torture or to cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular,

no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical

or scientific experimentation.”

• Article 15, ICESCR: Governments must: recognize the right of

everyone to “enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its

applications,” take steps for the “conservation, the develop-

ment and the diffusion of science,” respect the “freedom indis-

pensable for scientific research,” and encourage and develop

“international contacts and cooperation” in science.

• Article 12(1), ICESCR: Recognizes “the right of everyone to the

enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and

mental health.”

• Convention on the Rights of the Child: Defines the rights of chil-

dren to protection and to their full development.

• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Promotes

the rights of persons with disabilities, including mental, intellec-

tual, and sensory impairments.

Although these, together with other important documents, set

out the legal framework for the protection of human rights, there is

no definition of human rights in relation to psychology explicitly

codified in international declarations or treaties. Extracting from

human rights laws and fundamental principles, therefore, the Task

Force proposes that human rights be defined in relation to psychol-

ogy and the community of psychologists as follows:

Psychologists, given their particular body of knowledge regard-

ing the science of human behavior and their unique societal role,

have a specific obligation to promote and protect human rights.

Human rights are fundamental entitlements belonging to all

people by virtue of being human. They are codified in interna-

tional law and include civil, political, social, economic, and

cultural rights. Within this framework, human rights are univer-

sal and inalienable; they apply to all ages and cannot rightfully

be taken away. Psychologists have a responsibility to advocate

for the human rights of their research participants, students,

clients, the families and communities of clients, and marginal-

ized populations made vulnerable by societal inequalities, and to

support public policies that advance and oppose policies that

violate human rights. They have the freedom to responsibly

conduct research, practice psychology, and communicate their

knowledge for the benefit of individuals and society. Psycholo-

gists can also generate specialized human rights-related knowl-

edge and apply that knowledge to promote the realization of

human rights. Individuals and societies have the right to partici-

pate in, have access to, and benefit from psychological knowl-

edge and the practice of psychology. Yet, they all have the right

to be protected against discrimination, mistreatment, or other

human rights violations that might be caused by research in

psychology, the conduct of psychologists, and the application of

knowledge derived from psychology.

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights5

SECTION TWO

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN RIGHTS AND

THE CONCEPTS THAT HAVE HISTORICALLY GUIDED APA

It is vital for psychologists to understand the historical—and at times

fraught—connections between psychology and human rights, but a

broad overview goes beyond the charge of the Task Force. In this

context, it is important to acknowledge unconscionable instances of

the misuse of psychological science and practice, including abuses

against ethnic minority populations- such as the application of intel-

ligence tests developed by psychologists during World War I to later

support eugenics, racism, and xenophobia – and against sexual and

gender minorities, such as usage of a psychiatric diagnostic classifi-

cation system that regarded homosexuality as a mental health dis-

order. The Task Force recommends that readers consult the Cambridge

Handbook of Psychology and Human Rights (Rubin & Flores, 2020) for

a more complete picture. As part of its narrower mandate, the Task

Force undertook a review of consequential literature on the concepts

of human welfare, social and ethical responsibility, public interest,

and social justice. These concepts have historically guided activities

of APA and are mentioned in key association governance documents

and policies.

The concept of human welfare was referenced historically in

APA’s Bylaws and in numerous versions of APA’s purpose and

mission, later amended as “well-being and dignity.” APA’s first

ethics code in 1953 also referred to the “welfare of man” and the

“welfare of the public.” In his 1969 APA presidential address, however,

George Miller cautioned that the concept of “human welfare” was

not sufficiently well-defined. He stated that it tended to be evoked

when members sought to persuade APA to respond to issues in the

public interest that may not have a clear connection to the scientific

and professional interests of psychologists, but that the concept did

“little to clarify the logical, informational, or ethical bases for making

difficult decisions” (Miller, 1969, p. 1964). He asserted that the

primary objective of APA is to advance psychology and that this

objective is justified “by our belief that psychology can be used for

the public good” (Miller, 1969; p. 1964). Miller described a tension

between those in the organization who advocated for playing a

more direct role in social change and those who favored a more

distanced scientific advisory stance. He suggested that the options

for promoting human welfare are not, in fact, limited to these polar

positions on social policy reform, but that psychological science can

offer unique contributions. He argued that psychology could have a

profound impact on human welfare by fostering a social climate that

reflects a new conception of human nature, which is driven by

positive incentives and has the capacity for cooperation and conflict

resolution. His recommendation was that psychologists should

primarily concern themselves with “giving psychology away” by

introducing sound psychological practices into public institutions in

order to diagnose practical social problems and develop detailed

plans to address them.

At about the same time, the report of the Ad Hoc Committee of

Public Affairs (Tyler, 1969) described a more active approach to APA

involvement in public policy. The Committee suggested that the

challenges for the organization were how to identify current issues

in the public interest and how best to decide to use the organization’s

influence to intervene in policy. The report distinguished between

three sets of public policy issues--scientific, professional, and social

problems--and stated that the justification for APA action increases

in direct proportion to the issue’s relevance to the majority of

psychologists. In issues of broad social relevance, APA would only

engage in action if “there is a considerable quantity of research-

based information and value consensus is high” (Tyler, 1969, p. 3).

The report listed the following possible actions, ranging from great-

est to least organizational commitment: engage in grassroots politi-

cal activity, initiate legislation, influence legislation, commission a

position paper, offer information, appoint an ad hoc study group,

refer to a Board or Committee, act as a broker or catalyst, encourage

research, inform membership, or make a clear decision to do nothing.

Social justice is concerned with issues of equity, equality, and

social transformation (Vasquez, 2012; Vera & Speight, 2003). It

includes distributive justice, which refers to how advantages and

disadvantages are distributed among individuals in society – as well

as procedural justice, which refers to fair and equitable institutional

processes (Bell, 2007; Fouad, Gerstein & Toporek, 2006; Miller,

1999). Social justice and multicultural perspectives in psychology

acknowledge that all forms of systemic oppression, including racism,

sexism, homophobia, ableism, and class discrimination, create

inequities for people at multiple levels, and social justice-informed

practice aims toward systemic social transformation of these histor-

ically entrenched inequalities (Grzanka, Gonzalez, & Spanierman,

2019; Vera & Speight, 2003). Social justice activism within APA

emerged from members’ commitments to the civil rights movement

(Leong, Pickren, & Vasquez, 2017) and is a defining feature of social,

counseling, and community psychology (Vera & Speight, 2003;

Prilleltensky, 2001). The attention to social justice within APA has

primarily focused on anti-discrimination activism in support of

marginalized populations.

In response to these social justice concerns, APA in 1972 estab-

lished the Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology

(BSERP), in 1973 established the Committee on Women in Psychol-

ogy (previously the ad hoc Committee on the Status of Women in

Psychology), and in 1980 created the Board of Ethnic Minority

Affairs (Pickren & Tomes, 2002). In the early 1990s, BSERP and the

Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs were dissolved so that the Board for

the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest (BAPPI) could

provide unified policy guidance to the new Public Interest Director-

ate (Smith, 1990); the Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs was

consequently founded in 1991. In his review of the history of APA

structures responsible for public interest activities, M. Brewster

Smith (1990) asserted that, although the “bread and butter” activi-

ties of psychologists—research, practice, and teaching—are the

most important sources of action in the public interest, psychology

may well be relevant to the resolution of problems that fall within a

human rights purview such as poverty, war, and protection of the

natural environment, even though they are not primarily psycholog-

6APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

ical problems. Subsequently, in APA’s first strategic plan (adopted in

2009), social justice (along with diversity and inclusion) was explic-

itly referenced as one of APA’s Core Values.

Human Rights concerns were initially articulated by APA’s

Council of Representatives when they adopted a “Resolution on

Human Rights” to “reaffirm its grave concern for human rights and

human dignity” (American Psychological Association, 1977). This

resolution instructed APA Representatives to the 1978 International

Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) assembly to “convey APA’s

concern for and dedication to protecting human rights and human

dignity in the US and abroad, particularly as these involve such

values as equal access to educational opportunities, the freedom of

expression by all citizens, freedom of assembly, and freedom of

movement and residence.” In the 1977 revision of the Ethical

Standards of Psychologists, the first sentence of the Preamble

echoed these concerns, stating that “[p]sychologists respect the

dignity and worth of the individual and honor the preservation and

protection of fundamental human rights” (American Psychological

Association, 1977, pp. 22-23).

Ten years later, in 1987, the APA Council formally declared that

“the discipline of psychology, and the academic and professional

activities of psychologists, are relevant for securing and maintaining

human rights” (American Psychological Association, 1987). It

resolved, “APA applauds the ongoing efforts of the United Nations

(UN) to defend and protect human rights and undertakes to recom-

mend the main UN human rights instruments and documents to the

attention of its boards, committees, and membership at large.”

Psychologists have been active at the UN since its inception

(Okorodudu, Kuriansky, Walker, & Denmark, 2020), but in, 1987, the

Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI/Division

9) gained official status as a non-governmental organization (NGO)

at the UN and later gained consultative status with ECOSOC in 1991.

Expanding psychology’s presence at the UN, in December 1999 APA

gained approval as an associate NGO with the UN Department of

Public Information and in May 2000 was accredited as an NGO in

consultative status with ECOSOC. The attainment of NGO status,

together with its role as a founding member of the Psychology Coali-

tion at the UN (PCUN), gave APA “a voice in a spectrum of interna-

tional activities that involve psychology as a science and profession”

(American Psychological Association, 2000, p. 2) in shaping global

human rights.

In addition to its status as an NGO at the UN, APA has supported

other areas of explicit human rights activity, most particularly

through its Office of International Affairs and Committee on Inter-

national Relations in Psychology (CIRP), through its Public Interest

Directorate and associated committees, through initiatives by

Divisions and other governing bodies that include guidelines,

programming, and curriculum development, and as a founding

member of the Science and Human Rights Coalition of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), These activi-

ties are summarized on the APA human rights activities webpage

(APA, n.d.a.; for additional overviews of APA actions with regard to

human rights, see Rosenzweig, 1988; Woolf, 2006).

The relationship of human rights to the profession of psychol-

ogy, and to APA, came under intense international scrutiny in July

2015 following the release of the “Independent Review Relating to

APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture”

(which will be referred to subsequently as the “Independent Review”).

The Independent Review was a climactic event in a process that

spanned over 10 years, during which many APA members and others

raised concerns about the role of psychologists in national security

interrogations in the years after the attacks of September 11, 2001

(American Psychological Association, 2006a; Eidelson & Arrigo,

2015; Pope, 2016; Wilks, 2005). This process eventually led to the

Association initiating a series of actions to respond to some of the

matters addressed in the Independent Review. For a timeline of APA

policies and actions taken in the context of interrogation and national

security, see the detailed timeline provided on the association

website (American Psychological Association, n.d.b.). This history is

reviewed in more detail in Section Four of this report.

APA’s 2019 strategic plan asserts an unequivocal commitment

to human rights, including as one of its Guiding Principles “Respect

and promote human rights. Focus on human rights, fairness, and

dignity for all segments of society.” According to the strategic plan,

the guiding principles are core values that must inform and infuse

everything APA does. Further, one of the Strategic Objectives is to

“foster the advancement of human rights, fairness, diversity, and

inclusion through the application of psychological science” (Ameri-

can Psychological Association, 2019a).

This brief review suggests a non-linear conceptual evolution of

guiding principles over time, from an imprecise and idealistic aspira-

tion toward “human welfare,” to a more nuanced and operationalized

concept of public interest, with the concept of social justice emerg-

ing out of various social movements favoring greater political action

in an effort to achieve equality of rights both for marginalized people

within the profession and in society as a whole. Throughout this

history, APA has devoted attention to the concept of human rights,

but, in the opinion of this Task Force, has generally not done so in a

manner that was systematic, grounded in an explicit human rights

framework, or integrated across the organization. However, APA has

laid the groundwork for the meaningful adoption of a human rights

framework in its work, which has the potential to integrate the varied

concepts that have inspired past social action and locate them within

a broader international and historical dialogue that could provide

clearer guidance and structure for organizational decision-making

on issues related to societal good.

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights7

SECTION THREE

THE FIVE CONNECTIONS: AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Moving from a stated commitment to advance human rights toward

a meaningful action plan requires a framework both for understand-

ing how human rights can inform APA’s actions and for relating the

Association’s strategies and initiatives explicitly to the concept of

human rights. The Task Force considered several approaches that

could propel a closer integration of human rights into its mission,

goals, organization, and activities, and found Claude’s (2002) “Five

Connections” between science and human rights to hold the most

promise for ensuring effective integration of a human rights perspec-

tive into APA. The “Five Connections” analytical framework has

usefully guided the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition and

other organizations in the scientific community for many years. In

the next section, we introduce that framework, apply it to psycholo-

gists and to APA, and suggest how it could support a more effective

integration of human rights into APA’s work.

Claude (2002) explored the links between science and human

rights, suggesting that “[s]cientists are people who unquestionably

depend on standards of human rights to protect a value most import-

ant to them, their scientific freedom”; (Claude, 2002, p.15) but, that,

in turn, scientists had contributions to make to advancing human

rights. Claude’s exploration of the links between science and human

rights contributed significantly to an organizing framework that has

guided most of the efforts of the scientific community in addressing

human rights in the past decade as led by AAAS and, since 2009,

the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition of which APA is a

founding member. The AAAS Five Connections Between Human

Rights and Science are as follows:

1. Scientists have human rights, including the freedom to associ-

ate with other scientists, to conduct research responsibly, and

to communicate scientific knowledge, freedom of movement,

and the right to cooperate internationally;

2. Science can be applied for human rights purposes, as for exam-

ple, using forensic or genetic science to identify bodies in mass

graves, or using geospatial mapping to identify such grave sites;

3. Science and its applications can have negative consequences

for human rights, such as the application of psychological sci-

ence to the eugenics movement;

4. International human rights law recognizes a “right to science,”

that people have the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific

progress and its application, and that governments should con-

serve, develop and diffuse science, respect the freedom indis-

pensable for scientific research, and encourage international

contacts and cooperation in science; and,

5. Scientists can be a constituency for human rights, bringing their

voices to human rights issues through research, teaching, and

policy work.

