Hubbry Logo
American Psychological AssociationAmerican Psychological AssociationMain
Open search
American Psychological Association
Community hub
American Psychological Association
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
American Psychological Association
American Psychological Association
from Wikipedia

The headquarters of the American Psychological Association in Washington, D.C.

Key Information

The American Psychological Association (APA) is the main professional organization of psychologists in the United States,[1] and the largest psychological association in the world. It has over 172,000 members, including scientists, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students.[1] It has 54 divisions, which function as interest groups for different subspecialties of psychology or topical areas.[2] The APA has an annual budget of nearly $135 million.[3]

Profile

[edit]

The APA has task forces that issue policy statements on various matters of social importance, including abortion, human rights, the welfare of detainees, human trafficking, the rights of the mentally ill, IQ testing, sexual orientation change efforts, and gender equality.[4]

Governance

[edit]

APA is a corporation chartered in Washington, D.C. APA's bylaws describe structural components that serve as a system of checks and balances to ensure democratic process. The organizational entities include:

  • APA President. The APA president is elected by the membership. The president chairs the Council of Representatives and the Board of Directors. During their term of office, the president performs such duties as are prescribed in the bylaws.
  • Board of Directors. The Board is composed of six members-at-large, president-elect, president, past-president, treasurer, recording secretary, the Chair and Chair-Elect of the Council Leadership Team, CEO, and the past chair of the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS). The board oversees the association's administrative affairs and determines the annual budget and makes decisions regarding APA's roughly $125 million annual income.
  • APA Council of Representatives. The Council has sole authority to set APA policy. It is composed of elected members from state/provincial/territorial psychological associations, APA divisions, and the APA Board of Directors. The Council Leadership Team (CLT) is elected from within by the members of Council and facilitates Council's workload on an annual basis. The Chair and Chair-Elect of the CLT are voting members of the Board of Directors.
  • APA Board/Committee Structure: Members of boards and committees conduct much of APA's work on a volunteer basis. They carry out a wide variety of tasks suggested by their names. Some have responsibility for monitoring major programs, such as the directorates, the journals, and international affairs.[5]

Good Governance Project

[edit]

The Good Governance Project (GGP) was initiated in January 2011 as part of the strategic plan to "[assure] APA's governance practices, processes, and structures are optimized and aligned with what is needed to thrive in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex environment."[6] The charge included soliciting feedback and input stakeholders, learning about governance best practices, recommending whether the change was required, recommending needed changes based on data, and creating implementation plans.[6] The June 2013 GGP update on the recommended changes can be found in the document "Good Governance Project Recommended Changes to Maximize Organizational Effectiveness of APA Governance".[7] The suggested changes would change APA from a membership-based, representational structure to a corporate structure. These motions were discussed and voted upon by the council on July 31, 2013, and August 2, 2013.[7]

Organizational structure

[edit]

APA comprises an executive office, a publishing operation, offices that address administrative, business, information technology, and operational needs, and five substantive directorates:

  • the Education Directorate accredits doctoral psychology programs and addresses issues related to psychology education in secondary through graduate education;[8]
  • the Practice Directorate engages on behalf of practicing psychologists and health care consumers;[9]
  • the Public Interest Directorate advances psychology as a means of addressing the fundamental problems of human welfare and promoting the equitable and just treatment of all segments of society;[10]
  • the Public and Member Communications Directorate is responsible for APA's outreach to its members and affiliates and to the general public;[11]
  • the Science Directorate provides support and voice for psychological scientists.[12]

Membership and title of "psychologist"

[edit]

APA policy on the use of the title psychologist is contained in the Model Act for State Licensure of Psychologists:[13] psychologists have earned a doctoral degree in psychology and may not use the title "psychologist" and/or deliver psychological services to the public, unless the psychologist is licensed or specifically exempted from licensure under the law. State licensing laws specify state specific requirements for the education and training of psychologists leading to licensure. Psychologists who are exempted from licensure could include researchers, educators, or general applied psychologists who provide services outside the health and mental health field.

Full membership with the APA in United States and Canada requires doctoral training whereas associate membership requires at least two years of postgraduate studies in psychology or approved related discipline. The minimal requirement of a doctoral dissertation related to psychology for full membership can be waived in certain circumstances where there is evidence that significant contribution or performance in the field of psychology has been made.[14]

Affiliate organizations

[edit]

American Psychological Association Services, Inc. (APASI) was formed in 2018 and is a 501(c)(6) entity, which engages in advocacy on behalf of psychologists from all areas of psychology. Its predecessor was the American Psychological Association Practice Organization (APAPO). APASI contains the Psychology Political Action Committee (PAC), which engages in lobbying on behalf of psychologists at the federal level.

Awards

[edit]

Each year, the APA recognizes top psychologists with the "Distinguished Contributions" awards; these awards are the highest honors given by the APA.

Publications

[edit]

The American Psychologist is the association's flagship, peer-reviewed journal. APA also publishes over 70 other journals encompassing most specialty areas in the field; APA's Educational Publishing Foundation (EPF) is an imprint for publishing on behalf of other organizations.[15] Its journals include:[16]

The APA has published hundreds of books.[18] Among these books are: the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (and a concise version titled Concise Rules of APA Style), which is the official guide to APA style;[19][20] the APA Dictionary of Psychology;[21] an eight-volume Encyclopedia of Psychology;[22] and many scholarly books on specific subjects such as Varieties of Anomalous Experience.[23] The APA has also published children's books under the Magination Press imprint, software for data analysis, videos demonstrating therapeutic techniques, reports, and brochures.[24]

The Psychologically Healthy Workplace program

[edit]

The Psychologically Healthy Workplace Program (PHWP) is a collaborative effort between the American Psychological Association and the APA Practice Organization designed to help employers optimize employee well-being and organizational performance. The PHWP includes APA's Psychologically Healthy Workplace Awards, a variety of APA Practice Organization resources, including PHWP Web content, e-newsletter, podcast and blog, and support of local programs currently implemented by 52 state, provincial and territorial psychological associations as a mechanism for driving grassroots change in local business communities. The awards are designed to recognize organizations for their efforts to foster employee health and well-being while enhancing organizational performance. The award program highlights a variety of workplaces, large and small, profit and non-profit, in diverse geographical settings. Applicants are evaluated on their efforts in the following five areas: employee involvement, work-life balance, employee growth and development, health and safety, and employee recognition. Awards are given at the local and national level.[25]

APA style

[edit]

American Psychological Association (APA) style is a set of rules developed to assist reading comprehension in the social and behavioral sciences. Used to ensure clarity of communication, the layout is designed to "move the idea forward with a minimum of distraction and a maximum of precision."[26] The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association contains the rules for every aspect of writing, especially in the social sciences from determining authorship to constructing a table to avoiding plagiarism and constructing accurate reference citations. "The General Format of APA is most commonly used to cite sources within the social sciences. General guidelines for a paper in APA style includes: typed, double-spaced on standard-sized paper (8.5" x 11") with 1" margins on all sides. The font should be clear and highly readable. APA recommends using 12 pt. Times New Roman font."[27] The seventh edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association was published in October 2019.[28]

Databases

[edit]

APA maintains a number of databases, including PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PsycBOOKS, PsycEXTRA, PsycCRITIQUES, PsycTESTS, and PsycTHERAPY.[29][30] APA also operates a comprehensive search platform, PsycNET, covering multiple databases.[31]

PsycINFO is a bibliographic database that contains citations and summaries dating from the 19th century, including journal articles, book chapters, books, technical reports, and dissertations within the field of psychology. As of January 2010, PsycINFO has collected information from 2,457 journals.[32]

History

[edit]

Founding

[edit]

The APA was founded in July 1892 at Clark University by a small group of around 30 men; by 1916 there were over 300 members.[33] The first president was G. Stanley Hall. During World War II, the APA merged with other psychological organizations, resulting in a new divisional structure. Nineteen divisions were approved in 1944; the divisions with the most members were the clinical and personnel (now counseling) divisions. From 1960 to 2007, the number of divisions expanded to 54.[34] Today the APA is affiliated with 60 state, territorial, and Canadian provincial associations.[35]

Dominance of clinical psychology

[edit]

Due to the dominance of clinical psychology in APA, several research-focused groups have broken away from the organization. These include the Psychonomic Society in 1959 (with a primarily cognitive orientation), and the Association for Psychological Science (which changed its name from the American Psychological Society in early 2006) in 1988 (with a broad focus on the science and research of psychology). Theodore H. Blau was the first clinician in independent practice to be elected president of the American Psychological Association in 1977.[36]

Presidents

[edit]
APA Presidents from the present to 1892
2024  Cynthia de las Fuentes
2023  Thema Bryant
2022  Frank C. Worrell
2021  Jennifer F. Kelly
2020  Sandra L. Shullman
2019  Rosie Phillips Davis
2018  Jessica Henderson Daniel
2017  Antonio Puente
2016  Susan H. McDaniel
2015  Barry S. Anton
2014  Nadine Kaslow
2013  Donald N. Bersoff
2012  Suzanne Bennett Johnson
2011  Melba J. T. Vasquez
2010  Carol D. Goodheart
2009  James H. Bray
2008  Alan E. Kazdin
2007  Sharon S. Brehm
2006  Gerald Koocher
2005  Ronald F. Levant
2004  Diane F. Halpern
2003  Robert J. Sternberg
2002  Philip G. Zimbardo
2001  Norine G. Johnson
2000  Patrick DeLeon
1999  Richard Suinn
1998  Martin E.P. Seligman
1997  Norman Abeles
1996  Dorothy Cantor
1995  Robert J. Resnick
1994  Ronald E. Fox
1993  Frank Farley
1992  Jack Wiggins Jr.
1991  Charles Spielberger
1990  Stanley Graham
1989  Joseph Matarazzo
1988  Raymond D. Fowler
1987  Bonnie Strickland
1986  Logan Wright
1985  Robert Perloff
1984  Janet Taylor Spence
1983  Max Siegel
1982  William Bevan (psychologist)
1981  John J. Conger
1980  Florence Denmark
1979  Nicholas A. Cummings
1978  M. Brewster Smith
1977  Theodore H. Blau
1976  Wilbert J. McKeachie
1975  Donald T. Campbell
1974  Albert Bandura
1973  Leona E. Tyler
1972  Anne Anastasi
1971  Kenneth B. Clark
1970  George W. Albee
1969  George A. Miller
1968  Abraham Maslow
1967  Gardner Lindzey
1966  Nicholas Hobbs
1965  Jerome Bruner
1964  Quinn McNemar
1963  Charles E. Osgood
1962  Paul E. Meehl
1961  Neal E. Miller
1960  Donald O. Hebb
1959  Wolfgang Köhler
1958  Harry Harlow
1957  Lee J. Cronbach
1956  Theodore Newcomb
1955  E. Lowell Kelly
1954  O. Hobart Mowrer
1953  Laurance F. Shaffer
1952  J. McVicker Hunt
1951  Robert R. Sears
1950  Joy Paul Guilford
1949  Ernest R. Hilgard
1948  Donald R. Marquis
1947  Carl Rogers
1946  Henry E. Garrett
1945  Edwin R. Guthrie
1944  Gardner Murphy
1943  John Edward Anderson
1942  Calvin Perry Stone
1941  Herbert Woodrow
1940  Leonard Carmichael
1939  Gordon Allport
1938  John Dashiell
1937  Edward C. Tolman
1936  Clark L. Hull
1935  Albert Poffenberger
1934  Joseph Peterson
1933  Louis Leon Thurstone
1932  Walter Richard Miles
1931  Walter Samuel Hunter
1930  Herbert Langfeld
1929  Karl Lashley
1928  Edwin G. Boring
1927  Harry Levi Hollingworth
1926  Harvey A. Carr
1925  Madison Bentley
1924  G. Stanley Hall
1923  Lewis Terman
1922  Knight Dunlap
1921  Margaret Floy Washburn
1920  Shepherd Ivory Franz
1919  Walter Dill Scott
1918  John Wallace Baird
1917  Robert Mearns Yerkes
1916  Raymond Dodge
1915  John Broadus Watson
1914  Robert Sessions Woodworth
1913  Howard Crosby Warren
1912  Edward Thorndike
1911  Carl Emil Seashore
1910  Walter Bowers Pillsbury
1909  Charles Hubbard Judd
1908  George Malcolm Stratton
1907  Henry Rutgers Marshall
1906  James Rowland Angell
1905  Mary Whiton Calkins
1904  William James
1903  William Lowe Bryan
1902  Edmund Sanford
1901  Josiah Royce
1900  Joseph Jastrow
1899  John Dewey
1898  Hugo Münsterberg
1897  James Mark Baldwin
1896  George Stuart Fullerton
1895  James McKeen Cattell
1894  William James
1893  George Trumbull Ladd
1892  G. Stanley Hall

Notable people

[edit]

Divisions

[edit]

The APA has 56 numbered divisions, 54 of which are currently active:[37]

  1. Society for General Psychology – the first division formed by the APA, in 1945, concerned with issues across the subdisciplines of psychology[38]
  2. Society for the Teaching of Psychology – provides free teaching material for students and teachers of psychology and bestows many awards[39]
  3. Society for Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science
  4. Currently vacant – initially reserved for the Psychometric Society, which decided against becoming an APA division after the establishment of the similarly defined Division 5[40]
  5. Quantitative and Qualitative Methods – previously named Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics[41]
  6. Behavioral Neuroscience and Comparative Psychology
  7. Developmental Psychology
  8. Society for Personality and Social Psychology
  9. Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI)
  10. Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts
  11. Currently vacant – initially Abnormal Psychology and Psychotherapy, which joined Division 12 in 1946[40]
  12. Society of Clinical Psychology – established in 1945 with 482 members. Became the Division of Clinical and Abnormal Psychology in 1946, and took its current name in 1998. In 1962 it created clinical child psychology as its first section.[42]
  13. Society of Consulting Psychology - originally Division of Counseling and Guidance Psychologists[43]
  14. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
  15. Educational Psychology
  16. School Psychology – originally formed as the Division of School Psychologists in 1945, renamed in 1969[44]
  17. Society of Counseling Psychology
  18. Psychologists in Public Service
  19. Society for Military Psychology
  20. Adult Development and Aging
  21. Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology
  22. Rehabilitation Psychology
  23. Society for Consumer Psychology
  24. Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology
  25. Behavior Analysis
  26. Society for the History of Psychology
  27. Society for Community Research and Action: Division of Community Psychology
  28. Psychopharmacology and Substance Abuse
  29. Psychotherapy
  30. Society of Psychological Hypnosis
  31. State, Provincial and Territorial Psychological Association Affairs
  32. Society for Humanistic Psychology
  33. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities / Autism Spectrum Disorder
  34. Society for Environmental, Population and Conservation Psychology
  35. Society for the Psychology of Women
  36. Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality
  37. Society for Child and Family Policy and Practice
  38. Society for Health Psychology
  39. Psychoanalysis
  40. Society for Clinical Neuropsychology
  41. American Psychology-Law Society
  42. Psychologists in Independent Practice
  43. Society for Family Psychology
  44. Society for the Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity
  45. Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues
  46. Media Psychology
  47. Exercise and Sport Psychology
  48. Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology Division
  49. Society of Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy
  50. Society of Addiction Psychology
  51. Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinities
  52. International Psychology
  53. Society of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology
  54. Society of Pediatric Psychology
  55. Society for Prescribing Psychology
  56. Trauma Psychology – addresses issues of trauma with projects, working groups and via collaborations[45]

Sexual orientation and gender identity

[edit]

Cause of sexual orientation

[edit]

The APA states the following:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.[46]

In 1975, APA issued a supporting statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.[47][48]

Conversion therapy

[edit]

Conversion therapy, also called reparative therapy, is the practice of attempting to change the patient's sexual orientation to heterosexual. The American Psychological Association (APA) task force report on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation concluded that conversion therapy was "unlikely to be successful" and involved "some risk of harm".[49] In the task force's report, the APA recommends that therapists adopt an affirmative, supportive approach for clients who present for therapy to change their sexual orientation rather than attempting to convert their sexual orientation.[49]

The APA adopted a resolution in August 2009 stating that mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. The approval, by APA's governing Council of Representatives, came at APA's annual convention, during which a task force presented a report[50] that in part examined the efficacy of so-called "reparative therapy", or sexual orientation change efforts.