Applying the Five Connections

Framework to Psychology

As adapted for psychologists specifically, the Task Force suggests a

reframing of the Five Connections for which all psychologists shall

strive:

1. Psychologists possess human rights by virtue of being human

as well as specific rights essential to their profession and disci-

pline;

2. Psychologists apply their knowledge and methods to the greater

realization of human rights;

3. Psychologists respect human rights and oppose the misuse of

psychological science, practice, and applications and their neg-

ative impact on human rights;

4. Psychologists advance equal access to the benefits of psycho-

logical science and practice; and,

5. Psychologists advocate for human rights.

These connections are not hierarchical; rather, they are inter-

connected and all in support of human rights, as illustrated in the

graph on this page.

We expand on each of the five connections below and describe

how they can be applied to the conduct of psychologists.

8APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

CONNECTION ONE

Psychologists possess human rights by virtue of being

human as well as specific rights essential to their

profession and discipline.

Psychologists, like all persons, are entitled to all human rights. In

addition, for psychological science to flourish, psychologists must

enjoy academic freedom, including the rights to seek and receive

information, to associate with other scientists or research partici-

pants, and to move and travel both within and across international

borders, as all these are recognized in the UDHR and ICCPR. Of

course, these rights are inextricably linked with the rights of individ-

uals and groups, for example, in the context of human subjects

research, a point which is elaborated on in connection 3. The rights

of psychologists, like those of other academics, have often been

abused. Restrictions have been placed on their ability to collaborate

internationally and to attend international conferences, and psychol-

ogists have lost their academic positions and suffered arrest for

opposing the policies of their governments. Scholars at Risk [2016,

2017] has documented many of these abuses.

CONNECTION TWO

Psychologists apply their knowledge and methods to the

greater realization of human rights.

Psychologists, as scientists and professionals, can generate new

knowledge relevant to human rights, particularly those of the most

vulnerable and marginalized groups who are at risk of human rights

violations, and they can apply that knowledge to promote the reali-

zation of human rights. Psychological research has shed light on the

roots of genocide and other massive human rights violations (e.g.,

Staub, 1992; 2003), on the roots of war (e.g., Winter, 2017), on the

building of peace (e.g., Christie, 2012), and on the psychology of

support for human rights (e.g., McFarland, 2015). Psychological

research has increased our understanding of the impact of torture

on the mental health of refugees (e.g., American Psychological

Association, 2010a; Gorman, 2001; Jacobs & Iacopino, 2001;

Johnson & Thompson, 2008; Kuo & Arcuri, 2013; Miller, 2004) and

our understanding of the sequelae of child soldiering (e.g., Wessells,

2006) as well as the effects of child abductions, modern slavery, and

the effects of armed conflict on girls and women (e.g., American

Psychological Association Task Force on Trafficking of Women and

Girls, 2014; Betancourt, et al., 2013; Dockett, Okorodudu, Rafferty, &

Miller, 2015; McKay, et al., 2010). It has also uncovered the roots of

prejudice and the effects of discrimination (e.g., Jones, Dovidio, &

Vietze, 2014; Sibley & Barlow, 2017).

Counseling, community, and peace psychologists have been at

the forefront of the development of a robust body of literature in the

areas of multicultural, feminist, anti-racist, decolonial, liberatory,

and social justice knowledge and practice (e.g., Comaz-Diaz & Green,

2013; Enns & Nutt, 2013; Enns & Sinacore, 2005; Fouad, Gerstein &

Toporek, 2006; French, Lewis, Mosley, Adames, Chavez-dueñas,

Chen, & Neville, 2020; Gone, 2009; Grzanka, Gonzalez, & Spanier-

man, 2019; Lykes, 2000; Martin-Baro, 1996; Prilleltensky, 2008;

Ratts, Singh, Nassar-Mcmillan, Butler, & McCullough, 2016; Vasquez,

2012; Vera & Speight, 2003). This literature has largely been charac-

terized in terms of social justice but shares much common theoret-

ical and values-oriented ground with human rights principles.

Community psychologists have also taught us that engaging and

involving representatives of research participants to inform how

research is planned, conducted, interpreted, and communicated can

help to ensure that their human rights are respected and protected,

and that failing to consider historical, cultural, and political contexts

can undo efforts to conduct objective science or practice (e.g., Fine,

2013).

Environmentally-focused psychologists have explored the

connections between human rights and environmental justice to

explicitly expand social justice to be inclusive of the quality of the

physical environments where people live (e.g., Downey & Van Willi-

gen, 2005; Müller & Clayton, 2013) and have developed the “One

Health” framework, recognizing that human health is inseparable

from health of animals, plants, and our shared environment (Macken-

zie & Jeggo, 2019).

In clinical practice, psychologists may, for example, work to

ensure that the human rights of people with intellectual and cogni-

tive disabilities are respected (e.g., World Health Organization, n.d.),

assess and treat survivors of torture (e.g., Campbell, 2007; Huminuik,

2017; Patel, Williams, & Kellezi, 2016), or address the psychological

development of adolescents as it relates to the imposition of the

death penalty on a person who committed a crime when a minor

(e.g., Bonnie & Scott, 2013). Psychologists in professional practice,

research, consultation, and education can apply knowledge from the

Multicultural Guidelines (American Psychological Association,

2017a) to work with diverse cultural groups that are confronted with

human rights violations resulting from cultural inequities. The

importance of protecting the equity of different cultural perspectives

can be seen in the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People

(see Appendix II) which refers to the protections of culture as an

important aspect of human rights.

CONNECTION THREE

Psychologists respect human rights and oppose the

misuse of psychological science, practice, and

applications and their negative impact on human rights

The legal responsibility for defending human rights falls on govern-

ments to protect their own citizens; however, scientific societies can

play an important role in the social reproduction of human rights

norms because they function between the level of nations and citi-

zens and seek to exert influence at both levels, and because they are

positioned to influence their members to develop and use scientific

knowledge in the service of human rights (Huminuik & Wyndam,

2020). Psychological associations play a strong role in establishing

normative frameworks to guide responsible scientific research and

practice, and these are informed to varying degrees by both profes-

sional codes of ethical conduct and human rights principles, if not

often explicitly so, as both derive from the same historical commit-

ment to human dignity. Psychologists have a body of knowledge and

a unique societal role that confers special ethical obligations and a

distinct responsibility to human rights, due to their understanding of

human behavior, position of power in relation to vulnerable people,

and participation in historical injustices perpetrated against some

populations. Psychologists are bound by their codes of ethics to

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights9

avoid causing harm to others with whom they work whenever pos-

sible and to minimize harm when it is not (Ethical Standard 3.04:

Avoiding Harm), and it is important for them to remain vigilant

against the potential for negative human rights outcomes of psycho-

logical research and practice. Assiduous adherence to ethics codes

by professionals can support the protection of human rights, but

unless they are fully integrated with human rights principles, ethics

codes do not provide sufficient protections. An example of the

potential distinction between adherence to ethics codes and respect

for human rights is illustrated by the controversy surrounding the

2005 APA ethical guidance related to the involvement of psycholo-

gists in military interrogations in national security settings (American

Psychological Association, 2005b; UN Committee Against Torture,

2010). Human rights provide a value-added component to ethics as

a globally recognized framework of legal protection. Integrating the

principles of human rights with codes of professional ethics broad-

ens the standards set out in ethics codes. At the time of writing, the

APA Ethics Code Task Force is revising the Ethical Principles of

Psychologists and Code of Conduct (“Ethics Code”; American

Psychological Association, 2016c) to be visionary and transforma-

tional, including a draft principle on human rights (American

Psychological Association Ethics Code Task Force, 2020).

CONNECTION FOUR

Psychologists advance equal access to the benefits of

psychological science and practice.

Psychologists can act to uphold the right to the benefits of scientific

progress and its applications by working to ensure that the benefits

of psychology (e.g., knowledge, clinical services, and interventions)

are accessible to all sectors of society. This can include, for example,

researching in collaboration with and for the benefit of marginalized

populations and communities, sharing researchfindings about com-

plex behavioral and social issues in clear, easily understandable

language, and ensuring equal access to clinical services for low-in-

come populations. Moreover, psychologists can combat faulty sci-

ence claiming inferiority or socioemotional instability of certain

groups (i.e., claiming certain racial and ethnic groups cannot benefit

from psychotherapy, perpetuating stereotypes about how different

group engage in therapy). Psychologists can also ensure that educa-

tion in psychology is accessible to all, paying particular attention to

the needs of individuals of diverse age, gender, gender identity, race,

ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disabil-

ity, language, socioeconomic status, or other status, and work to

remove barriers to employment in the field of psychology.

Psychologists can pay special attention to the institutional and struc-

tural barriers to the widespread inclusion of students and psycholo-

gists of color and low income in academia. Psychologists can also

ensure that participants in psychological research represent a broad

array of diverse identities, helping to increase the representativeness

of findings. Finally, by encouraging global cooperation among psy-

chologists and the free flow of knowledge, psychologists can ensure

that the benefits of psychological science are more broadly distrib-

uted.

CONNECTION FIVE

Psychologists advocate for human rights.

Psychologists have distinct theoretical and applied knowledge that

can inform human rights advocacy at various levels. For example,

psychologists can advocate for the human rights of individuals in

their clinical care. They can participate in monitoring and protective

actions to address human rights concerns in specific locations or on

behalf of particular populations. Psychologists can utilize their meth-

odological and assessment skills to contribute to the investigation

and documentation of individual and systemic human rights viola-

tions, which can be used in legal, policy, and social advocacy efforts.

For example, psychological evidence of harm is frequently used to

substantiate allegations of torture and other human rights violations,

thereby increasing the likelihood of success in asylum applications

and other legal proceedings (Huminuik, 2017; Pope, 2012). Findings

from psychological science have also provided critical support in

amicus briefs to challenge attacks on individuals’ rights to autonomy

in controlling their own body, their own health care decisions, and

their decisions about whom to marry (American Psychological

Association, n.d.b.). Moreover, psychologists can advocate for equal

access to affordable, effective health care (including to psychologi-

cal services) and for support for behavioral science research (includ-

ing combatting efforts to not fund areas of research that might be

deemed controversial, such as gun violence and adolescent sexual

behavior).

Applying the Five Connections

Framework to APA

Just as the Five Connections Framework can be used as an organizing

principle for thinking about human rights and psychologists, it can

also be used to frame the role of psychological associations in fur-

thering those connections for their members and to protect and

advance human rights for all. Thus, APA can:

1. Protect psychologists’ human right to ethically and responsibly

conduct their science and practice;

2. Support the development, production, and dissemination of

psychological knowledge and methods that can be applied to

the greater realization of human rights;

3. Oppose the misuse of psychological science, practice, and

applications and their negative impact on human rights;

4. Advance equal participation in and access to the benefits of

psychological science and practice; and,

5. Advocate for human rights and provide the resources and tools

necessary for its members to do so as well.

To test the potential usefulness of the Five Connections frame-

work to structure the relationship between human rights and APA,

the Task Force applied the framework retrospectively in the following

review of recent human rights activities undertaken by APA.

10APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

SECTION FOUR

REVIEW OF APA ENGAGEMENT WITH HUMAN RIGHTS

USING THE FIVE CONNECTIONS FRAMEWORK

APA is not a monolith, and many different parts of the Association

have undertaken human rights initiatives to try to move APA forward.

The Task Force was tasked to review recent human rights activities

undertaken by APA’s Central Office, Boards, Divisions, and

Committees, and to make recommendations in light of the identified

strengths and weaknesses. This is not a comprehensive review of all

of the activities and reports from APA or its constituent parts. It is

based on a review of existing reports and documents, responses to

numerous data collection efforts over the last several years, and the

data collected from a survey initiated by the Task Force. Though the

Task Force consulted with APA’s UN team, this review focused on

what APA as an association and its constituent governing bodies

have done, and does not include all of the many UN-specific activi-

ties undertaken by APA or SPSSI in their roles as NGOs at the UN. A

complete list of summary sources reviewed appears in Appendix III.

In this section, we present findings from both the document reviews

and the survey results, organized by the Five Connections Framework.

Although the activities were not performed nor the data collected

with this framework in mind, the framework offers a useful way to

conceptualize the results and helps us identify strengths and weak-

nesses in APA’s human rights efforts. We present each of the five

connections as a question with which to analyze APA’s activities.

CONNECTION ONE

How has APA protected the human rights of

psychologists to ethically and responsibly conduct their

science and practice?

APA has engaged in several activities related to protecting the rights

of psychologists, both internationally and within the US. The mission

of CIRP includes monitoring the rights of psychologists, and in 1984,

CIRP was assigned to take a leadership role in responding to inter-

national human rights violations on APA’s behalf. The APA Office of

International Affairs (OIA) supports CIRP in carrying out its respon-

sibilities. The Office leads APA’s work as an affiliate member of

Scholars at Risk, a network of higher education institutions and

associations that addresses human rights violations against aca-

demic scholars around the world (including in the U.S.) and pub-

lishes regular reports on academic freedom from a human rights

perspective. In 2019 OIA spearheaded an effort in support of the

academic freedom of APA member Serdar Değirmencioğlu,

then-president of Division 48 (Society for the Study of Peace,

Conflict and Violence: Peace Psychology), who was being perse-

cuted in Turkey after signing the Academics for Peace petition (APA,

2019b)

APA also addresses the human rights concerns of its members

in the U.S., particularly through the Public Interest Directorate, which

advocates for equal treatment and fairness in employment for APA

members. For example, in response to concerns about discrimina-

tory employment of psychologists during the Cold War and Vietnam

War eras, APA created a Committee on Academic Freedom and

Conditions of Employment and issued Guidelines for Conditions of

Employment of Psychologists, focused on ensuring free inquiry and

promoting working environments of mutual respect and shared

responsibility between psychologists and their employers (Ameri-

can Psychological Association, 1986a). In recent decades, APA has

focused on domestic discrimination against its members or other

psychologists by promoting the recruitment, retention, and training

of ethnic minorities and other underrepresented groups (Committee

on Ethnic Minority Recruitment, Retention, and Training; Minority

Fellowship Program). The Standards for Accreditation for Health

Service Psychology include requirements for fair treatment of faculty

and students (American Psychological Association, 2015a). APA

also strives to protect scientific freedom, for example opposing

reports of “banned” words at the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (American Psychological Association, 2017c).