The "Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts" also advises that parents, guardians, young people, and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and instead seek psychotherapy, social support, and educational services "that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth."[51]

Same-sex marriage

[edit]

The APA adopted a resolution stating that it is unfair and discriminatory to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage and to all its attendant rights, benefits, and privileges. It also filed an amicus brief in the federal court case in which Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.[52] The APA later praised the decision and denied the existence of any "scientific justification" for a ban on same-sex marriage.[53]

In August 2011, the APA clarified their support of same-sex marriage in light of continued research suggesting that the same community benefits accepted as result of heterosexual marriage apply to same-sex couples as well. Clinton Anderson, then associate executive director of the APA and director of the Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns, said that, prior to this research, "We knew that marriage benefits heterosexual people in very significant ways, but we didn't know if that would be true for same-sex couples." Anderson also put forward the APA's view that merely allowing same-sex civil unions is an inadequate option: "Anything other than marriage is, in essence, a stigmatization of same-sex couples. Stigma does have negative impacts on people."[54]

Sex assignment

[edit]

In 2024, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and physicist Alan Sokal co-authored an op-ed in The Boston Globe criticizing the use of the terminology "sex assigned at birth" instead of "sex" by the APA, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dawkins and Sokal argued that sex is an "objective biological reality" that "is determined at conception and is then observed at birth," rather than assigned by a medical professional. Calling this "social constructionism gone amok", Dawkins and Sokal argued that "distort[ing] the scientific facts in the service of a social cause" risks undermining trust in medical institutions.[55]

APA internship crisis for graduate students

[edit]

The APA is the main accrediting body for U.S. clinical and counseling psychology doctoral training programs and internship sites.[56] APA-accredited clinical psychology PhD and PsyD programs typically require students to complete a one-year, full-time clinical internship in order to graduate (or a two-year, part-time internship). However, there is currently an "internship crisis" as defined by the American Psychological Association, in that approximately 25% of clinical psychology doctoral students do not match for internship each year.[57][58] This crisis has led many students (approximately 1,000 each year) to re-apply for internship, thus delaying graduation, or to complete an unaccredited internship, and often has many emotional and financial consequences.[59] Students who do not complete an APA-accredited internship in the U.S. are barred from certain employment settings, including VA hospitals, the military, and cannot get licensed in some states, such as Utah and Mississippi.[60][61] Additionally, some postdoctoral fellowships and other employment settings require or prefer an APA-accredited internship.[60] The APA has been criticized for not addressing this crisis adequately and many psychologists and graduate students have petitioned for the APA to take action by regulating graduate training programs.

Warfare and the use of torture

[edit]

A year after the establishment of the Human Resources Research Organization by the U.S. military in 1951, the CIA began funding numerous psychologists (and other scientists) in the development of psychological warfare methods under the supervision of APA treasurer Meredith Crawford. Donald O. Hebb, the APA president in 1960 who was awarded the APA Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award in 1961, defended the torture of research subjects, arguing that what was being studied was other nations' methods of brainwashing. Former APA president Martin Seligman spoke upon the invitation of the CIA on his animal experimentation where he shocked a dog unpredictably and repeatedly into total, helpless passivity. Former APA president Ronald F. Levant, upon visiting Guantanamo Bay, affirmed that psychologists were present during the torture of prisoners, arguing that their presence was to "add value and safeguards" to interrogations.[62] Former APA president Gerald Koocher after being exposed as instrumental in rewriting ethics code, threatened to sue whistlowers and suggested that they were struggling with unresolved grief and that the concerned psychologists were "opportunistic commentators masquerading as scholars."[63]

During the Iraq War, Amnesty International released a series of reports, calling attention to violations of the human rights of prisoners in Abu Ghraib Prison and American detention camps, and the role of the United States and the United Kingdom in enacting these abuses.[64][65][66] The reports called on the occupying powers to protect the human rights of any detained civilians by giving them a fair and timely trial, not detaining civilians arbitrarily, and treating all people ethically while in detention. Amnesty International also called for justice, by trying individual perpetrators of abuse for their crimes.[66]

Despite these reports, the Bush administration instituted "enhanced" interrogation techniques, stating publicly that reported abuses were isolated incidents, and not standard practice. Internal memos from the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed that an executive order by George W. Bush had sanctioned certain interrogation techniques, such as playing loud music, depriving prisoners of sleep, and stripping prisoners of their clothing.[67]

The CIA reportedly required involvement from health professionals to continue its practice of "enhanced" interrogations on detainees, to maintain the lawfulness of their practices. Psychiatrists and medical doctors were reluctant to participate in interrogations, however some psychologists participated.[68] A report by a group of psychologists alleges the same, implicating a number of APA officials as well.[69]

When it emerged that psychologists, as part of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team, were assisting interrogators in Guantánamo and other U.S. facilities on improving the effectiveness of the "enhanced interrogation techniques", the APA called on the U.S. government to prohibit the use of unethical interrogation techniques and labeled specific techniques as torture.[70] However, the APA declined to advise its members not to participate in such "enhanced interrogations".[71][72] Finally, after the scandal broke, In September 2008, the APA's members passed a resolution stating that psychologists may not work in settings where "persons are held outside, or in violation of, either international law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the U.S. Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights."[73] The resolution became official APA policy in February 2009. However, the APA has refused to sanction those members known to have participated in and, in some cases, designed abusive interrogation techniques used in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan interrogation centers.[74][75]

The APA directive was in contrast to the American Psychiatric Association ban in May 2006 of all direct participation in interrogations by psychiatrists,[76] and the American Medical Association ban in June 2006 of the direct participation in interrogations by physicians.[77] An independent panel of medical, military, ethics, education, public health, and legal professionals issued a comprehensive report in November 2013 that "charged that U.S. military and intelligence agencies directed doctors and psychologists working in U.S. military detention centers to violate standard ethical principles and medical standards to avoid infliction of harm."[78] One group of psychologists in particular, the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, has been very harsh in its criticism of the APA stance on its refusal to categorically prohibit members from participating in any phase of military interrogations. They stated their continuing disagreement with APA leadership in an open letter posted on their website on October 31, 2012, in which they reiterated their condemnation of torture and enhanced interrogation techniques, and called for the APA to require its members to refuse participation in military conducted interrogations of any kind.[79]

After the abuses were made public, the APA created a task force called Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) and released a report stating that the APA Code of Ethics applies to psychologists working in any setting, and that psychologists do not facilitate or participate in any degrading or cruel behavior, referring back to the APA's 1986 Resolution Against Torture. The report also called on psychologists to report any suspected or observed inhumane treatment to the appropriate authorities and obey federal law.[80]

Amending the Ethics Code

[edit]

In February 2010, the APA's Council of Representatives voted to amend the association's Ethics Code[81] to make clear that its standards can never be interpreted to justify or defend violating human rights. There is a history of similar issues with the Canadian Psychological Association. Following are the two relevant ethical standards from the APA Ethics Code, with the amended language shown in bold:

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. 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 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.[82]

In its 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, the APA condemns the use of any of the following practices by military interrogators trying to elicit anti-terrorism information from detainees, on the ground that "there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether induced by a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, that may be invoked as a justification."[73]

Hoffman report

[edit]

In November 2014, the APA ordered an independent review into whether it cooperated with the government's use of torture of prisoners during the George W. Bush administration, naming Chicago attorney David H. Hoffman to conduct the review.[83] On July 2, 2015, a 542-page report was issued to the special committee of the board of directors of the APA relating to ethics guidelines, national security interrogations, and torture.[84] The report concluded that the APA secretly collaborated with the Bush administration to bolster a legal and ethical justification for the torture of prisoners.[85] Furthermore, the report stated that the association's ethics director Stephen Behnke and others had "colluded with important Department of Defense officials to have the APA issue loose, high-level ethical guidelines that did not constrain" the interrogation of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay. The association's "principal motive in doing so was to align APA and curry favor with DOD."[86] An APA official said that ethics director Stephen Behnke had been "removed from his position as a result of the report" and indicated that other firings or sanctions might follow.[86]

Ultimately, the findings of the Hoffman Report revealed that the APA had an unfair bias towards prisoners due to the organization's relationship with the federal government. This resulted in a tidal wave of consequences for the APA. On July 14, 2015, the APA announced the retirement of its CEO, Norman B. Anderson, effective the end of 2015, and of Deputy Chief Executive Officer Michael Honaker, effective August 15, 2015, and the resignation of Rhea K. Farberman, APA's executive director for public and member communication. Anderson had been CEO since 2003.[87][88]

Ban on involvement

[edit]

For at least a decade, dissident psychologists within and outside the APA, including the group WithholdAPAdues,[89] had protested the involvement of psychologists "in interrogations at CIA black sites and Guantánamo." Prior to the release of the Hoffman report, which undermined the APA's repeated denials and showed that some APA leaders were complicit in torture, the dissidents were ignored or ridiculed.[90][91]

On August 7, 2015, just weeks following the release of the Hoffman report, the APA council of representatives met at the association's 123rd annual convention in Toronto, Ontario. At that meeting, the APA council passed Resolution 23B, which implemented the 2008 membership vote to remove psychologists from settings that operate outside international law, and banning the participation of psychologists in unlawful interrogations. With 156 votes in favor and only one vote against, the resolution passed with the near unanimous approval of council members.[92] The adoption of Resolution 23B aligned the APA's policy with that of the American Psychiatric Association and that of the American Medical Association by prohibiting psychologists from participating in interrogations deemed illegal by the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture.[91]

Implementation of the 2008 Membership Vote to Remove Psychologists from All Settings That Operate Outside of International Law (NBI #23B)

Council is asked to approve the substitute main motion below that includes a revised resolution with a new title, Resolution to Amend the 2006 and 2013 Council Resolutions to Clarify the Roles of Psychologists Related to Interrogation and Detainee Welfare in National Security Settings, to Further Implement the 2008 Petition Resolution, and to Safeguard Against Acts of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in All Settings. This resolution further aligns the APA policy definition for "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (in the 2006 and 2013 Council resolutions) with the United Nations (UN) Convention Against Torture and ensures that the definition applies broadly to all individuals and settings; offers APA as a supportive resource for ethical practice for psychologists, including those in military and national security roles; prohibits psychologists from participating in national security interrogations; clarifies the intended application of the 2008 petition resolution... and calls for APA letters to be sent to federal officials to inform them of these policy changes and clarifications of existing APA policy.[93]

The ban will not "prohibit psychologists from working with the police or prisons in criminal law enforcement interrogations".[92]

Class action lawsuit by members claiming deceptive dues assessments

[edit]

In 2013 a class action lawsuit was brought against APA on behalf of approximately 60,000 of its 122,000 members who were licensed clinicians. Those members paid an additional $140 practice assessment fee as part of their membership dues every year beginning in 2001 to fund the lobbying arm of APA, the APA Practice Organization (APAPO). The lawsuit accused APA of using deceptive means by representing that the assessment was mandatory for APA membership even though payment of the assessment was only required for membership in the APAPO. In 2015 APA settled the case by establishing a $9.02 million settlement fund to be used to pay claims made by members of APA who paid the practice assessment, as well as attorneys' fees and certain other costs. APA agreed to change its policies to make clear that the APAPO membership dues are not required for membership in APA.[94][95][96][97][98]

Animal research

[edit]

Currently, the APA enforces ethical standards to protect nonhuman animal subjects from unnecessary harm during the research process. Some of the requirements for using nonhuman animals in research include: proper justification of the research, maintenance and inspection of appropriate housing for the animals, minimizing discomfort and stress whenever possible, and preference of noninvasive measures.[99]

Despite these guidelines, however, many advocacy groups exist to either reduce or eliminate animal research, arguing that it is unethical to capture animals and subject them to research procedures.[100][101][102]

Evidence-based practice

[edit]

A current controversy among mental health professionals involves the use of the terms evidence based practice or evidence based treatment. Proponents of the evidence-based treatments movement argue that it is unethical to administer a therapeutic intervention with questionable research support when another treatment's effectiveness has been demonstrated for the client's condition, particularly when the intervention in question is potentially harmful (such as conversion therapy). Proponents argue that administration of an empirically questionable treatment violates the general Principle A of the ethical principles of psychologist: Beneficence and nonmaleficence (or "do no harm").[103]

Critics of the evidence-based practice movement note ethical concerns regarding the research and practice of evidenced-based treatments themselves. Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of a range of treatments, including psychoanalytic and psychodynamic therapies,[104] evidence-based practice is a term now associated only with short-term, manualized treatments which have been evaluated in randomized control trials. However, focusing only on randomized control trials is problematic when determining treatment efficacy. Among problems associated with this approach, one issue is that such trials are conducted on highly select patient populations. Thus, the relevance of these trials is unclear because real-world patients might differ from patients in such trials.[105] Furthermore, while the public may assume evidence-based is synonymous for "likely to help", research studies indicate that most patients do not show meaningful improvement in so-called evidence-based treatments.[106]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
The American Psychological Association (APA) is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychologists in the United States, founded on July 8, 1892, at by and a group of early leaders in the emerging field of to advance the discipline as a rather than a profession. Headquartered in , the APA currently comprises approximately 172,000 members, including researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students engaged in applying psychological knowledge. Its core mission is to promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological to benefit society and improve lives, through activities such as publishing peer-reviewed journals, developing ethical guidelines, and influencing policy with evidence-based advocacy. Among its notable achievements, the APA has standardized citation and formatting practices widely used in academic writing (known as ) and contributed to the establishment of psychology's role in areas like , , and during events such as World Wars I and II. However, the organization has encountered substantial controversies, including the 2015 Hoffman Report's findings that APA officials colluded with the U.S. Department of Defense to enable psychologists' involvement in abusive techniques post-9/11, compromising ethical standards; criticisms of ideologically driven guidelines, such as those on and violence-linked media, that prioritize theoretical frameworks over empirical data; and documented left-wing in APA press releases since 2000, reflecting broader institutional tendencies in academia to favor certain political perspectives at the expense of balanced scientific inquiry.

Overview

Founding Principles and Mission

The American Psychological Association (APA) was founded on July 8, 1892, at in , by a group of approximately 30 psychologists, with elected as its first president and 31 charter members. The initiative stemmed from dissatisfaction among American scholars with existing philosophical associations, prompting a focus on "the new "—an experimental, laboratory-based discipline inspired by Wilhelm Wundt's work in Germany and emphasizing empirical methods over introspective or metaphysical approaches. Hall, who had studied under Wundt, envisioned the organization as a platform for advancing as an independent science, distinct from or . At inception, the APA's principles centered on promoting rigorous scientific inquiry into mental processes through experimentation, observation, and quantitative analysis, as evidenced by its early annual meetings featuring addresses on topics like the "History and Prospects of in America," delivered by Hall in December 1892. The association prioritized fostering research collaborations, standardizing methods, and disseminating findings via proceedings, with an initial budget supporting basic scholarly activities rather than professional advocacy or public application. This scientific orientation reflected the founders' commitment to establishing psychology's legitimacy within academia, prioritizing causal mechanisms of behavior and cognition over normative or therapeutic concerns. While the APA's mission has since broadened to include professional practice—particularly after —the founding framework remained narrowly dedicated to scientific advancement, as articulated in early bylaws and activities that excluded clinicians and emphasized laboratory science. The contemporary mission, "to promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological science and knowledge to benefit society and improve lives," retains echoes of this origin but incorporates applied goals shaped by later institutional expansions. Historical analyses note that this evolution introduced tensions between pure research and profession-serving functions, with the original ethos providing a benchmark for evaluating subsequent shifts toward advocacy-influenced priorities.

Membership Demographics and Requirements

Membership in the American Psychological Association is categorized by educational and professional qualifications to ensure alignment with the organization's focus on advancing as a and profession. Full members must hold a doctoral degree in or a related field from a regionally accredited or an equivalent program recognized by APA, typically conferring eligibility for licensure as a in many jurisdictions. Associate members require completion of at least two years of accredited graduate study in or possession of a in the field, allowing participation without full voting in certain matters. Student affiliates encompass undergraduates pursuing coursework and graduate students enrolled in relevant programs, providing access to resources like journals and networking without doctoral prerequisites. Additional categories include status for retired members and life status for those aged 65 or older with 25 years of cumulative membership, offering reduced or waived dues. Full membership dues are structured progressively for early-career professionals, starting at $99 annually for the first three years, then increasing gradually over subsequent years to a base rate of $274 per year. Key benefits include access to publications such as American Psychologist and Monitor on Psychology, 25% discounts on APA books, reduced rates on journals and continuing education (with unlimited CE options saving over $250 annually), discounted convention registration, career resources via PsycCareers, networking opportunities through 54 divisions, voting rights in governance, and support for advocacy efforts advancing psychology. The value of these benefits is subjective and depends on individual utilization; professionals who actively engage with conventions, continuing education, journals, and networking often find substantial return on dues through discounts and professional support. Demographic data on APA membership, drawn from self-reported surveys, reveal a composition historically skewed toward individuals with advanced degrees in clinical, counseling, and research . In , across membership statuses, approximately 41% identified as and the remainder primarily , with women comprising over 65% of associates but under 60% of full members and fellows, reflecting gendered patterns in career progression and specialization. Racial and ethnic breakdowns showed members dominating at over 80%, with Asian members at 3-5%, /African American at around 2-3%, and smaller proportions for other groups including American Indian (under 1%) and multiracial identifiers. These figures align closely with broader U.S. trends, where 83% were in 2019 per -linked analyses. Recent developments indicate shifts toward greater diversity, with membership increasingly incorporating racial/ethnic minorities and sustaining growth in representation annually. Overall membership expanded by 10.2% in 2024, achieving the highest totals in APA's , driven by gains across categories including students and early-career professionals. Such trends may stem from expanded graduate training pipelines and targeted recruitment, though the organization remains predominantly composed of U.S.-based doctoral-level practitioners and academics.