APA Boards and Committees have also engaged in activities

focused on protecting human rights of psychologists. For example,

the Committee on Disability Issues in Psychology (CDIP) advocates

for equal access and mentorship for psychology students and train-

ees with disabilities. Boards and Committees are also concerned

with ensuring that APA’s internal policies and regulations are consis-

tent with protecting human rights of psychologists, including

defending against harassment by governments, such as through the

defunding of projects found offensive by some members of Congress

(for example, HIV/AIDS related research).

The Task Force found that APA has aspired to defend the inter-

national human rights of psychologists and has engaged in some

related activities, but has not developed sufficient systematic

processes to monitor or respond to the persecution of psychologists

(as exist within the American Physical Society, the American Socio-

logical Association, and several other scientific and professional

societies). Domestically, APA has focused more on systemic

discrimination against groups, for example, combating legislation

that violates the rights of sexual and gender minorities, than on

individual rights abuses. It is unclear what the organizational mecha-

nism is for APA to identify international and domestic human rights

violations or to intervene when they involve harm done to

psychologists.

CONNECTION TWO

How has APA supported the development, production,

and dissemination of psychological knowledge and

methods that can be applied to the greater realization of

human rights?

APA has adopted many resolutions and guidelines promoting

research on the causes, effects, and preventative strategies for

human rights violations. For example, the APA Division of Trauma

Psychology (Division 56) developed a Torture Trauma Treatment

(3T) Program Initiative to develop resources for psychologists and

agencies providing services to torture victims (Trauma Psychology,

2016).

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights11

In 2015, following the issuance of the Independent Review

(Hoffman et al, 2015), the APA Board of Directors recommended

that the Education Directorate “promote a focus on human rights

and ethics as a core element of psychology education and training

from high school through continuing education offerings” (Ameri-

can Psychological Association, 2015c). The Psychology Teacher

Network then initiated a series on integrating the teaching of psychol-

ogy and human rights (McFarland, 2016; Woolf, 2016).

Although the APA annual convention is a promising setting for

promoting human rights concerns, attention to human rights topics

has not been centered in the convention programming. In 2020, for

example, only eight of the 3,000+ sessions explicitly addressed

human rights. In contrast, some other scientific societies create an

entire meeting track on human rights (e.g., American Association of

Geographers, American Statistical Association), or offer publicized

side events organized with prominent speakers to address the

connections between the discipline and human rights (e.g., Ameri-

can Chemical Society).

Unlike many other organizations (see Appendix IV), APA does

not have a Committee on Human Rights. However, many APA Boards,

Committees, and Divisions reported engaging in activities related to

the application of psychology to realizing human rights, although

often without explicit reference to human rights, most notably BAPPI

and its respective committees. The Committee on Socioeconomic

Status (CSES) has used its newsletter to disseminate psychological

knowledge to members of its listserv on the impact of poverty on

mental health, specifically citing the UDHR Articles 23 (Right to

work) and 25 (Right to an adequate standard of living). The Commit-

tee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity (previously named

the Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Concerns)

has developed resources to support parental rights of lesbian and

gay parents (American Psychological Association, 2005a), and

practice guidelines to promote non-discrimination within psycho-

logical practice for sexual and gender minorities (American Psycho-

logical Association, 2011a; 2015b). The Committee on Ethnic

Minority Affairs and the Society for the Psychological Study of

Culture, Ethnicity, and Race (Division 45) co-sponsored the Resolu-

tion on Racial/Ethnic Profiling and Other Racial/Ethnic Disparities

in Law and Security Enforcement Activities (American Psychological

Association, 2001a). The Board of Professional Affairs (BPA)

reported on its role in overseeing the development of guidelines for

psychological practice with marginalized and socially disadvantaged

populations. In another example, CDIP developed a Resolution on

the Maltreatment of Children with Disabilities and a Resolution on

the Americans with Disabilities Act to address bias and discrimina-

tion toward individuals with disabilities (American Psychological

Association, 2008a; 2016b). 

In our review of APA guidelines, the Multicultural Guidelines

(American Psychological Association, 2017a) refer to human rights

in guideline #5 (“seek to promote human rights”) but refer to human

rights as a contextual principle with less attention to what this would

look like on the level of action or intervention. The LGBT guidelines

make no explicit reference to human rights except to note human

rights organizations as resources at the end of the document.

With respect to climate change and human rights, APA is an

observer organization at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) – the UN body for assessing the science on climate

change—enabling the association to nominate writers and reviewers

of IPCC reports and send representatives to various IPCC meetings

around the world. APA published the report of the Task Force on the

Interface between Psychology and Global Climate Change (2009)

and co-authored a report with Eco-America on Mental Health and Our

Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance (Clayton,

Manning, Krygsman, & Speicer, 2017). APA also co-convened with

the Order of Portuguese Psychologists in 2019 the International

Summit on Psychology and Global Health: A Leader in Climate Action.

The Society for Environmental, Population, and Conservation

Psychology (Division 34) has long conducted research on environ-

mental issues relevant to human rights, joined by the decade-old

annual sustainability preconference at the Society for Personality

and Social Psychology (Division 8). APA issued a Resolution Affirm-

ing Psychologists’ Role in Addressing Global Climate Change

(American Psychological Association, 2019b), which called for the

creation of a Task Force on Climate Change, that was recently

formed by the Science Directorate to address “social disparities in

impacts of climate change, environmental/climate justice, and

related aspects of human rights” (American Psychological Associa-

tion, 2020).

While numerous activities have been undertaken to apply

psychological knowledge and methods to the greater understanding

and realization of human rights—and this is certainly not a compre-

hensive list—the Task Force found that this work has been conducted

without an explicit human rights framework and has generally not

occurred in direct partnership with human rights organizations or

experts. This includes work on the connection between healthy

environments and human rights, which does not appear to be a high

priority for psychologists. Additionally, the rights of some popula-

tions have received more attention than others, for example, little

attention has been paid to indigenous groups.

CONNECTION THREE

How has APA opposed the misuse of psychological

science, practice, and applications and their negative

impact on human rights?

APA’s responsibility to oppose the misuse of psychological science

and practice and their negative impact on human rights derives

explicitly from the Ethics Code. The Ethics Code sets forth rules of

conduct for psychologists in their scientific, educational, and profes-

sional roles. The APA Ethics Committee, with support from the APA

Ethics Office, is tasked with enforcing the ethical conduct of psychol-

ogists, educating psychologists about ethical standards, protecting

the public against harmful conduct by psychologists, and helping

APA to achieve its objectives related to ethics. In coordination with

the Ethics Committee, the Ethics Office provides consultation to

members and the public, as well as educational programming, with

the goal of promoting the ethical conduct of psychologists and pro-

tecting the welfare of the public. In addition to the Ethics Code and

the Ethics Office, two other institutional structures within APA have

responsibilities that are relevant to respect for human rights in psy-

chological research -- the Committee on Human Research (CHR)

and the Office of Research Ethics. The missions of both the office and

12APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

the committee are to promote the responsible conduct of research,

including ensuring that the rights and welfare of human participants

in research are protected. In coordination with CHR, the office

engages in advocacy and educational activities, including dissemi-

nating guidelines for protecting the rights and welfare of research

participants. The work of the office and committee is guided by the

Nuremberg Code (Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg

Military Tribunals, 1949) and the Belmont Report (National

Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and

Behavioral Research, 1979).

The current version of the Ethics Code was developed in 2002,

became effective in 2003, and was amended in 2010 and 2016. In

the 2002 version, the most far-reaching implication for human rights

protection was a change to Standard 1.02 regarding conflicts

between ethics and the law, regulations, or other governing legal

authorities. In 2002, the Ethics Code was amended, allowing

psychologists who experienced a conflict between an APA ethical

obligation and a law or order from a superior to “adhere to the

requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing authority,”

without being deemed to have committed an ethical violation if they

followed certain steps. Human rights were explicitly mentioned in

the Introduction and Applicability section in relation to conflicts

between the Ethics Code and the law, regulations, or other governing

legal authorities, but that language was not included in the corre-

sponding Standard 1.02. Among the concerns that were later raised

about this amendment were that it could be seen as allowing for a

“Nuremberg defense” in cases of human rights violations (for example,

Pope and Gutheil, 2009). Yet, when amended in 2002, the intent of

Standard 1.02 was to provide guidance to psychologists facing legal

conflicts primarily involving issues of confidentiality, e.g., where

psychologists were subpoenaed to provide their therapy notes in

court cases (American Psychological Association, 2010b). In 2010,

the language of Standard 1.02 was amended to make explicit that

human rights could not be violated. Given that these 2010 amend-

ments occurred in the context of a divisive debate that had clear

human rights implications regarding the ethics of psychologists’

participation in national security interrogations, the Task Force on

Human Rights reviewed the history of actions surrounding these

amendments. All of the following information is derived from APA

sources and is available on the webpage, “Timeline of APA Policies

& Actions Related to Detainee Welfare and Professional Ethics in the

Context of Interrogation and National Security” (American Psycho-

logical Association, n.d.b.).

In 2005, APA’s Board of Directors appointed the APA Presiden-

tial Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (“the

PENS Task Force”) to examine whether psychologists’ involvement

in national security-related activities was addressed adequately in

the Ethics Code.  The PENS Task Force report upheld the 2002

APAEthics Code andthe obligation of individual psychologists to act

consistently with the 2002 Ethics Code ininterrogations of detain-

ees in national security settings, based on the assertion that psychol-

ogists had the knowledge and skill to help military personnel obtain

valuable information to protect national security, and ensure that

interrogations were safe, legal, and ethical (American Psychological

Association, 2005a). APA’s Board of Directors adopted the PENS

report as policy by official emergency action on behalf of the Council

of Representatives in July 2005 despite growing concerns that

mental health professionals in the military were caught in an ethical

dilemma between observing international human rights norms and

following the orders of their superiors in locations such as the

Guantanamo Bay detention facility (Lewis, 2004; Wilks, 2005).

Between 2005 and 2008, APA issued many statements and

adopted resolutions reaffirming psychologists’ consultative role in

military interrogations and/or condemning torture and cruel,

inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and attempting to

clarify the distinction between the two (for example, Anderson,

2005; American Psychological Association, 2005b, 2006b, 2007a,

2008b; Brehm, 2007; Brehm & Anderson, 2007; Koocher, 2006;

Moorehead-Slaughter, 2006). In 2007, APA submitted a statement

to the US Senate Intelligence Committee in which it presented the

key recommendations of the PENS report and two subsequent

resolutions that reiterated APA’s absolute prohibition against torture

and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and the

need for psychologists to comply with human rights instruments

relevant to their roles. The statement also asserted that “conducting

an interrogation is inherently a psychological endeavor,” and called

for the establishment of a research “center for excellence” that

would yield findings on effective means of eliciting information from

detainees in national security settings (American Psychological

Association, 2007b).

A major shift in APA policy occurred in 2008 when a member-ini-

tiated petition was introduced and approved by a vote of the APA

membership to restrict the roles of psychologists in what were

deemed to be unlawful national security detention settings. The

petition stated that psychologists may not work in settings where

“persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law

(e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Geneva Conventions) or

the US Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working

directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third

party working to protect human rights” or providing treatment to

military personnel (American Psychological Association, 2008c). A

letter was sent soon thereafter to then President George W. Bush to

inform him and his administration of the new limits on psychologists’

role in interrogations in unlawful detention sites (American Psycho-

logical Association, 2008e). A similar letter was sent to then Presi-

dent Barack Obama in 2009. This letter also acknowledged with

regret the recent disclosure following the release of the US Senate

Armed Forces Committee Report and the Justice Department

memos that some psychologists “were involved in designing and

advocating harsh interrogation techniques” and recommitted APA

to safeguarding the welfare and human rights of detainees (Bray &

Anderson, 2009). Numerous letters were also sent to federal agency

officials and members of Congress on key legislative committees to

inform them of APA’s new policy. An APA Presidential Advisory

Group was appointed to provide guidance to Council regarding the

implementation of the petition resolution (American Psychological

Association, 2008d), and the petition resolution was formally

adopted by the Council of Representatives in 2009, entitled,

“Psychologists and Unlawful Detention Settings with a Focus on

National Security.” In the same year, APA’s Council of Representa-

tives approved a new vision statement that included a goal of

becoming an “effective champion of the application of psychology

to promote human rights, health, well-being and dignity” (Farber-

man, 2009).

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights13

In 2009, the APA Ethics Committee issued a statement that it

“will not accept any defense to torture in its adjudication of ethics

complaints,” (American Psychological Association, 2009b) and

APA’s Board of Directors released an open letter to its membership

in which it pledged to monitor, investigate, and adjudicate reports of

unethical conduct by APA members (American Psychological

Association Board of Directors, 2009). Furthermore, the Council of

Representatives voted to direct the APA Ethics Committee to amend

Ethical Standard 1.02 (American Psychological Association, 2009d).

In 2010, the Ethics Code (American Psychological Association,

2016b) was amended to insure the inviolate nature of human rights

as a foundational principle within the APA Ethics Code. Previously,

when psychologists attempted to resolve conflicts between the

Ethics Code and laws, regulations, or governing legal authority, a

psychologist could elect to adhere to the legal authority even if the

psychologist actions violated human rights. The 2010 revision made

evident that such human rights violations are not acceptable under

the APA Ethics Code.

In 2013, the Council of Representatives voted to rescind the

PENS report and adopted the “Policy Related to Psychologists Work

in National Security Settings and Reaffirmation of the APA Position

Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment” (American Psychological Association, 2013). This

document consolidated and reconciled all of APA’s policies related

to torture, professional ethics, detainee welfare, and interrogation in

the national security context, including six Council resolutions (1986,

1987, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009), including the membership

petition resolution.

In October 2014, a book by New York Times journalist James

Risen, “Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War,” included allega-

tions that APA had colluded with the Bush administration, the CIA,

and the US military to support torture (American Psychological

Association, 2014b). APA subsequently commissioned a review by

outside legal counsel to “conduct an independent review relating to

allegations that, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the

APA colluded with US government officials to support torture with

regard to the interrogations of detainees who were captured and

held abroad” (American Psychological Association, 2014c).

1 The text of the previous Code and the Amendments as noted in underscoring and strikethrough are as follows:

Introduction and Applicability

If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make known their commitment to this Ethics Code

and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner. If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the

law, regulations, or other governing authority in keeping with basic principles of human rights.

1.02 Conflicts Between Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority

If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known

their commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the

Ethics Code. If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal

authority. Under no circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and Organizational Demands

If the demands of an organization with which psychologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify

the nature of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics Code, and to the extent feasible, resolve the conflict in a way that permits adherence

to the Ethics Code. take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no

circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend violating human rights.

[N.B. Strikethrough and underscoring indicates amended language, as quoted in APA website]

The independent review was released in July 2015 (Hoffman et

al., 2015) and drew conclusions about the PENS process, the handling

of ethics complaints, and the relationship between key APA officials

and government agencies. It stated that there was undisclosed

coordination between APA officials and military psychologists that

resulted in ethical guidance for psychologists in national security

settings that was no more restrictive than Defense Department

interrogation guidelines. Ultimately, the report makes clear that,

despite known and significant concerns about the potential for

conflict between application of the Ethics Code and human rights

considerations, APA did not craft specific and unequivocal ethics

policies in defense of human rights.

APA apologized for the “‘deeply disturbing’ findings and organi-

zational failures,” and the Board of Directors announced steps to

correct those shortcomings (American Psychological Association,

2015d), related to the Ethics Office, to organizational procedures,

and to checks and balances. Although not all have yet been fully

acted upon, highlights related to human rights include the following

recommendations:

• The Council of Representatives will amend the Guidelines for

Council Resolutions to ensure that all relevant future policies

are anchored in APA core values, including promoting human

rights, human health and welfare, and ethics;

• The Board of Directors will establish a mechanism for immedi-

ate oversight in the processing of filed ethics complaints,

including review of current adjudication and investigative pro-

cedures, and transparency and accuracy in the disclosure of

current ethics office practices;

• The Board of Directors will increase APA’s engagement around

human rights activities and its collaboration with other organi-

zations regarding these issues;

• The Board of Directors will ask that an Office of Human Rights

be established with an Advisory Committee; and

• The Board of Directors will recommend that the Education

Directorate promote a focus on human rights and ethics as a

core element of psychology education and training from high

school through continuing education offerings.

14APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

On July 7, 2015, the Council of Representatives voted 157-1 to

prohibit psychologists from participating in national security inter-

rogations. Subsequent actions included establishing a blue-ribbon

panel to “attend to the potential conflicts between human rights and

other considerations,” and appointing this Task Force on Human

Rights (American Psychological Association, 2016a). APA’s 2015

policy changes are summarized in Key Provisions of the New APA

Policy (American Psychological Association, 2015e).

Other notable changes were made by the Board of Directors

following receipt of the report of the APA Commission on Ethics

Processes (APA Commission on Ethics Processes, 2017). For

example, APA adopted a new organizational conflict of interest

policy for members of Boards, Committees, and Task Forces; formed

an Ethics Code Task Force to revise the Ethics Code; simplified the

ethics adjudication process; and committed to an expansion of

ethics outreach and education for members (American Psychologi-

cal Association Board of Directors, 2019).

Since the release of the Independent Review, its conclusions

have been contested and various constituencies within and external

to APA continue to debate the issues related to psychologists’ roles

in national defense and operational applications, as well as in

settings where systematic violations of human rights have been

documented (Huminuik & Wyndham, 2020). In August 2018, a

proposal was voted down by the Council of Representatives that

would have allowed psychologists to provide mental health care to

detainees at detention sites that would be considered unlawful

according to APA policy. While this latest proposed amendment

failed, it demonstrated that some aspects of the roles of psycholo-

gists in national security settings remain unresolved for some

(American Psychological Association, 2018c).

In the surveys we reviewed in which APA Divisions, Boards, and

Committees reported on “human rights-related” activities, several

activities pertain to preventing the misuse of psychological research

and practice, including related to torture. For example, the Society

for the History of Psychology (Division 26) reported that members

of the Division “were involved in uncovering APA’s involvement in

torture and prompting the organization to make changes.” Various

Divisions (including 9, 10, 24, 26, and 32) called for an opportunity

to address the findings of the Independent Review and for APA to

show its commitment to human rights. The Society for the Study of

Peace, Conflict and Violence: Peace Psychology (Division 48) has

initiated many APA Council resolutions and policy positions prohib-

iting psychologist involvement in torture, including the 2013 recon-

ciliation of policies, reaffirmation of APA’s position against torture

and annulment of the 2005 PENS report, and the 2015 amendment

of the 2013 ban on psychologist participation in national security

interrogations.

Many other efforts were reported that were implicitly related

to curbing the misuse of psychological science and practice that

could adversely affect human rights, although explicit human rights

language or reference to human rights instruments were not used.

For example, BPA and the Ethics Committee supported the Society

for Indian Psychologists (SIP) in writing a commentary on the APA

Ethics Code, which draws attention to equality rights for Native

American peoples (Garcia & Tehee, 2014). SIP and other ethnic

minority psychological associations have helped the Ethics Code

Task Force, currently revising the Ethics Code, consider issues such

as a more collectivist approach to ethics, the importance of a human

rights framework, and the relevance of sociohistorical context and

culture.

The Society for Humanistic Psychology (Division 32; 2013) was

a lead sponsor in an Open Letter to DSM-5 that expressed concern

that some proposed revisions might be problematic for social justice

and vulnerable populations, and addressing the danger that the

revised manual might “risk labeling sociopolitical deviance as a

mental disorder.”

The Task Force found that while APA aims to respect and

promote human rights, the organization’s opposition to the misuse

of psychological science and practice has been inconsistent and has

not been grounded in human rights principles and law. Without a

highly developed and systematic analysis of the potential human

rights implications of the misuse of psychological knowledge and

practice, the organization was unprepared and acted in piecemeal

fashion to identify and try to address very serious allegations of

abuse as they arose. Because the organization, its policies, and the

Ethics Code are not oriented around a clearly defined and operation-

alized human rights framework, APA failed to demonstrate its capac-

ity to protect the public from the misuse of psychological knowledge

and practice. It also failed to protect its members from the ethical

dilemmas of working in environments in which systemic human

rights violations have occurred.

CONNECTION FOUR

How has APA advanced equal participation in and access

to the benefits of psychological science and practice?

APA, particularly through the Public Interest Directorate, has

engaged in efforts to apply “the science and practice of psychology

to the fundamental problems of human welfare and the promotion

of equitable and just treatment of all segments of society” (American

Psychological Association Public Interest Directorate, n.d.). Relevant

work includes publishing reports on Resilience of Refugee Children

After War (American Psychological Association, 2010) and

Crossroads: The Psychology of Immigration in the New Century

(American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on

Immigration, 2012), supporting a project on promoting safe and

supportive schools (American Psychological Association, n.d.c), and

creating the International Psychology Network for Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Issues (n.d.d.). The APA Council

of Representatives has also adopted guidelines on providing psycho-

logical services to multicultural and minority populations (American

Psychological Association, 1990) and on multicultural education

and training of psychologists (American Psychological Association,

2002b; 2017a), as well as a policy statement on racial and ethnic

profiling (American Psychological Association, 2001a). Psychology

Teachers in Community Colleges, APA’s affiliate member network

that represented and supported psychology teachers within the two-

year college community (since combined with the 4-year educator

network, resulting in the Committee on Associate and Baccalaureate

Education (CABE)), endorsed a right to education by explicitly citing

UDHR Article 26. CABE works directly with students from margin-

alized populations.

Equal access to the benefits of science has been taken up

explicitly by various Boards, Divisions, and Committees using a

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights15

human rights framework. For example, the Committee for Rural

Health (CRH) states explicitly that its mission is driven by a belief

that accessible and affordable comprehensive health care is a basic

human right regardless of socioeconomic status, diversity issues,

and geographic location, and advocates for increased availability of

services in rural communities. And Division 14 (Society for Industrial

and Organizational Psychology) has a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and

Transgender (LGBT) committee focused on developing and assisting

allies for LGBT employees at work.

The APA Monitor on Psychology is an APA member benefit,

which is also available to non-members on a subscription basis. The

Monitor has, on occasion, published stories related to human rights,

including the role of psychologists in applying their skills to address

individual human rights needs (e.g., “Protecting human rights,” April

2016, Vol 47, No. 4). In 2012, APA launched its webpage on human

rights (American Psychological Association, n.d.e.), which contains

basic overviews on human rights, a variety of materials for educators

on integrating the teaching of human rights and psychology, and

opportunities for advocacy to advance human rights. While in subse-

quent years APA has made a significant contribution to human rights

promotion by presenting human rights-related material on its

website, no systematic publicizing of this resource is evident. Human

rights is ranked 230 of the 501 topics pages on the APA website

according to readership.

Connection 4 can also be applied internally to the Association,

ensuring equitable access to APA influence and leadership. For

example, individual constituencies have fought for decades to have

their legitimacy and integrity respected and to be identified as viable

members of the APA community. Although there is a Society for the

Psychological Study of Culture, Ethnicity and Race (Division 45), a

number of Ethnic Minority Psychological Associations (EMPAs) –

e.g., the Association of Black Psychologists, the Asian American

Psychological Association, the National Latinx Psychological Associ-

ation, the Society of Indian Psychologists – have developed their own

organizations partly in response to disaffection with APA, asserting

that their unique perspectives and contributions were not valued

and honored within the APA governance structure. Yet to this day,

these constituencies struggle for rights within governance—at the

time of writing, there is a Council effort underway for the fourth time

to achieve a vote on the Council of Representatives for the EMPAs,

which requires a Bylaws amendment vote by the APA membership.

If human rights were at the center of APA’s decision-making, each of

these constituencies might have experienced inclusion and dignity

negating the need for their circuitous quests for voice. APA leader-

ship has reached out to engage with EMPA leaders for many years

through the Council of National Psychology Associations for the

Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests (CNPAAEMI) and more

recently through the Alliance of National Psychological Associations

for Racial and Ethnic Equity. Council has also taken strides in recent

years with the creation of the Council Diversity Working Group, but

more remains to be done.

Disparities in mental health outcomes, differential access to

psychological services, and limited and/or delayed translation of

scientific findings are significant areas of human rights concern

within APA’s direct purview. While the Task Force found clear

evidence of activities from many constituents of APA that address

equal access to the benefits of psychology, these activities are, for

the most part, carried out without explicit reference to human rights

instruments and without an intentional human rights frame.

CONNECTION FIVE

How has APA advocated for human rights and provided

the resources and tools necessary for its members to do

so as well?

There are five primary ways in which APA, as an institution and

through its members, has advocated to encourage governments—

including both the US and foreign governments—to meet their obli-

gations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights:

1. Developing policies and resolutions on monitoring and protect-

ing human rights;

2. Submitting amicus briefs to US courts;

3. Conducting outreach to the US Congress and Executive Branch;

4. Informing the decision-making of foreign governments; and

5. Participating at the UN.

Policies and resolutions regarding human rights

monitoring and protection

APA has undertaken a wide range of advocacy activities through

Council policy, various offices of the Public Interest Directorate, the

newly integrated Advocacy Office, and Divisions.

The Council Policy Manual compiles the policy actions taken by

the Council of Representatives from 1960 to the present (American

Psychological Association, n.d.g.). Many of these policy actions

focus on issues with direct human rights implications, such as racism,

affirmative action and equal opportunity, identity-based discrimina-

tion and violence, criminal justice (including the death penalty),

poverty and socioeconomic status, migration, and climate change.

Several resolutions of particular relevance to professional psycholo-

gists concern the rights of people with mental illness, including the

1999 Resolution on Stigma and Discrimination against People with

Serious Mental Illness and Severe Emotional Disturbance (American

Psychological Association, 1999). This resolution supports efforts to

eradicate stigma, uphold the dignity of persons with mental illness

in all clinical and research practices, and ensure fair access to treat-

ment. As another example, the 2004 APA Resolution on Outpatient

Civil Commitment (American Psychological Association, 2004b)

recognized that people with serious mental illness have the same

right to personal liberty as other citizens and that women and

members of racial and ethnic minority groups are especially vulner-

able to discrimination related to involuntary incarceration and

treatment.

As discussed above, the APA Public Interest Directorate applies

psychology to the fundamental problems of human welfare and

social justice and the promotion of equitable and just treatment of

all segments of society through education, training, and public policy.

It addresses human rights monitoring and protection on issues of

aging, HIV/AIDS, disabilities, sex and gender, gender identity and

sexual orientation, ethnic minorities, socioeconomic status, and

children, youth and families. For example, the Committee on Children,

16APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

Youth, and Families has led or contributed to many relevant policy

statements, including one on the UN Convention on the Rights of the

Child (American Psychological Association, 2001b) and another on

Violence Against Children by Governments (American Psychologi-

cal Association, 1989).