Governance and Organizational Framework

The American Psychological Association (APA) operates under a governance structure defined by its Bylaws and Association Rules, which establish key units including the Council of Representatives, , elected officers, standing boards, and committees to ensure democratic oversight and operational balance. This framework separates legislative authority from executive functions, with the Council holding ultimate policy-making power while the manages day-to-day governance. The Council of Representatives functions as APA's primary legislative body, exercising full authority over the association's affairs, funds, and policies, except as limited by its and Bylaws; it may also initiate reviews of actions by any board, committee, division, or affiliate. Its composition includes elected representatives from APA's 54 divisions—allocated proportionally based on each division's voting membership size pursuant to Bylaws Article V, Section 7—one representative from each state, provincial, and territorial psychological association (SPTAs), and all members of the . Division representatives are elected internally by division members, while SPTA representatives are selected by their respective associations, fostering representation across scientific, professional, and regional interests. The serves as the executive governing body for APA and its affiliated APA Services Inc., a 501(c)(6) entity focused on , comprising 19 members: the five principal officers (President, President-elect, Past President, Recording Secretary, and Treasurer), the non-voting Chief Staff Officer (CEO), six members-at-large elected directly by the general membership for staggered three-year terms, the Chair and Chair-elect of the Leadership Team, the Past Chair of the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS), and one public member. Board members-at-large elections occur periodically, such as the 2025 cycle opening August 1 and closing September 15, to maintain broad input from APA's approximately 157,000 members. The Board oversees standing boards and committees, which report to the and address specialized areas like professional practice, educational affairs, and scientific programs. Operationally, APA's framework includes an Executive Leadership Team under CEO Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, directing 13 major units such as the Executive Office and four core directorates—for , , and —along with support functions in , , , and business integration. Divisions operate with autonomy in their subspecialties, subject to APA-wide rules, filing bylaws and details centrally to align with overarching policies. This structure, refined over time including post-2013 streamlining efforts, balances member-driven input with efficient decision-making amid APA's growth into a multifaceted organization.

Historical Evolution

Establishment and Early Development (1892–World War II)

The American Psychological Association was founded in July 1892 at in , with elected as its first president. The initial membership comprised 31 charter members, predominantly academic psychologists seeking to establish the discipline as a distinct independent of and introspective methods. The organization's first annual meeting convened on December 27, 1892, at the , featuring Hall's presidential address on the historical development and future trajectory of . Governance from the outset included a council responsible for decision-making between meetings, supported by an executive committee. Membership expanded gradually in the early decades, reflecting the nascent status of psychology in American academia: 125 members by 1899, 308 by 1916, and 530 by 1930. The APA's primary orientation remained experimental and theoretical, prioritizing rigorous scientific inquiry over practical applications, though figures like Hall promoted child study and evolutionary perspectives on development. Key intellectual contributions emerged through affiliated journals, such as the , launched in 1894 by and J. Mark Baldwin to disseminate theoretical advancements across psychological subfields. By the interwar period, the APA began accommodating applied interests; in 1926, associate membership was introduced for non-academic practitioners, fostering inclusion of those in education, industry, and clinical settings. This policy spurred growth among associates, reaching 2,079 by 1940 alongside 664 full members, signaling a gradual shift toward broader professional utility without diluting the scientific core. The association also initiated Psychological Abstracts in 1927 to index global research, enhancing its role in knowledge dissemination. In response to rising European authoritarianism, the APA established the Committee on Displaced Foreign Psychologists in 1938 to aid refugee scholars—many fleeing Nazi persecution—with U.S. academic positions, funding, and acclimation support. The 1939 annual convention at addressed psychology's implications for and conflict prevention, underscoring emerging geopolitical awareness among members amid impending global war. These efforts positioned the APA to leverage psychological expertise for national needs as erupted in 1939.

Postwar Expansion and Clinical Psychology's Rise

Following , the American Psychological Association experienced rapid organizational and membership expansion, driven by heightened national demand for services amid returning veterans' psychological needs and federal initiatives like the . Membership surged from 4,183 in to 30,839 by , reflecting a 630 percent increase fueled by expanded training opportunities through the Veterans Administration and the newly established . This growth marked what contemporaries termed the " of ," with APA facilitating the profession's shift from predominantly experimental research toward applied domains, particularly clinical practice. A pivotal reorganization in 1944–1945 introduced APA's divisional structure, approving 19 specialized divisions to accommodate diverse interests, with clinical and personnel (later emerging as the most populous. Division 12, focused on , formed through the merger of earlier groups and quickly became central, as wartime experiences—where psychologists conducted assessments, therapies, and personnel selections—validated applied roles and spurred postwar professionalization. In 1946, APA established the American Board of Examiners in Professional Psychology to certify practitioners, addressing the influx of trainees and standardizing credentials amid booming demand. The 1949 Boulder Conference, sponsored by APA and the U.S. Public Health Service, formalized the scientist-practitioner model for clinical training, emphasizing integrated research and competencies in graduate programs. This framework, building on the 1947 Shakow Report's recommendations, responded to criticisms of inadequate clinical preparation in prewar education and positioned clinical psychologists as key providers in VA hospitals and community settings, where caseloads swelled due to untreated war-related traumas. By the 1950s, clinical psychology had become one of the fastest-growing U.S. professions, with APA's advocacy securing federal funding that trained thousands, though this expansion also intensified internal debates over science versus practice priorities.

Contemporary Shifts and Institutional Challenges (1980s–Present)

During the 1980s and 1990s, the APA experienced significant organizational growth, with membership expanding amid a shift toward greater involvement in and on social issues, including resolutions against and support for applying psychological expertise to legislative matters. This period saw the APA addressing demographic changes in the profession, such as increasing diversity in membership, while navigating internal tensions that led to the formation of splinter organizations like the American Psychological Society in 1988, prompted by dissatisfaction with the APA's perceived slow response to minority concerns and clinical practice priorities. These developments reflected a broader evolution from pure orientation to applied and policy-focused activities, though critics later argued this diluted scientific rigor in favor of activist stances. A major institutional challenge emerged in the 2000s with controversies over the APA's ethical guidelines on psychologist involvement in interrogations, where an independent review in 2015 (the Hoffman Report) documented that APA officials colluded with Department of Defense representatives to craft ambiguous policies that enabled participation in abusive practices, including those later classified as , while publicly maintaining opposition to it. The APA's PENS (Psychological Ethics and ) task force in 2005 was found to have prioritized collaboration over independent ethical oversight, leading to a 2015 apology from the organization, policy reforms prohibiting member involvement in such interrogations, and leadership resignations. This scandal highlighted conflicts between and institutional incentives, eroding trust and prompting lawsuits from affected psychologists. The 2010s brought the to the forefront, exposing systemic issues in ; a 2015 multi-lab effort replicated only 39% of 100 high-profile studies published in APA and other journals, attributing failures to factors like questionable research practices, small sample sizes, and favoring novel results. In response, the APA endorsed practices, including preregistration of studies and , and its journals implemented stricter statistical guidelines, though implementation varied and critics noted persistent incentives for non-replicable findings amid academic pressures. This crisis underscored challenges in maintaining empirical standards within an institution increasingly influenced by applied and policy demands. More recently, from the onward, the APA has faced accusations of politicization, with critics documenting a left-leaning ideological tilt in policy statements on topics like , often prioritizing advocacy over evidence-based neutrality, as evidenced by resolutions on issues that some members viewed as divisive along political lines. Internal , including from conservative-leaning psychologists, has highlighted issues, such as the marginalization of heterodox views in APA-endorsed and guidelines, reflecting broader patterns of conformity in academia where empirical challenges to prevailing narratives on topics like and face resistance. These tensions have contributed to membership debates and calls for reforms to restore science-first priorities amid declining public confidence in psychological institutions.

Leadership and Divisions

Presidents and Key Figures

The presidency of the American Psychological Association rotates annually, with the president-elect serving one year before assuming the role to guide policy, advocacy, and scientific initiatives. The position originated at the organization's founding on July 8, 1892, at , where was elected as the inaugural president by the 31 charter members, emphasizing experimental psychology's emergence as a distinct science. Early presidents shaped the discipline's academic foundations amid tensions between introspectionist and behaviorist approaches. William James, serving in 1894 and again in 1904, advanced psychology's status as an empirical science through his seminal (1890), influencing functionalism and . , the first woman president in 1905, contributed to self-psychology and paired-associates learning despite Harvard's refusal to award her a PhD equivalent to male peers'. , president in 1921 and the first U.S. woman to earn a psychology PhD (1894, Cornell), integrated animal with human in her The Animal Mind (1908), bridging and . Mid-20th-century presidents navigated postwar professionalization and applied psychology's growth. Ernest R. Hilgard, president in 1949, advanced research and learning theory, authoring influential texts like Hypnosis in the Relief of Pain (1975, revised 1983) and contributing to APA's reorganization merging scientific and practitioner elements in 1945. Carl R. Rogers, serving in 1947, pioneered client-centered therapy emphasizing empathy and unconditional positive regard, foundational to and evidenced in controlled studies of therapeutic outcomes. Later presidents addressed diversity, ethics, and interdisciplinary integration. Anne Anastasi, president in 1972, refined psychological testing standards, critiquing misuse in her Psychological Testing (1954, multiple editions), which stressed validity and cultural fairness based on psychometric data. Ronald F. Levant, in 2005, developed the "normative male alexithymia" hypothesis, linking gender socialization to emotional inexpressivity via empirical scales, and promoted men's mental health interventions. Richard M. Suinn, the first Asian American president in 1999, launched recruitment programs for ethnic minority students, increasing underrepresented enrollment in psychology graduate programs by targeted outreach. Key non-presidential figures include , who established the first psychological clinic in 1896 and coined "," influencing APA's later practitioner divisions despite not holding formal leadership. , though never president, shaped APA policy through research, advising on education and programs with verifiable applications in experimental settings. These leaders collectively steered APA from a small academic society to a 157,000-member entity by 2023, balancing scientific rigor with professional advocacy.