In 2012, BAPPI began a human rights initiative asking APA

Boards and Committees to identify their initiatives and activities in

fulfilling APA’s goal of being “an effective champion for human

rights,” and to provide recommendations for APA initiatives on

human rights that BAPPI could then develop (this BAPPI initiative

provided much of the data for this section of the Task Force report).

Since then, BAPPI has organized conference programs on human

rights at APA’s annual conventions, at the biannual conferences of

Division 9 (Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues) and

Division 27 (Society for Community Research and Action), and at

the 2012 International Congress of Psychology.

Submission of amicus briefs

The Committee on Legal Issues and the APA Office of General

Counsel work in conjunction with psychological experts and outside

counsel to draft amicus briefs in cases on issues about which psy-

chology has relevant scientific knowledge or information to share

with courts of law. Many of the policy issues at the core of these

amicus briefs address clear human rights questions, including, for

example, the execution of child offenders, the rights of persons with

disabilities, the right to refuse medication, and discrimination on the

grounds of sexual orientation. APA has submitted over 150 amicus

briefs, approximately one-third of which have been to the US

Supreme Court (American Psychological Association, n.d.f.), many

of which touch on human rights-related issues.

Outreach to Congress and the US Administration

APA’s Advocacy Office supports human rights by advocating for

relevant legislation and regulatory policies through strategies such

as briefing members of Congress and their staff and Executive

branch officials, commenting on evolving legislation and regulations,

and testifying at congressional hearings and briefings. The Office has

advocated for US ratification of key international human rights

treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, has provided

feedback to the Department of State’s Commission on Unalienable

Rights, and has worked in support of the rights of sexual and gender

minorities, women, low-income people, aging people, immigrants,

and other marginalized groups. Domestically, the office has tackled

human rights issues within a civil rights frame, focusing on such

issues as voting rights, criminal justice reform, domestic violence,

and equal employment opportunity. The Office has also contributed

to discussions concerning health policy and the reduction

of inequality.

Informing international governments’

decision-making

APA has in the past stated its support for universal human rights and

adopted policies aimed at condemning human rights abuses

internationally. In 1980, the APA Board of Directors protested the

internal exile of Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union and reaffirmed

APA’s support “for the right of scientists to exercise their scientific

and professional skills, be accorded social recognition, and the

opportunity to communicate with colleagues in other lands”

(American Psychological Association, 1987, p. 162). In 1984, APA’s

Board of Directors, wanting “to develop guidelines pertinent to

APA’s involvement in defense of international human rights,”

(American Psychological Association, 1984, p. 676) created a Joint

Subcommittee on Human Rights, comprised of representatives of

CIRP and BSERP. The Subcommittee’s report, adopted by the Council

of Representatives in January 1984, recommended a number of

ascending actions that APA could take, often in cooperation with

other organizations, including “information gathering,” “sending a

letter of concern,” “cooperating in action taken by other US Groups,”

“instituting legal action (such as at UNESCO or the UN Commission

on Human Rights),” or “making a site visit” (American Psychological

Association, 1984). In regard to this last recommendation, APA sent

a mission to Chile “to investigate that country’s use of torture and

other violations of human rights” (Rosenzweig, 1988, p. 83). In 1986,

the Council of Representatives adopted a resolution stating that “the

American Psychological Association condemns torture wherever it

occurs” and that “the American Psychological Association supports

the UN Declaration and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” (American

Psychological Association, 1986) and a second resolution “that the

American Psychological Association deplores and rejects the

apartheid system” in South Africa and urging American

psychologists “not to collaborate in projects sponsored by the South

African government until human rights reforms are instituted”

(Fox, 1987, p. 666).

In recent years, APA has followed a de facto policy of not

making direct criticisms or requests of foreign governments’ laws

and policies based in part on the belief that this would be an unhelp-

ful or improper course of action for an American association, partic-

ularly without outreach to or from that country’s national

psychological association. On the occasions that it has engaged in

these actions, it has been in the case of severe rights violations with

very direct links to psychology, typically in collaboration with other

NGOs or with national psychological associations, often in the

country in which the human rights abuse has taken place. For

example, in 2014, APA, together with psychological societies from

other countries, sought to inform the decision of Ugandan President

Yoweri Museveni regarding a pending “anti-homosexuality” bill.

Museveni stated that he would use scientific evidence about the

origins of sexual orientation as the basis for his decision on whether

to sign the bill, a key provision of which required the punishing of

same-sex relationships with up to life in prison. APA and the national

psychological associations that co-signed the letter pointed to

contemporary research on the nature of homosexuality and the

potential outcomes of implementing the type of measure proposed

in the bill.

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights17

Participation at the UN

APA holds special consultative status with ECOSOC and is affiliated

with the UN Department of Global Communications (formerly the

Department of Public Information). APA is also a member of the

Conference of NGOs in Consultation with the UN and was a founding

member in 2012 of the Psychology Coalition of NGOs Accredited at

the UN, a group of psychology and psychology-related organizations

with NGO status. Then and now, the activities of APA are undertaken

almost exclusively through non-staff representatives and interns.

Their activities are aimed at informing global policies by providing

policy makers with evidence-based psychological information and

resources relevant to social issues. These activities generally take

the form of workshops, presentations, and other events, and occa-

sional advocacy statements.

A review of the 2018 Annual Report of the APA at the UN (Ameri-

can Psychological Association, 2018b) reveals the centrality of

human rights in the activities undertaken by APA representatives at

the UN. Topics are wide-ranging, including the rights of older persons,

women’s empowerment, social and economic challenges, climate

change, and human rights as they illuminate issues facing interna-

tional psychology. An important feature of these activities is that

they are not limited to addressing human rights issues in treaties

explicitly accepted or ratified by the US, a point that is relevant given

the relatively limited number of treaties to which the US is a party

and the inconsistent approach to international law taken by succes-

sive administrations. This fact is important as APA considers whether

its standards for human rights are those embraced in international

conventions, declarations, and international humanitarian law, or are

those specifically accepted by the US.

APA Divisions are also engaged in relevant UN activities. For

example, SPSSI (Division 9) has NGO status at the UN. The Society

for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Division 14) UN team

has also participated in efforts regarding human rights at the UN,

such as sessions of the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

The Task Force found that APA engaged most directly with

Connection 5, but the work has rarely been guided by an explicit

human rights framework, except for the UN team. It seems clear

though, that through its status as an NGO and through its public

statements on policy or case law, APA and its constituents have

understood that the Association has an important role to play as a

voice for advancing human rights.

From an advocacy standpoint, a human rights framework could

underlie APA’s strategy, providing a coherent framework for activi-

ties and prioritization. In addition to calling for US ratification of

other human rights treaties, the language of human rights could be

strategically employed where helpful, drawing on international

obligations that the US has made through ratification of a specific

treaty (e.g., with regard to voting, criminal justice reform, and

non-discrimination generally), and tying APA’s efforts to related

domestic human rights work.

Conclusions drawn from the Five

Connections Analysis

Human rights are fundamental. They exist for all people in all times,

they provide a higher order structure than the laws of states and

professional codes, and they are intrinsically connected to the study

and practice of psychology. Psychologists have special human rights

obligations given their knowledge of human behavior and emotions,

their power in relationship to vulnerable people, their ethical con-

tract to society and their potential to do harm. In the preceding

section, the Task Force described five connections between psychol-

ogists and human rights that outline obligations of psychological

organizations and analyzed the manner in which APA has acted in

accord with each of these connections. Through our study of the

literature on the concepts that have historically guided APA and our

review of the Association’s activities, we conclude that APA has

demonstrated an implicit recognition of its human rights obligations

throughout its history. However, we found that it has often acted in

piecemeal fashion. Without the clarity or commitment that a fully

operationalized theoretical framework would provide, APA has been

hampered in its ability to consistently and effectively promote and

protect human rights.

In considering Connection One, how APA has worked to protect

the human rights of psychologists, we found that both through its

central office and its constituent boards and committees, APA has

declared aspirations and engaged in some activities but has not

directly evoked human rights instruments or principles. APA could

more effectively promote academic freedom by explicitly evoking

the UDHR and ICCPR to address the rights of psychologists to seek

and produce information and to freely associate and move within

and across international borders; as well as the right to be free from

harassment or threats to employment, detention, or bodily harm for

opposing the policies of their governments. The Task Force did not

find evidence of systematic processes to respond to the persecution

of psychologists (as exist, for example, within the American Physical

Society, the American Sociological Association, and several other

societies). Furthermore, APA has focused on systemic discrimina-

tion against marginalized populations, such as discriminatory legis-

lation, more than it has on individual human rights abuses, and

seems to have done less international human rights work than some

other professional organizations. While the AAAS, Committee of

Concerned Scientists, National Academies of Science, and Scholars

at Risk create awareness of human rights violations against scien-

tists, most work must be carried out by discipline-specific societies

to identify, monitor, and intervene in particular cases. It is unclear

what the organizational mechanism would be for APA to intervene

in such cases.

Regarding Connection Two, how APA has fostered the develop-

ment of psychological knowledge and practices that promote greater

understanding and realization of human rights, the Task Force identi-

fied many knowledge products and applied initiatives that resonate

with human rights principles, but found that most of this work has

not been informed by an explicit human rights framework or in direct

partnership with human rights organizations or experts. With APA

leadership, training programs and professional development initia-

18APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

tives can be developed to promote an understanding and application

of human rights principles and instruments among psychologists.

APA can promote research on human rights issues, further the inclu-

sion of a human rights framework in psychology education and train-

ing at all levels, disseminate human rights-related knowledge

through the annual Convention, advocate for the inclusion of human

rights principles in the criteria for funding for federal research, and

encourage the publication of human rights work in APA journals.

APA can also pursue several activities that promote access to

human rights. From an industrial-organizational perspective, APA

could take the lead on developing workplace protections for margin-

alized populations, including individuals of diverse age, gender,

gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion,

sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status.

Using a human rights frame would connect protections to interna-

tional standards and thereby draw support from global efforts

toward the promotion and protection of human rights. This would

enable national governments working to address these issues to

frame the discourse in terms of rights that must be protected and

fulfilled, complementing and strengthening the language of

“inequities.”

Among APA’s guidelines for psychological practice, only the

Multicultural Guidelines make explicit reference to human rights;

others implicitly embrace the spirit of human rights through refer-

ences to respect, equity, nondiscrimination, and access. None of the

guidelines currently provide specific direction on how to operation-

alize a human rights framework for professional practice. APA could

develop practice guidelines for psychologists delivering clinical

services in international humanitarian contexts that provide a clear

human rights frame; for example, that outline psychologists’ obliga-

tions to ensure an equitable right to care, monitoring for violations

of human rights, emphasizing psychologists’ needs for education

about international human rights statutes, and holding organiza-

tions, governments, and/or governmental agencies accountable to

demands for transparency. Educational resources for psychologists

with dual obligations or in coercive settings, such as detention

centers, regarding their obligations to the Istanbul Protocol (Office

of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1999)

would also be important.

In reflecting on Connection Three, how APA has worked to

oppose the misuse of psychological science and practice and their

negative impact on human rights, the Task Force concluded that

there is a lack of relevant foundational human rights knowledge

within the organization, including among central office staff and

volunteer leaders, which undermines its ability to protect the public

and its membership. In its recent history, without a highly developed

and systematic analysis of the potential human rights implications

of the misuse of psychological knowledge and practice, the organi-

zation acted in piecemeal fashion to identify, understand, and

address very serious allegations of human rights violations as they

arose. Because the organization, its policies, and the Ethics Code are

not oriented around a clearly defined and operationalized human

rights framework, grounded in human rights principles and interna-

tional law, APA did not have the institutional capacity to protect the

public from the misuse of psychological knowledge and practice. It

also failed to protect its members from the ethical dilemmas of

working in environments in which systemic human rights violations

have occurred. As APA and its members have experienced a disrup-

tive tension between obligations to respect the Ethics Code and

observe US law, the Task Force suggests that international human

rights can provide a higher-order structure upon which to resolve

this tension. Human rights imperatives are not synonymous with

national security interests or guild interests, but they do align with

the highest aspirations of the profession as articulated in the General

Principles of the Ethics Code. Accordingly, they are an appropriate

source of guidance for the organization and the profession.

In considering how APA has strived to ensure that all people

receive the benefits of psychological science and practice, Connec-

tion Four, we found clear evidence of activities from many constitu-

ents of APA to ensure equality of access, but generally carried out

without explicit reference to human rights instruments or principles,

and without an intentional human rights frame.

Finally, the Task Force reviewed APA’s human rights advocacy

efforts, Connection Five, and found that through its status as a

UN-affiliated NGO, its public statements on policy or case law, and

its many advocacy activities, APA is strongly positioned to advance

human rights. However, while numerous activities are undertaken

that resonate with human rights principles, an explicit human rights

framework has rarely guided advocacy efforts outside of the UN-af-

filiated NGO work. A human rights framework could allow advocacy

priorities to emerge with greater clarity and provide a coherent

decision-making strategy.

More broadly, APA could adopt human rights principles into its

business activities, along the lines of the Guiding Principles on

Business and Human Rights, endorsed by the UN Human Rights

Council (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2011). Following the

work of AAAS, APA could adapt these guiding principles, assessing

compliance with human rights through: (1) articulating APA’s human

rights values as reflected in its strategic plan, mission, policies, and

statements, and determining if any key human rights values are

missing (2) engaging stakeholder groups—staff, governance leaders,

members, meeting attendees, and others in the APA community—to

determine the extent to which they believe the APA lives up to its

human rights values; (3) conducting qualitative work to understand

better the responses to the survey and propose steps for

improvement.