Specialized Divisions and Affiliates

The American Psychological Association comprises 54 specialized divisions, established as member-organized interest groups to advance scientific and professional activities in distinct subfields or thematic domains of psychology. These divisions emerged systematically after 1944, when 19 were initially approved to reflect growing sectional interests, such as clinical and personnel (now , amid postwar professional expansion. Each division operates semi-autonomously under volunteer-elected leadership—including a president, , and treasurer—facilitating targeted networking, , journal publications, and while contributing to APA's broader through representatives on the of Representatives. Membership in any division requires separate affiliation fees beyond APA dues and extends to non-members, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration across approximately 172,000 total APA affiliates. Divisions span foundational subdisciplines like experimental, social, and , alongside applied and topical foci such as aging, trauma, and ethnic minority issues. For instance, Division 1 (Society for General Psychology) addresses overarching theoretical and methodological concerns; Division 2 (Society for the Teaching of Psychology) emphasizes pedagogical innovations and educator training; Division 12 (Society of ) advances evidence-based assessment, intervention, and training standards; Division 14 (Society for ) examines workplace dynamics, employee selection, and organizational development; and Division 16 (School Psychology) concentrates on child assessment, intervention, and educational policy. This structure enables members to influence specialty-specific policies, , and research dissemination, though divisions vary in size, activity levels, and resource allocation based on member engagement. Beyond divisions, APA affiliates with companion entities to amplify its mission in funding, , and demographic representation. The American Psychological Foundation (APF), established in 1951 as an independent grant-making body, supports empirical investigations into human behavior and societal applications through awards totaling millions annually, such as the Gold Medal Awards for life achievement in . APA Services, Inc., formed as the successor to the APA Practice Organization, functions as a 501(c)(6) for licensure, , and practice standards, representing over 120,000 practitioner members in legal and legislative arenas. Additionally, APA collaborates with ethnic minority psychological associations—representing Native American, Asian American/, Black, and groups—to promote culturally competent and equity in psychological services. State, provincial, and international psychological associations further affiliate with APA, coordinating on regional regulation and global standards as of 2025.

Publications and Standards

Core Journals and Databases

The American Psychological Association (APA) maintains proprietary databases that form the backbone of psychological literature access and discovery. APA , established in 1967, serves as the premier abstracting and indexing resource, encompassing more than 5 million records from 2,319 journals, books, dissertations, and technical reports spanning , behavioral sciences, and fields, with coverage dating to the mid-19th century. Its system and advanced search filters facilitate targeted retrieval of empirical studies, theoretical works, and applied research. APA PsycArticles complements by providing full-text access to over 114,000 articles from 119 peer-reviewed journals, predominantly APA-owned or affiliated, with content extending back to 1894 and emphasizing high-impact research in core psychological domains such as clinical, cognitive, and . Supporting databases include APA PsycBooks, which digitizes over 60,000 chapters and 4,000 titles in and related areas, and APA PsycTests, cataloging more than 55,000 psychological assessments and measures. These resources are unified under the APA PsycNet platform, which offers integrated searching, citation tracking, and usage analytics for institutional and individual subscribers. APA publishes approximately 90 peer-reviewed journals, many in collaboration with its divisions, covering foundational and specialized areas of psychology from experimental paradigms to professional practice. The flagship American Psychologist, founded in 1946, features integrative articles, policy analyses, and commentaries on psychological science, education, and societal applications, reaching a broad audience of researchers and practitioners. Prominent core journals include Psychological Review (established 1894), which advances theoretical models and conceptual frameworks in scientific psychology through rigorous evaluation of empirical foundations, and Psychological Bulletin, renowned for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that aggregate evidence across studies to identify causal patterns and knowledge gaps. The Journal of Experimental Psychology series—encompassing sub-journals on general, learning/memory/cognition, human perception/performance, and animal learning/cognition—reports controlled experiments probing basic mechanisms of behavior and mind, with origins tracing to 1917. Journal of Applied Psychology (1917) bridges laboratory findings with real-world contexts, such as and personnel selection, influencing evidence-based practices in industry and policy. These outlets prioritize empirical rigor and replicability, though their peer-review processes have faced scrutiny for variability in handling null results and interdisciplinary perspectives.

APA Style and Citation Guidelines

The APA Style, developed by the American Psychological Association, provides standardized guidelines for writing, formatting, and citing sources in scholarly publications, primarily in and social sciences, to ensure clarity, precision, and consistency in communication. It originated in 1929 when a committee of psychologists, anthropologists, and business managers published an article in Psychological Bulletin outlining uniform procedures for article preparation and reference listing to simplify scientific reporting amid diverse practices. The first formal Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association appeared in 1952 as a 61-page supplement to Psychological Bulletin, expanding on these rules and establishing a foundational framework that has evolved through seven editions to address advances in publishing, technology, and inclusive expression. The current seventh edition, released in October 2019 and effective from 2020, introduces updates such as streamlined reference examples, expanded guidance on bias-free language (e.g., using singular "they" for gender neutrality), journal article reporting standards for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research, and mechanics like a single space after punctuation—reflecting adaptations to digital word processing and modern scholarly norms. Core formatting elements include double-spaced text, 1-inch margins, a readable font (e.g., 12-pt Times New Roman or 11-pt Calibri), and structured paper components: a title page with running head (omitted in student papers), abstract, main body with headings, and references section. These conventions promote accessible, unbiased presentation, though the emphasis on inclusive language in recent editions has drawn scrutiny for potentially prioritizing ideological preferences over neutral descriptivism in some applications. Citation guidelines in APA Style employ an author-date system to credit sources efficiently and deter , balancing in-text brevity with comprehensive reference details. In-text citations typically follow the format (Author, Year), placed immediately after the referenced idea—e.g., for a direct quote, include page number as (Author, Year, p. XX)—with narrative variants like "Author (Year) stated...". Multiple authors are handled with "et al." after the first for three or more (e.g., Smith et al., 2020), and no citation is needed for but required for specific data or interpretations. The reference list, appearing at the document's end on a new page titled "References" in bold and centered, uses a hanging indent (0.5 inches), by first author's surname, and DOIs or URLs where available for retrievability. Journal articles follow: , A. A., , B. B., & , C. C. (Year). of article. Title of Periodical, volume(issue), pages. https://doi.org/xx.xxx; books: , A. A. (Year). Title of work. Publisher; websites: , A. A. (Year, Month Date). of page. Site Name. URL. The seventh edition adds over 100 new examples, including for podcasts, , and datasets, to accommodate digital sources while maintaining emphasis on , date, , and source elements. This system facilitates verification and has sold over 15 million copies of manuals since 1952, underscoring its dominance in across disciplines.

Ethical Codes and Professional Standards

The American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and (hereafter, Ethics Code) establishes foundational guidelines for ethical practice, research, and education in . First adopted in 1953 amid psychologists' expanding public roles post-World War II, the code has undergone multiple revisions to address emerging professional challenges, with the current version adopted August 21, 2002, effective June 1, 2003. Amendments in 2010 clarified standards on fairness in fees and multiple relationships via electronic means, while 2017 updates refined provisions on delegation to others and in assessments. The code applies to APA members, students, and affiliates, emphasizing protection of public welfare, scientific integrity, and professional accountability, though it lacks direct legal enforceability and serves primarily as an internal disciplinary tool. The Ethics Code comprises a , five aspirational general principles, and ten enforceable ethical standards. The principles—beneficence and nonmaleficence (maximizing benefits while minimizing harm), and responsibility (upholding trust through responsible actions), (promoting accuracy and truthfulness), (ensuring fairness and equity in access and treatment), and respect for people's rights and dignity (honoring , , and individual differences)—offer broad ethical ideals rather than binding rules. In contrast, the standards provide specific, enforceable directives across key domains:
  • Resolving Ethical Issues: Psychologists must familiarize themselves with the , seek consultation when facing dilemmas, and report violations by others only with reasonable basis.
  • Competence: Services must occur within boundaries of expertise, with ongoing maintenance of knowledge via ; psychologists recognize limits in areas like or new technologies.
  • Human Relations: Prohibits , , exploitation, or harmful multiple relationships; requires avoiding conflicts of interest in forensic or supervisory roles.
  • Privacy and Confidentiality: Mandates safeguarding client information, obtaining for disclosures, and discussing limits (e.g., mandatory reporting) upfront.
  • Advertising and Public Statements: Demands truthful representations of qualifications and avoids misleading claims about services or outcomes.
  • Record Keeping and Fees: Requires secure records for at least 3–7 years (varying by context) and fair, transparent billing without exploitative practices.
  • Education and Training: Ensures accurate descriptions of programs, fair evaluation of trainees, and protection against exploitation in teaching settings.
  • Research and Publication: Demands institutional review board approval, , accurate reporting of data (including null results), and proper authorship credit; prohibits fabrication or .
  • Assessment: Limits use to validated tools, ensures competent interpretation, and obtains client consent while protecting test security.
  • Therapy: Requires clear boundaries, on risks/benefits, documentation of termination decisions, and avoidance of sexual intimacies with current or recent clients.
Enforcement occurs through the APA Ethics Committee, an elected body of 12 members that investigates complaints under the Rules and Procedures of the APA Ethics Committee (last revised ). Procedures include initial screening, possible "show cause" orders for members to explain conduct, and formal investigations focusing on serious violations like harm to clients or research misconduct; outcomes range from dismissal to private reprimand, public , or membership expulsion, with appeals available. The committee handled 80–100 cases annually in recent years, prioritizing education alongside discipline, though sanctions apply only to APA membership and do not revoke state licenses, which fall under separate regulatory boards. Beyond the Ethics Code, APA promulgates advisory professional standards and guidelines to support . These include specialty guidelines (e.g., for , adopted 2013) and clinical practice guidelines (e.g., for PTSD treatment, updated 2017 based on meta-analyses of randomized trials showing efficacy of and prolonged exposure). Such documents, developed via expert consensus and empirical review, inform competence standards but lack enforceability; they evolve with research, as seen in updates incorporating and longitudinal outcome data.

Programs and Initiatives

Research Funding and Support

The American Psychological Association supports psychological research primarily through its affiliated American Psychological Foundation (APF) and the Science Directorate, which administer small-scale grants targeted at students, early-career researchers, and innovative projects addressing societal challenges. APF functions as a grant-making entity, distributing funds derived from donations and endowments to advance applied psychology, with an emphasis on interventions that improve mental health outcomes and solve social problems. These efforts complement APA's broader advocacy for federal research appropriations, though direct APA funding remains modest compared to government sources. Key programs include the APA Dissertation Research Award, which provides up to 15 grants of $5,000 each annually to doctoral candidates whose work exemplifies rigorous scientific inquiry in , with deadlines typically in early fall. Early-career support features APF seed grants and fellowships, such as those up to $3,500 from the Eyde Fund for research honoring specific legacies in assessment and methodology, aimed at postdoctoral and assistant professors. The APF Visionary Grants fund pilot projects using psychological science for social impact, including areas like rural for first responders via the John and Polly Sparks Grant, with awards varying by program and deadlines extending into late 2025. APA's Science Directorate facilitates access to external by maintaining a database of over 600 opportunities from various sponsors and for sustained federal investments in psychological science at agencies like the (NIH) and (NSF). This advocacy seeks predictable budgets to counter fluctuations in congressional appropriations, prioritizing empirical research over ideologically driven initiatives, though APF grants often favor equity-focused topics such as mental health disparities, reflecting the organization's institutional priorities amid documented left-leaning tendencies in academic psychology. Specialized divisions, like Division 18 (Psychologists in ), offer targeted research grants up to $1,000 for graduate students and early-career professionals studying applications, with annual deadlines in spring or summer. Overall, these mechanisms emphasize accessible, incremental support rather than large-scale , enabling foundational work but reliant on supplemental federal resources for broader impact.

Awards and Recognition Programs

The American Psychological Association administers numerous awards and recognition programs to honor exceptional contributions to psychological , professional practice, , and public advocacy. These initiatives, often presented annually at the APA convention, recognize achievements at various career stages, from early-career professionals to lifetime accomplishments, with criteria emphasizing empirical impact, theoretical advancement, and practical application. Funding for some awards comes jointly from APA and the American Psychological Foundation (APF), underscoring their role in fostering ongoing excellence in the discipline. Key programs include the APA/APF Awards cycle, which features discipline-specific honors such as the Gold Medal Award for Impact in —relaunched in 2022 from its prior iteration as the Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement. This award celebrates transformative work across subfields; 2025 recipients encompassed Riana E. Anderson for applied research on racial stress interventions, Wilma A. Bainbridge for behavioral and cognitive neuroscience insights into , and Peter E. Clayson for individual differences in psychophysiology. Other categories within this program cover early career distinctions in areas like clinical and advocacy, typically awarding $1,000 stipends alongside public acknowledgment. Scientific recognition is highlighted by the for Distinguished Scientific Contributions, bestowed for pivotal theoretical or empirical advances in basic psychological research, such as foundational studies in or . Complementing this, the for Distinguished Contributions to in the salutes singular or cumulative efforts elevating psychology's societal role, including policy influence or crisis response applications. Practice-oriented honors, like the for Distinguished Contributions to Independent Practice, spotlight exemplary independent clinicians advancing ethical standards and service delivery. Early-career programs, such as the Outstanding Early Career Awards sponsored through divisions like Division 52 (International ), provide $200 stipends, convention features, and one-year gratis memberships to emerging scholars demonstrating promise in cross-cultural or global psychological work. APA's internal Recognition Program further acknowledges organizational staff via awards like the Raymond D. Fowler Award for executive leadership, Core Values Award for embodying institutional principles, and Service All Star for operational excellence, with nominations open year-round. While APA coordinates these central efforts, its 54 divisions extend specialized recognitions tailored to niche areas, such as trauma or women's , amplifying field-wide incentives for rigorous inquiry and application.

Workplace and Public Health Advocacy

The American Psychological Association (APA) advocates for the integration of psychological principles into workplace policies to enhance employee well-being and productivity, drawing on empirical surveys and guidelines derived from organizational psychology research. Through its annual Work in America surveys, APA assesses factors such as job stress, , and support systems; the 2023 edition aligned with the U.S. Surgeon General's framework, identifying essentials like safety, compensation, work-life harmony, and organizational support, while emphasizing worker voice and equity as core to outcomes. APA's 2022 Work and Well-Being Survey reported that 71% of U.S. workers perceived greater employer focus on compared to prior years, attributing this to post-pandemic shifts, though persistent barriers like stigma and access persisted. APA promotes specific interventions for employers, including auditing employee assistance programs (EAPs), providing training, and fostering flexible work arrangements, as detailed in its 2022 resources on developing supportive policies. These efforts aim to reduce and turnover linked to untreated issues, with APA citing evidence that proactive normalizes discussions and improves morale. In response to the U.S. General's 2022 advisory on workplace , APA endorsed priorities like expanded coverage, equity-focused training, and anti-discrimination measures, arguing these yield measurable returns in performance and retention. In , APA supports federal policies expanding access to psychological services, including interprofessional training for psychologists in health systems to address population-level needs. A key achievement was APA's role in advancing the 2024 parity rule under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which imposes new enforcement requirements starting in 2026 to ensure equitable coverage for behavioral health versus physical health services. APA's extends to equipping employers and public entities with tools for response and prevention, such as guidelines for integrating work-related stressors into broader strategies, though implementation varies by and empirical validation of outcomes.