In short, if APA were to adopt a human rights framework, inter-

national human rights instruments and principles, including the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would become foundational to

strategic planning and would inform all organizational programs and

operations. APA would act to promote and defend people’s free and

equitable participation in civil and political life, their freedom from

discrimination and repression, and their economic, social, and

cultural wellbeing; and would work to reduce the suffering caused by

individual and systemic violations of human rights. APA would prior-

itize research and the application of practices to help achieve these

objectives.

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights19

SECTION FIVE

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are divided into three sections: (1)

Organizational values and institutional structures; (2) Policies and

procedures; and (3) Programs and activities.

Organizational Values and Institutional

Structures

RECOMMENDATION ONE

The first and overarching recommendation of this Task

Force is that APA align its ethics, governance, and

programmatic activities with human rights principles

and practices as articulated in the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights, the UN human rights treaties and

optional human rights protocols, the UN human rights

declarations on sexual orientation and gender identity,

and on indigenous peoples, the Convention on the

Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and

the standards of international humanitarian law (the

laws of war), also attending to the need for a safe, clean,

healthy, and sustainable environment for the realization

of human rights.

APA’s standards for human rights should not be limited to those

conventions and declarations ratified or signed by the US. Adopting

a clearly defined and operationalized human rights approach to its

activities would have multiple advantages for APA: It would:

• Ground the values of the organization in the international

movement for human rights;

• Provide a roadmap for establishing organizational priorities in

the short-, medium-, and long-terms as expressed in APA’s

strategic plan and other guiding documents;

• Inform the cultivation and management of relationships with

stakeholders, including funders and donors, governmental and

private sector clients, students, teachers, and faculty members,

patient and other community groups, and other members of

civil society;

• Enable an assessment of gaps in APA activities, business prac-

tices, and policy engagement;

• Provide a consistent standard by which to inform guidelines and

other association norms; and,

• Protect APA and psychologists from violating human rights

through providing greater clarity of expectations.

RECOMMENDATION TWO

APA use the Five Connections Framework as adapted for

psychology to make explicit the connections between

human rights and psychology when enacting its mission,

goals, and objectives.

The Five Connections Framework is drawn from international human

rights principles, which have developed through a consensus-build-

ing approach over the past century. As noted earlier, the Task Force

believes that using this framework will encourage APA to: demon-

strate concern for people’s ability to participate in civil and political

life; work to increase freedom from discrimination and repression;

support economic, social, and cultural well-being; and work to

reduce the suffering caused by individual and systemic violations of

human rights. In adopting this framework, APA would prioritize

research and the application of practices to help to achieve these

objectives and would demonstrate to its constituents and the inter-

national community a clear commitment to human rights and an

understanding of psychology’s history related to human rights.

RECOMMENDATION THREE

APA ensure that the guiding principle for APA’s strategic

planning and implementation, “Respect and promote

human rights and focus on human rights, fairness, and

dignity for all segments of society” be applied across all

goals and objectives.

Human rights are already listed as a sub-topic of Strategic Objective

1 (Use psychology to make an impact on societal issues), but are

relevant to all of APA’s Strategic Objectives. Incorporating human

rights into Strategic Objective 2 (Prepare the discipline for the

future) could entail, for example, encouraging more psychology

students to be trained to work with survivors of torture or environ-

mental disasters. Incorporating human rights into Strategic Objective

3 (Elevate the public’s understanding of psychology) could entail, for

example, utilizing APA’s communications channels to promote psy-

chologists’ contributions to aiding asylum seekers or rehabilitating

child soldiers. Incorporating human rights into Strategic Objective 4

(Strengthen APA’s standing as an authoritative voice for psychology)

could entail, for example, establishing APA as the leading authority

on the human rights responsibilities of psychologists.

20APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

RECOMMENDATION FOUR

The APA Central Office and governance system ensure

centralized coordination to oversee and maintain

engagement with human rights at the organizational

level.

APA should ensure attention is given to all Five Connections between

psychology and human rights, identifying gaps in the association’s

efforts regarding human rights and opportunities that can reason-

ably be addressed within the limits of APA’s resources. APA should

periodically assess human rights resolutions/policies and activities

to assess progress in their implementation.

APA should engage in regular dialogue with organizations that

monitor domestic or international human rights, focusing on those

most relevant to psychology. Responses to such developments

would involve collaboration with Communications and Advocacy

staff to produce public statements or letters to government officials

in response to human rights abuses.

APA should work actively and deliberately to include the voices

of all psychologists, centering the voices of marginalized populations,

such as indigenous groups and religious minorities.

APA should leverage existing activities to promote an under-

standing of and respect for human rights among psychologists, for

example, through incorporating a human rights-focused track into

APA’s Annual Convention and through publishing more human

rights-focused content in outlets like the APA website and the

Monitor on Psychology. APA should encourage its Divisions to

consider the Five Connections framework in their work, bringing a

human rights focus to their teaching, research, practice, and

advocacy activities.

APA should create specific and measurable metrics to track,

such as number of human rights presentations at the annual conven-

tion, number of articles on the website that focus on human rights,

and number of articles per year in the Monitor on Psychology that

address an aspect of the intersection of psychology and human

rights.

Domestic and international human rights work should be

brought together through collaboration between CIRP, the Office of

International Affairs, the UN team, BAPPI, and the Public Interest

Directorate.

Policies and Procedures

RECOMMENDATION FIVE

APA take steps to ensure awareness among its members

that respect for human rights holds a central role in the

Ethics Code.

As stated by the APA Commission on Ethics Processes, “[p]sychol-

ogists have both moral and pragmatic professional reasons to serve

as protectors of human rights, especially in circumstances where

these rights may be placed at risk (American Psychological

Association, 2017b, p 4).” As such, APA and its members should

consider human rights as inseparably tied to the ethical standards

by which psychologists are bound through the mandates and modes

of operation of the Ethics Office. Toward this end, the 2020 Draft

Ethics Code Principles currently under review includes human rights

and social justice as new principles (American Psychological

Association Ethics Code Task Force, 2020).

RECOMMENDATION SIX

APA develop and conduct regular systematic human

rights trainings for APA staff, governance, and

membership.

Opportunities for training of APA staff, governance, and member-

ship on human rights could be created, drawing on examples of

activities being undertaken by other scientific societies. Such activ-

ities might include the hosting of semi-regular webinars on topics at

the intersection of psychology and human rights or specific trainings

on human rights dimensions of clinical practice, community engage-

ment, and other activities in which psychologists are regularly

involved. Human rights trainings can be invited by psychologists

with a grounding in human rights and diversity of perspectives,

including those with marginalized identities, with multicultural, fem-

inist, anti-oppressive, community, and/or liberatory orientations to

psychology, those trained in non-Western systems of psychology, or

those with experience in community or systemic intervention.

RECOMMENDATION SEVEN

APA undertake periodic human rights assessments that

incorporate organizational accountability in the event of

human rights abuses.

Following the example of AAAS, APA should periodically undertake

transparent and participatory internal human rights assessments to

evaluate the extent to which the policies, structures, programs, and

practices of the association are consistent with the human rights

principles it espouses and whether new procedures should be estab-

lished to respond in the case of abuses coming to light in the future.

For greatest transparency and effectiveness, any such assessment

should be designed and managed by an external team of experts in

the field. In the event that is not possible, the assessment should be

designed and undertaken in consultation with such experts. Based

on the findings of these assessments, APA should take actions that

are proactive, responsive, and reparative.

Such assessments should be conducted at regular time inter-

vals as part of a continual process of reflection and critical evaluation

of organizational accountability in relation to human rights.

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights21

Programs and Activities

RECOMMENDATION EIGHT

APA prioritize human rights advocacy and develop a

consistent process to inform public policy and legal

decision-making for the protection of human rights. In

addition to domestic work, APA’s advocacy for human

rights should extend to international human rights

concerns, including in some situations making direct

requests or criticisms of foreign governments, working

as appropriate and possible with other national

psychological associations, through NGOs at the UN, or

in some cases via individual communications.

APA’s new C6 organization grants expanded public policy capacity

(American Psychological Association, n.d.h.). This increased public

policy work should be grounded in human rights, which would pro-

vide a strategic framework for advocacy. Political realities should not

be neglected when discussing specific issues—for example, some

politicians would not be receptive to a human rights framing—but

utilizing a human rights framework would provide a firm interna-

tional grounding for advocacy on not just civil and political rights, but

also economic, social, and cultural rights. This human rights framing

should extend to all relevant APA public statements. In combination

with the psychological science and association policy supporting

APA’s stances on topics such as the needs of detained immigrants or

COVID-related health disparities, for example, human rights would

provide a firm legal and moral foundation for advocacy.

As an international organization with members and affiliates

from all over the globe, it is appropriate for APA to engage with

foreign governments on the topic of human rights concerns,

especially in the case of severe human rights abuses with clear

relevance to psychology.

While there are innumerable human rights issues of concern,

and the organization cannot take action in all instances, the five

connections framework can provide guidance on how to prioritize

action. Action can be taken when:

• The rights of psychologists are threatened.

• Psychological knowledge or insights can be applied.

• Psychological research or clinical practice has positive or nega-

tive implications.

• It is necessary to support clients or clinical populations at risk.

• The issue is of such moral gravity that APA and its members

should lend their authority and prestige.

RECOMMENDATION NINE

APA develop, promote, facilitate, and encourage the

teaching of content and materials on human rights as a

core element of psychology education and training for

high school and postsecondary students, and in

continuing education.

In the 2013 APA Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major,

one of the five learning goals (Goal 3) is “Ethical and social respon-

sibility in a diverse world.” The description of the goal indicates that

students should become familiar with professional ethics in psychol-

ogy and “begin to embrace the values that will contribute to positive

outcomes in work settings and in building a society responsive to

multicultural and global concerns” (American Psychological

Association Guidelines for the Undergraduate Psychology Major

Version 2.0, August 2013, p. 15). While this goal supports the need

to address the issues of human rights, social justice, and ethical

principles in general, it should be revised to include an explicit

grounding in human rights.

There is currently no mention of human rights in the Standards

of Accreditation for Health Service Psychology that govern doctoral

training in psychology, and no formal requirement that practice

guidelines consider human rights concerns. APA-accredited gradu-

ate programs and APA guidelines should include a focus on human

rights.

In subsequent review and revision of educational learning goals

and practice competencies and guidelines, the association should

consider the breadth of the Five Connections human rights frame-

work to better prepare psychologists for situating their work in an

understanding of international human rights. Students should be

trained to evaluate how their work can advance or potentially restrict

the human rights of those they serve, to integrate the contributions

of multicultural, feminist, liberation, and decolonial literatures in

psychology, and to attend to participatory and action-oriented

research ethics. Psychology faculty and those in training positions

should be encouraged to ensure that their students are exposed to

international human rights principles, the history of human rights

concerns in psychology, and the Five Connections framework in the

classroom, in their research, and in their applied and clinical training

settings.

RECOMMENDATION TEN

APA encourage the growth and development of human

rightsresearch in psychology.

APA should advocate for research priorities and research funding at

the national level that advances knowledge about the importance of

human rights to psychological health and well-being and expands

the understanding of the causes and effects of human rights viola-

tions. APA should work to ensure that criteria focused on human

rights be included in grant review procedures at the national and

organizational levels. For example, APA could develop explicit guid-

ance on how review criteria focused on “broader impact” could

manifest attention to the importance of human rights. Finally, APA

should work with the American Psychological Foundation (APF) to

encourage APF to broaden its attention to human rights issues.

22APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

RECOMMENDATION ELEVEN

APA encourage and support psychologists working with

populations at risk of human rights violations both

domestically and outside of the US

APA should present the promotion and protection of human rights

as a viable career path or service opportunity for psychologists. This

could be achieved through creating human rights-related guidelines,

such as working with survivors of torture or populations at risk from

environmental damage; supporting the creation of internship or

postdoctoral fellowship programs specific to human rights; creating

a mentorship program to match graduate students interested in the

topic with senior or mid-career professionals; or providing opportu-

nities to volunteer in the service of human rights. For example, APA

could promote and publicize the AAAS On-Call Scientists program,

providing opportunities for psychologists to volunteer with human

rights organizations through clinical practice, research design, pro-

gram evaluation, and trainings.

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights23

REFERENCES

Anderson, N. B. (2005). Letter to Senator John McCain [PDF document]. Retrieved

from http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/mccain-appropriations-letter.

pdf.

American Psychological Association. (1977). Resolution on human rights. American

Psychologist, 32(972).

American Psychological Association. (1977, March). Ethical standards of psychologists.

District of Columbia, Washington.

American Psychological Association, Council of Representatives. (1981). Ethical

principles of psychologists. American Psychologist, 36(6), 633-638.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.6.633.

American Psychological Association. (1986a). Guidelines for conditions of employment

of psychologists. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/employment-

conditions.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (1986b). Opposition to torture. In Council policy

manual (chapter XIV. International affairs). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/

about/policy/chapter-14.

American Psychological Association. (1987). Human Rights. In Council policy manual

(chapter XIV. International affairs). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/

policy/chapter-14.

American Psychological Association. (1989). Resolution on Violence Against Children

by Governments. In Council policy manual. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/

about/policy/governments.

American Psychological Association. (1990). Guidelines for providers of

psychological services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally diverse populations.

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/provider-

guidelines.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (1999). Resolution on stigma and discrimination

against people with serious mental illness and severe emotional disturbance. In

Council policy manual (chapter X. Professional affairs). Retrieved from http://www.

apa.org/about/policy/chapter-10b.aspx#stigma.

American Psychological Association. (2000). UN grants American Psychological

Association special NGO consultative status. Psychology International, 11(3).

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/international/pi/2000/07/issue.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2001a). APA resolution on racial/ethnic

profiling and other racial/ethnic disparities in law and security enforcement

activities. In Council policy manual. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/

policy/racial-profiling.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2001b). APA resolution on UN convention on

the rights of the child and the convention’s optional protocols. In Council policy

manual (chapter XIV. International affairs). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/

about/policy/chapter-14.

American Psychological Association. (2002b). Guidelines on multicultural education,

training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists.

Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines-

archived.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2004a). Resolution on opposing discriminatory

legislation and initiatives aimed at lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. In Council

policy manual (chapter XII. Public interest). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/

about/policy/chapter-12b#discriminatory-legislation.

American Psychological Association. (2004b). APA resolution on outpatient civil

commitment. In Council policy manual (chapter X. Professional affairs). Retrieved

from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/chapter-10b.aspx#stigma.

American Psychological Association. (2004c). Resolution on culture and gender

awareness in international psychology. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/

about/policy/gender

American Psychological Association. (2005a). Lesbian and gay parenting. Retrieved

from https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2005b). Report of the American Psychological

Association presidential task force on psychological ethics and national security.

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2005/07/pens.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2005c). Response from the American

Psychological Association to “A stain on medical ethics”. The Lancet, 366(9484).

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/lancet-response.pdf.

American Psychological Association (2006a). Letters. Monitor on Psychology, 37(8), 4.

American Psychological Association. (2006b). American Psychological Association

reaffirms unequivocal position against torture and abuse. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2006/08/no-torture.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2007a). Reaffirmation of the American

Psychological Association position against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or

degrading treatment or punishment and its application to individuals defined

in the United States code as “enemy combatants.” In Council policy manual.

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/torture.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2007b). APA statement on psychology and

interrogations submitted to the United States Senate Select Committee on

Intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/

senate-2007.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2008a). Resolution on the Americans with

Disabilities Act. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/disabilities-act.

aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2008b). Statement expressing concern over

alleged involvement of psychologist in abusive interrogation of Guantanamo

detainee. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2008/08/

apa-statement.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2008c). APA members approve petition

resolution on detainee settings. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/news/

press/releases/2008/09/detainee-petition.

American Psychological Association. (2008d). Report of the APA presidential

advisory group on the implementation of the petition resolution. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/ethics/advisory-group-final.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2008e). APA letter to Bush: New policy limits

psychologist involvement in interrogations. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/

news/press/releases/2008/10/bush-interrogations.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2008e). Resolution against genocide. Retrieved

from https://www.apa.org/international/resources/publications/resolution.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2009a). Psychologists and unlawful detention

settings with a focus on national security. In Council policy manual (chapter IV.

Board of directors). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/chapter-

4b#unlawful-detention.

American Psychological Association. (2009b). APA ethics committee statement: No

defense to torture under the APA ethics code. Retrieved from http://www.apa.

org/news/press/statements/ethics-statement-torture.pdf.

American Psychological Association, Board of Directors. (2009). An open letter

from the Board of Directors. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/

statements/open-letter-membership.pdf.

American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Interface between Psychology

and Global Climate Change. (2009). Psychology and global climate change:

Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. Retrieved from

https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.

American Psychological Association. (2010a). Resilience and recovery after war:

Refugee children and families in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.

apa.org/pubs/info/reports/refugees.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2010b). Amending the ethics code. Monitor on

Psychology, 41(4). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/04/ethics.

On-call scientists match psychologists with human rights groups. Monitor on

Psychology, 45(11), 11. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/12/

upfront-human-rights.

American Psychological Association. (2011a). Guidelines for psychological practice

with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/

lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx.

American Psychological Association, Committee on International Relations in

Psychology. (2011). Going international: A practical guide for psychologists.

Academics going abroad. Washington, DC: Office of International Affairs.

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/international/resources/info/academics-

abroad.aspx.

American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Immigration. (2012).

Crossroads: The psychology of immigration in the new century. Retrieved from

https://www.apa.org/topics/immigration/immigration-report.pdf.

24APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

American Psychological Association. (2013). Policy related to psychologists’ work in

national security settings and reaffirmation of the APA position against torture

and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/national-security.aspx.

American Psychological Association, Task Force on Trafficking of Women and Girls.

(2014). Report of the task force on trafficking of women and girls. Retrieved from

https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/trafficking/report.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2014a, December). On-call scientists match

psychologists with human rights groups. Monitor on Psychology, 45(11), 11.

Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/12/upfront-human-rights.

American Psychological Association. (2014b). APA response to Risen book and

allegations of support for torture. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/

press/response/risen-book.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2014c). APA board of directors resolution

regarding independent review. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/

governance/board/independent-review.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2015a). Standards for accreditation for health

service psychology. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/

policies/standards-of-accreditation.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2015b). Guidelines for psychological practice

with transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9).

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2015c). Recommended board actions related

to the report of the independent review relating to APA ethics guidelines,

national security interrogations and torture. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/

independent-review/recommended-actions-073115.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2015d). Press release and recommended

actions: Independent review cites collusion among APA individuals and defense

department officials in policy on interrogation techniques. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/07/independent-review-release.

aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2015e). Key provisions of the new APA policy.

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/independent-review/key-provisions-policy.

aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2016a). APA appoints task force on human

rights. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/07/

human-rights.

American Psychological Association. (2016b). Resolution on the Maltreatment of

Children with Disabilities. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/about/policy/

maltreatment-children.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (2016c). Ethical principles of psychologists and

code of conduct. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code.

American Psychological Association. (2017a). Multicultural guidelines: An ecological

approach to context, identity, and intersectionality. Retrieved from: http://www.

apa.org/about/policy/multicultural-guidelines.pdf .

American Psychological Association. (2017b, August). Commission on ethics

processes report to APA board of directors and council of representatives.

Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ethics/ethics-processes-report.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2017c). APA calls for consideration of best

scientific evidence by CDC, HHS. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/news/

press/releases/2017/12/scientific-evidence.

American Psychological Association, Commission on Ethics Processes. (2017). Report

to APA Board of Directors and Council of Representatives, August 2017. Retrieved

from https://www.apa.org/ethics/ethics-processes-report.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2018c). APA rejects proposal expanding role

of military psychologists to treat detainees in all settings. Retrieved from https://

www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/08/military-psychologists-detainees.

American Psychological Association. (2018b). APA at UN annual report. Retrieved

from https://www.apa.org/international/united-nations/un-annual-report.pdf.

American Psychological Association. (2018c). APA rejects proposal expanding role

of military psychologists to treat detainees in all settings. Retrieved from https://

www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/08/military-psychologists-detainees.

American Psychological Association. (2019a). Impact APA: American Psychological

Association Strategic Plan. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/apa/

strategic-plan/.

American Psychological Association. (2019b). Public statement in support of academic

freedom for psychologists and others in Turkey. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/

international/global-insights/academic-freedom.

American Psychological Association. (2019c). Resolution on Affirming Psychologists’

Role in Addressing Global Climate Change. In Council policy manual. Retrieved

from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/climate-change.

American Psychological Association, Board of Directors. (2019). Update on

Commission on Ethics Processes recommendations. Item provided to the Council of

Representatives, August 2019.

American Psychological Association. (2020). American Psychological Association Task

Force on Climate Change: Call for nominations. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/

about/governance/council/climate-change-nominations.

American Psychological Association, Ethics Code Task Force. (July 31, 2020). Initial

Draft Principles.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.a). APA human rights activities. Retrieved

from https://www.apa.org/topics/human-rights/offices-programs.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.b.). Timeline of APA policies & actions

related to detainee welfare and professional ethics in the context of interrogation

and national security. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/

statements/interrogations.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.c.) Safe and supportive schools project.

Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/safe-supportive/.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.d.) International psychology network for

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex issues.) Retrieved from https://

www.apa.org/ipsynet.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.e.). Human Rights. Retrieved from http://

www.apa.org/topics/human-rights/index.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.f.). APA amicus briefs by issue. Retrieved

from https://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/index-issues.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.g.).Council Policy Manual. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/index.aspx.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.h.) APA dual membership expanded

advocacy model. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/members/your-

membership/benefits/dual-membership.

American Psychological Association, Public Interest Directorate. (n. d.). About the

Public Interest Directorate. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/about.

Bell, L.A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams,

L.A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice, 2nd ed. (pp.

1-14) NY: Routledge.

Betancourt, T. S., Borisova, I., Williams, T. P., Meyers-Ohki, S. E., Rubin-Smith, J. E.,

Annan, J., & Kohrt, B. A. (2013). Research review: Psychosocial adjustment and

mental health in former child soldiers: A systematic review of the literature and

recommendations for future research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54,

17-36. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02620.x.

Bonnie, R. J., & Scott, E. S. (2013). The teenage brain: Adolescent brain research

and the law. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 158-161. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/ 0963721412471678.

Bray, J. H., & Anderson, N. B. (2009). Letter to President Barack Obama [PDF

document]. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/obama-

letter.pdf.

Brehm, S. S. (2007). APA responds to Washington Monthly Article. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/news/press/response/washington-monthly-response.pdf.

Brehm, S. S., & Anderson, N. B. (2007). Letter to George W. Bush [PDF document].

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/statements/bush-letter-2007.

pdf.

Campbell, T. A. (2007). Psychological assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of

torture survivors: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(5), 628-641.http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/ j.cpr.2007.02.003.

Christie, D. J. (Ed.). (2012). Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Clayton, S., Manning, C., Krygsman, K., & Speicer, M. (2017). Mental Health and Our

Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance. American Psychological

Association, and ecoAmerica. http://ecoamerica.org/wp-content/

uploads/2017/03/ea-apa-psych-report-web.pdf.

Comas-Díaz, L. & Greene, B. (Eds.) (2013). Psychological health of women of color:

Intersections, challenges, and opportunities. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger

Claude, R. P. (2002). Science in the Service of Human Rights. Philadelphia, University of

Pennsylvania Press.

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights25

Dockett, K., Okorodudu, C., Rafferty, Y., & Miller, K. (2015). Call to action: Statement

on the one-year anniversary of the abduction of the Nigerian schoolgirls.

Retrieved from http://apadiv15.org/2015/04/17/call-to-action-statement-on-

the-one-year-anniversary-of-the-abduction-of-the-nigerian-schoolgirls.

Dosweld-Beck, L, & Vité, S. (1993). International Human Rights Law and Human

Rights Law. In International Review of the Red Cross, No. 293, pp. 94-119. Retrieved

from https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/article/other/57jmrt.

htm.

Downey, L., & Van Willigen, M. (2005). Environmental Stressors: The Mental Health

Impacts of Living Near Industrial Activity. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,

46(3), 289–305.

Eidelson, R., & Arrigo, J. M. (2015, July 30). Op-Ed: How the American Psychological

Assn. lost its way. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/

opinion/op-ed/la-oe-arrigo-psychologists-apa-report-20150729-story.html.

Enns, CZ., Williams E.N. (2013) The Oxford Handbook on Feminist Multicultural

Counselling Psychology. Oxford University Press. Oxford, New York.

Enns, C.Z. & A. L. Sinacore (2005), Teaching and social justice: Integrating multicultural

and feminist theories in the classroom (pp. 85-97). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Farberman (2009). A Stronger Vision for APA. Monitor on Psychology 40(4), 68.

Fine, M. (2013). Echoes of Bedford: A 20-year social psychology memoir on

participatory action research hatched behind bars. American Psychologist, 68, 687-

698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034359.

Fouad, Gerstein & Toporek. (2006). Social Justice and Counseling Psychology in

Context, In Handbook for Social Justice in Counseling Psychology, Rebecca L. Toporek,

et al.Eds. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. pp. [1]-17.

Fox, R. E. (1987). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association,

Incorporated, for the year 1986: Minutes of the annual meeting of the

Council of Representatives, August 21 and 24, 1986, and February 6-8, 1987,

Washington, DC. American Psychologist, 42, 640-670. https://psycnet.apa.org/

fulltext/2008-17573-001.pdf?sr=1.

French, B. H., Lewis, J. A., Mosley, D. V, Adames, H. Y., Chavez-dueñas, N. Y., Chen,

G. A., & Neville, H. A. (2020). Toward a Psychological Framework of Radical

Healing in Communities of Color. Transcultural Psychiatry, 48(1), 14–46. http://doi.

org/10.1177/0011000019843506

García, M.A. & Tehee, M. (2014). Society of Indian Psychologists commentary on the

American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists

and Code of Conduct. Retrieved from https://www.aiansip.org/commentary.html.

Gorman, W. (2001). Refugee survivors of torture: Trauma and treatment. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 443–451. Retrieved from http://doi.

org/10.1037//0735-7028.32.5.443.

Gone, J. P. (2009). A community-based treatment for Native American historical

trauma: Prospects for evidence-based practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 77(4), 751–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015390

Grzanka, P. R., Gonzalez, K. A., & Spanierman, L. B. (2019). White Supremacy and

Counseling Psychology: A Critical–Conceptual Framework.The Counseling

Psychologist,47(4), 478-529.

Hagenaars, P. (2016). Towards a human rights based and oriented psychology.

Psychology and Developing Societies, 28, 183-202. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.

org/10.1177/0971333616657170.

Hoffman, D. H., Carter, D. J., Lopez, C. R. V., Benziller, H. L., Guo, A. X., Latifi, S. Y.,

& Craig, D. C. (July 2, 2015). Report to the Special Committee of the board of

directors of the American Psychological Association: Independent review relating

to APA ethics guidelines, national security interrogations, and torture. Chicago, IL:

Sidley Austin LLP. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/independent-review/APA-

FINAL-Report-7.2.15.pdf.

Huminuik, K. (2017). Special competencies for psychological assessment of torture

survivors. Transcultural Psychiatry, 54, 239-259. Retrieved from http://doi.

org/10.1177/1363461516675561.

Huminuik, K., & Wyndham, J. (2020). The role of scientific societies in promoting

and protecting human rights and the example of the American Psychological

Association. In N. Rubin & R. Flores. The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and

Human Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

International Organization for Standardization. (2010). ISO 26000:2010. Guidance

on social responsibility. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:26000:ed-

1:v1:en:sec:6.3.

Jacobs, U., & Iacopino, V. (2001). Torture and its consequences: A challenge to clinical

neuropsychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 458–464.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.32.5.458.

Johnson, H., & Thompson, A. (2008). The development and maintenance of post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in civilian adult survivors of war trauma and

torture: A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 36-47. Retrieved from https://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17383783.

Jones, J. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Vietze, D. L. (2014). The psychology of diversity: Beyond

prejudice and racism. Wiley-Blackwell.

Koocher, G. (2006) Varied and Valued Roles. Monitor on Psychology 37(7), 5.

Kuo, B. C. H., & Arcuri, A. (2013). Multicultural therapy practicum involving refugees:

Description and illustration of a training model. The Counseling Psychologist,

1–32. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0011000013491610.

Leong, F. T. L., Pickren, W. E., & Vasquez, M. J. T. (2017). APA efforts in promoting

human rights and social justice. American Psychologist, 72(8), 778–790.

Lewis, N. (2004). Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo. New York Times.

Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/politics/red-cross-finds-

detainee-abuse-in-guantanamo.html.

Lykes, M. B. (2000). Possible contributions of a psychology of liberation: whither

health and human rights? Journal of Health Psychology, 5(3), 383–397. http://doi.

org/10.1177/135910530000500312

Mackenzie, J. S., & Jeggo, M. (2019). The One Health Approach—Why Is It So

Important? Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 4(2), 88. https://doi.

org/10.3390/tropicalmed4020088.

Martín-Baró, I. (1996). Writings for a Liberation Psychology. (A. Aron & S. Corne, Eds.).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McDaniel, S., & Kaslow, N. J. (2015, July 24). Letter to APA members from APA

President-Elect Susan McDaniel, PhD, and APA Past President Nadine J. Kaslow,

PhD, ABPP, members of the Special Committee for the Independent Review.

Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/independent-review/letter-members-

apology.pdf.

McFarland, S. (2015). Culture, individual differences, and support for human rights:

A general review. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21, 10-27. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000083.

McFarland, S. (2016, May). How to integrate the teaching of psychology with concern

for human rights. Psychology Teacher Network. http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/

ptn/2016/05/human-rights.aspx.

McFarland, S. & Hornsby, W. (2015). An analysis of five measures of global human

identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 806-817. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1002/ejsp.2161.

McFarland, S., & Zamora, R. (2020). Human rights developments from the Universal

Declaration to the present. In N. Rubin & R. Flores. The Cambridge Handbook of

Psychology and Human Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McKay, S., Veale, A., Worthen, M., & Wessells, M. (2010, July). Community-based

reintegration of war-affected young mothers: Participatory action research (PAR)

in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Northern Uganda. Retrieved from https://cora.ucc.ie/

handle/10468/3629.

Miller, G. A. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American

Psychologist, 24, 1063-1075.

Miller, D. (1999). Principles of social justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Miller, K. E. (2004). Beyond the frontstage: Trust, access, and the relational context in

research with refugee communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33,

217–27. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15212180.

Moorehead-Slaughter, O. (2006). Ethics and national security. Monitor on Psychology,

37(4), 20. https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr06/security.

Müller, M. M., & Clayton, S. (2013). Introduction to “Environmental Justice.” Social

Justice Research, 26(3), 227–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-013-0194-y.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and

Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines

for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.

gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/the-belmont-report-508c_FINAL.pdf.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1999). Istanbul

Protocol: Manual on the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other

cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Retrieved from https://www.

ohchr.org/documents/publications/training8rev1en.pdf.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2020).

Sustainable Development Goals and Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.

ohchr.org/en/issues/SDGS/pages/the2030agenda.aspx.

26APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (nd.) Special

rapporteur on human rights and the environment. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.

org/en/Issues/environment/SRenvironment/Pages/SRenvironmentIndex.aspx.

Okorodudu, C., Kuriansky, J., Walker, P.R. & Denmark, F.L. (2020). A historical

narrative of psychology engaging human rights within the framework of the

United Nations. In N.S. Rubin & R.L. Flores, (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of

Psychology and Human Rights. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Olson, B. (2013, Fall/Winter). Division 48 Letter of Inquiry to the APA Ethics Office

on Psychologist Involvement in Drones. PEACE Psychology, 22, 6. Retrieved from

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e92fe3e4b035a09d9e9bf0/t/55b105

b0e4b068ed2bbd28e6/1437664688558/PeacePsychNewsletterFall13.pdf.

Pachankis, J. E., & Goldfried, M. R. (2013). Clinical issues in working with lesbian, gay,

and bisexual clients. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(S),

45–58. doi:10.1037/2329-0382.1.S.45

Patel, N., Williams, A. C. D. C., & Kellezi, B. (2016). Reviewing outcomes of

psychological interventions with torture survivors: Conceptual, methodological

and ethical issues. Torture: Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Prevention

of Torture, 26(1), 2–16.

Pickren, W. E., & Tomes, H. (2002). The Legacy of Kenneth B. Clark to the

APA. American Psychologist, 57, 51-59. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-

066X.57.1.51.

Pope, K., & Gutheil, T. (2009). Psychologists abandon Nuremberg ethic. International

Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32 (4), 161-166.

Pope, K. S. (2012). Psychological assessment of torture survivors: Essential steps,

avoidable errors, and helpful resources. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,

35, 418-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.09.017.

Pope, K. S. (2016). The code not taken: The path from guild ethics to torture and our

continuing choices. Canadian Psychology, 57, 51–59. doi:10.1037/cap0000043.

Prilleltensky, I. (2001). Value-Based Praxis in Community Psychology: Moving Toward

Social Justice and Social Action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(5),

747–778. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010417201918.

Prilleltensky, I. (2008). The role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation:

the promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(2),

116–136. http://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20225

Ratts, M. J., Singh, A. A., Nassar-Mcmillan, S., Butler, S. K., & McCullough, J. R. (2016).

Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies: Guidelines for the

Counseling Profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 44(1),

28–48. http://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12035

Risen, J. (2014). Pay at any price: Greed, power and endless war. NY: Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt.

Rosenzweig, M. (1988). Psychology and the United Nations human rights efforts.

American Psychologist, 43, 79-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.2.79.

Rubin, N. S. & Flores, R. L. (Eds.) (2020). Cambridge handbook of psychology and human

rights. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Scholars at Risk (2016). Free to Think 2016. Retrieved from https://www.scholarsatrisk.

org/resources/free-to-think-2016/.

Scholars at Risk (2017). Free to Think, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.scholarsatrisk.

org/resources/free-to-think-2017/.

Sibley, C. G., & Barlow, F. K. (eds). (2017). The Psychology of Prejudice. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Smith, M. B. (1990). Psychology in the public interest: What have we done? What

can we do?American Psychologist, 45, 530-536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-

066X.45.4.530

Staub, E. (1992). The origins of evil: The roots of genocide and other mass violence.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Society for Humanistic Psychology. (2013). Open letter to the DSM-5. Retrieved from

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dsm5/.

Staub, E. (2003). The psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults, and groups help

and harm others. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Trauma Psychology (2016). TortureTraumaPsy. Retrieved from https://sites.google.

com/site/torturetraumapsy/home.

Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control

Council Law No. 10”, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1949. Retrieved from https://history.nih.gov/display/history/

Nuremburg+Code.

Tyler, L. (1969). An approach to public affairs: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on

Public Affairs. American Psychologist, 24, 1-4.

Twose, G. & Cohrs, C. (2015). Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology,

21(1). Special issue on Psychology and Human Rights. United Nations Committee

Against Torture (2010). List of issues prior to the submission of the 5th periodic report

of United States of America (CAT/C/USA/5): Committee against Torture, 43rd session,

2-20 November 2009, 20 June 2010,CAT/C/USA/Q/3-5,available at: https://

www.refworld.org/docid/53c77a0f4.html[accessed 2 November 2020].

United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Paris.

Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.

United Nations General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc.

A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976.

United Nations General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N.GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N.

Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force Jan. 3, 1976.

United Nations General Assembly (1998). Declaration on the Right and Responsibility

of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally

Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Retrieved from https://www.

ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RightAndResponsibility.aspx.

United Nations General Assembly (2018). Human rights obligations relating to the

enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. https://undocs.

org/A/73/188.

United Nations Human Rights Council. (2011). Guiding principles on business and

human rights. Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect, and Remedy”

Framework. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/

guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf.

United Nations Human Rights Council. (2018). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the

issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and

sustainable environment. https://undocs.org/A/HRC/37/59.

U. S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2014). Committee Study of the Central

Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program. Retrieved from https://

www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CRPT-113srpt288.

pdf.

Vasquez, M. J. T. (2012). Psychology and social justice: Why we do what we do.

American Psychologist, 67, 337–346. doi:10.1037/a0029232.

Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and

counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31,

253–272. doi:10.1177/0011000003031003001.

Wessells, M. (2006) Child soldiers: From violence to prevention. Harvard University

Press. Cambridge, MA.

Wilks, M. (2005). A stain on medical ethics. The Lancet, 366 (9484), 429-431.

Winter, D. G. (2017). Roots of War: Wanting Power, Seeing Threat, Justifying Force. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Woolf , L. M. (2006). Human rights and psychology: An agenda for the 21st century.

Division 48 Presidential Address, 114th Annual American Psychological

Association Convention. New Orleans, Louisiana.

Woolf, L. (2016, February). Teaching psychology: Infusing human rights. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/ptn/2016/02/human-rights.aspx.

World Health Organization. (n.d.) WHO QualityRights initiative: Improving quality,

protecting human rights. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/mental_health/

policy/quality_rights/en/.

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights27

APPENDIX I

The Nine Core International

Human Rights Treaties and

Their Optional Protocols

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966, 1976)*

First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(1966, 1976). This optional protocol establishes a “right of petition” that allows

individuals or groups to petition the Human Rights Committee that a nation has

violated their civil and political rights.

Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (1989, 1991).

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966, 1976).

International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965,

1969).*

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979, 1981).

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women (1999, 2000), establishing a right of petition, and allowing

investigation of possible “grave or systematic violations” of the Convention by a

nation.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment (1984).*

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (2002, 2006), allowing independent

investigation of a nation’s detention facilities to verify that torture is not occurring.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989, 1990);

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of

children in armed conflict (2000, 2002)*

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children,

child prostitution and child pornography (2000, 2002)*

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications

procedure (2011, 2014), establishing a right of petition against a nation for

violating the rights of the child.

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and

Members of their Families (1990, 2003).

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006; 2008).

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006,

2008), allowing a right of petition against states for violating these rights.

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

(2006, 2010).

* = Treaties ratified by the United States.

Note: The first date following each treaty refers to the date of its adoption by the UN

General Assembly, the second to when the required number of nations had ratified

it to make the treaty international law. Detailed information on each convention is

available on the website of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://www.

ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CoreInstruments.aspx.

2 The United States was not a member of the Human Rights Council when this resolution was adopted.

APPENDIX II

Additional Relevant

UN Statements

UN General Assembly

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (13 September 2007)*

Joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity (18

December 2008)*

Human Rights Council

Resolution on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity (17 June, 2011)*

Human Rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity (2 February, 2014)*

Protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and

gender identity(15 July, 2016).

International Humanitarian

Law Treaties

The four Geneva Conventions. Dating in development from 1864 to 1977, the Geneva

Conventions address the treatment of war wounded and prisoners of war, the

protection of civilians during conflict and while under enemy occupation.*

Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1899, 1925). Also known as the

Hague Conventions, they prohibit the bombardment of undefended cities and the use

of particular weapons such as expanding bullets and poisonous gases.*

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of

Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (1972, 1975), also

called the Biological Weapons Convention, banning all biological weapons.*

Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons

Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (1980,

1983).*

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of

Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (1993, 1997), also called the Chemical

Weapons Convention, banning all chemical weapons.*

Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-

Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (1997), also called the Mine Ban Treaty,

banning all anti-personnel land mines.

Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008, 2010), banning munitions with multiple

warheads or “bomblets.”

* = Statements signed and treaties ratified by the United States.

Note: Detailed information on each treaty is easily located online. See also McFarland

and Zamora (2020), for a summary of the contents of each human rights treaty, of

the Genocide Convention, and of each international humanitarian law treaty.

28APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights

APPENDIX III

Summary of Sources

To conduct this review and to show how the Five Connections Human Rights

Framework could be applied to APA’s work, we reviewed the following extant sources:

a staff report regarding human rights activities developed for APA’s Board of Directors

in 2015; four surveys of Boards, Committees, Divisions, and experts in 2009, 2010,

2012, and 2012-14; the APA website, particularly the web pages of the Executive

Office and the four Directorates—Science, Practice, Education, and Public Interest;

APA reports; and previously collected data on activities and concerns of APA Boards

and Committees.

In addition, the Task Force surveyed APA Divisions, EMPAs, and active human

rights scholars. The survey asked about human rights-related activities undertaken,

what respondents would see as the most valuable outcome that could arise from the

Task Force’s work, whether there were specific activities that respondents believed

APA could or should engage in to advance human rights; who the key constituents are

that the Task Force should contact; and whether the respondent saw a distinction

between human rights and social justice. Thirty-four of 92 entities surveyed provided

responses, a 37% response rate.

The Task Force also analyzed APA governance documents (including APA’s

mission statement and strategic plan, accreditation guidelines, Bylaws, and relevant

policies), solicited input from the APA Office of International Affairs and APA’s UN

team, and analyzed documents, organizational structures, and recommendations

from external groups, including AAAS, Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR),

the EMPAs, and the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations.

Several activities were added subsequent to the Task Force survey based on

APA staff knowledge of human rights-related initiatives.

APPENDIX IV

Scientiﬁc Associations with a

Human Rights Committee, Oce,

or Similar Structure

American Anthropological Association

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Mathematical Society

American Physical Society

American Public Health Association

American Political Science Association

American Sociological Association

American Statistical Association

International Studies Association

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

New York Academy of Science

APA|Moving Human Rights to the Forefront of Psychology: The Final Report of the APA Task Force on Human Rights29