Controversies

Involvement in Interrogations and National Security Ethics

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the American Psychological Association (APA) established the Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) task force in 2005 to address psychologists' roles in interrogations. The PENS report concluded that psychologists could ethically participate in such interrogations provided they adhered to the , emphasizing their potential to mitigate harm and ensure humane treatment, though critics contended the guidelines were ambiguously worded to permit involvement in coercive techniques. A 2015 independent review, known as the Hoffman Report and commissioned by the APA, revealed that APA officials, including those in the ethics office, had collaborated with Department of Defense (DoD) personnel between 2001 and 2004 to craft permissive ethical guidelines that aligned with military interrogation practices, including at sites like Guantanamo Bay. The report documented over 500 interactions between APA and DoD, where APA leadership prioritized organizational relationships with national security entities over stringent ethical oversight, effectively shielding psychologists from prohibitions on techniques later classified as torture, such as and . While no direct APA-CIA collusion was found, the review highlighted how APA's internal task forces obfuscated ethical language to facilitate psychologists' advisory roles in "enhanced interrogation" programs. Specific instances included psychologists like John Leso, who in 2002 at Guantanamo recommended interrogation techniques involving , isolation, and , contributing to detainee mistreatment documented in subsequent investigations. Independent contractors James Mitchell and , though not APA members, drew on psychological principles endorsed in APA contexts to design CIA programs inducing "," which involved prolonged stress positions and ; a 2017 civil lawsuit settlement against them for $7.7 million underscored the ethical breaches, with APA stating such actions would justify expulsion if membership applied. In response to mounting criticism, including from human rights groups alleging APA complicity in human rights violations, the APA Council of Representatives voted 157-1 in August 2015 to prohibit psychologists from participating in national security interrogations at sites deemed unlawful by international bodies, such as Guantanamo. This policy was reaffirmed in 2018 when a proposal to allow treatment roles at detention sites—while maintaining the interrogation ban—was rejected, preserving restrictions amid concerns over ethical dilution. Critics, including analyses of the Hoffman Report, have argued that APA's initial denial of impropriety reflected institutional self-protection rather than empirical evaluation of interrogation efficacy, noting that coercive methods yielded unreliable intelligence and caused verifiable psychological harm without advancing security goals, as evidenced by Senate Intelligence Committee findings on CIA programs. The APA maintains it has consistently condemned as unethical and counterproductive, but the episode exposed tensions between and imperatives, with some attributing APA's permissive stance to undue influence from military-affiliated members comprising half the PENS .

Stances on Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Conversion Therapy

The American Psychological Association (APA) has maintained since 1975 that represents a normal and positive variation in human rather than a , following its removal from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973. This position emphasizes affirmative therapeutic responses to address any associated distress without attempting to alter orientation, opposing stigma and discrimination based on . APA's 2009 report concluded that there is insufficient from rigorous studies to support the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), often termed for , and noted reports of harm such as increased depression and suicidality among participants. Critics, including some researchers, have questioned the 's methodology for selectively emphasizing low-quality studies and overlooking longitudinal data suggesting behavioral or identity shifts in subsets of individuals seeking change, though APA maintains that such efforts lack reliable scientific backing. Regarding , APA adopted a 2021 resolution opposing gender identity change efforts (GICE), which seek to align an individual's with their biological sex, citing a lack of empirical support for their effectiveness and associations with harm including elevated risk—LGBTQ+ exposed to GICE were over twice as likely to attempt in surveyed data. APA views diversity as a healthy human variation, not inherently pathological, and in February 2024 passed a policy affirming evidence-based inclusive care for , diverse, and nonbinary individuals across age groups, including psychological support and medical interventions like where clinically indicated, while calling for insurance coverage and parental involvement in decisions. This stance opposes legislative bans on such care, arguing they contradict research showing benefits such as reduced anxiety and depression. However, external reviews, such as the 2024 Cass Report in the , have highlighted weak evidence quality for interventions like blockers—citing high desistance rates (up to 80-90% in pre-pubertal cases without intervention) and limited long-term randomized trials—prompting scrutiny of APA's reliance on observational studies amid institutional pressures favoring affirmation. APA's opposition to conversion therapy extends to both sexual orientation and domains, with resolutions from 1997, 2009, and 2021 discouraging practices premised on altering these traits as ineffective and potentially iatrogenic. The organization advocates for client-centered approaches that prioritize acceptance and resilience-building, influencing and policy against state-level prohibitions on such therapies only insofar as they deem them -based. Debates persist over the evidence base, as APA's assessments have been accused by dissenting psychologists of underweighting client-reported successes in change efforts and conflating voluntary with , particularly in religious or familial contexts where bans may restrict therapeutic options without addressing underlying comorbidities like co-occurring autism or trauma in cases. These positions reflect APA's broader commitment to reducing pathologization of non-heteronormative identities, though they have fueled controversies regarding empirical rigor and potential ideological influences in synthesis.

Debates Over Animal Research Practices

The American Psychological Association (APA) maintains guidelines for the ethical use of nonhuman animals in , emphasizing that such studies must be justified by their potential to advance scientific knowledge where alternative methods are inadequate, with strict adherence to principles of humane care, minimization of pain, and oversight by institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs). These guidelines, revised in 2012, incorporate the 3Rs framework—replacement, reduction, and refinement—requiring researchers to explore non-animal alternatives, limit animal numbers, and optimize procedures to reduce . APA's Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (CARE), established to safeguard responsible practices and counter , asserts that animal models remain essential for investigating fundamental behavioral mechanisms, such as learning and conditioning, unattainable through human studies alone due to ethical or practical constraints. Critics, including animal rights organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), have accused the APA of endorsing unnecessary cruelty, pointing to psychological experiments involving isolation, deprivation, or euthanasia as outdated and replaceable by computational modeling or observational human data. PETA's 2023 critique highlighted APA publications defending terminal procedures in rodents for insights, arguing they prioritize institutional interests over emerging humane alternatives and fail to reflect public opposition, where surveys indicate divided views with many favoring bans on non-medical . Academic analyses, such as a 1993 review in the Journal of Social Issues, question the scientific validity of extrapolating animal behaviors to humans, citing high failure rates in (e.g., over 90% of drugs succeeding in animals fail in human trials) and ethical inconsistencies in applying human-like rights to sentient species without equivalent accountability for harms inflicted. These challenges intensified in the 1980s–1990s with activist campaigns targeting psychologists, leading to threats and facility disruptions, though empirical defenses note that regulated animal research has yielded verifiable advances, like insights into stress responses underpinning PTSD treatments. In response, the APA has actively advocated for animal research's continuation, with CARE engaging in 2024 and 2025 to address misconceptions and secure funding amid rising regulatory pressures, such as U.S. Department of Agriculture scrutiny. A 2014 APA Monitor article documented escalating threats to researchers, including firebombings, framing the debate as a tension between scientific progress and absolutist that ignores evidence of improvements under APA standards. While acknowledging alternatives' growth, APA maintains that abrupt elimination risks stalling fields like comparative cognition, where first-principles causal inferences from controlled animal paradigms provide foundational data not replicable in human ethics-bound contexts; critics' biases toward anthropocentric projections often overlook these mechanistic necessities, as evidenced by persistent gaps in non-animal models' . Ongoing debates highlight issues, with groups amplifying unverified anecdotes over peer-reviewed validations, yet APA's defense rests on empirical precedents rather than deference to public sentiment.

Internship Shortages and Graduate Training Crises

The predoctoral internship crisis in professional arises from a structural imbalance where the supply of doctoral candidates exceeds the availability of funded, accredited training positions, leading to annual mismatches in the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) matching process. This disparity has persisted for decades, with approximately 20-25% of applicants historically failing to secure a position in the initial Phase I match, though overall combined match rates (including Phase II) have hovered around 75-80% over the past decade, with fewer securing APA-accredited sites essential for licensure in many states. In the 2025 APPIC match, Phase I rates reached about 87% nationally for some cohorts, but Phase II filled only around 50% of remaining applicants, resulting in combined rates slightly below prior years and leaving hundreds unmatched annually. The crisis delays degree completion by up to a year or more for unmatched students, who often relocate for interviews costing thousands in expenses, incur debt from unfunded applications, or accept non-accredited or unpaid positions that compromise training quality and future employability. Contributing factors include the proliferation of doctoral programs, particularly PsyD programs, which have increased applicant numbers to over 5,000 annually without proportional growth in federally or state-funded internship slots, primarily housed in under-resourced sites like hospitals and community clinics. Critics attribute much of the overproduction to less selective or for-profit institutions admitting underprepared students, exacerbating competition and lowering overall match success for PsyD applicants to around 76.7%, compared to higher rates from research-focused PhD programs. inadequacies compound the issue, with many APA-accredited internships offering below-market pay—averaging under $30,000 in some 2021-2022 cases—discouraging site development amid rising operational costs. This supply-demand mismatch not only strains graduate training pipelines but also perpetuates broader workforce shortages by slowing the influx of licensed psychologists into high-need services. The American Psychological Association (APA) has responded through advocacy for increased funding via programs like the Graduate Psychology Education (GPE) initiative and state-level reimbursement policies, such as Nebraska's 2014 law allocating funds for up to 10 new slots and Texas's $3.2 million grant for multiple sites. APA's Graduate Students (APAGS) division promotes trainee-led efforts, including campaigns and pushes for APPIC reforms to prioritize accredited , while commissioning reports on the crisis's psychological toll on applicants, who report heightened anxiety and from repeated failures. Despite these measures, progress remains incremental; match rates have improved modestly since the early 2010s, but the underlying enrollment- gap persists due to limited regulatory curbs on program expansion and insufficient federal investment, prompting calls for APA to enforce stricter standards tied to readiness. Unmatched students face cascading effects, including prolonged graduate debt—often exceeding $100,000—and barriers to licensure, as some states mandate accredited , ultimately hindering the profession's capacity to address public demands.

Allegations of Ideological Bias and Empirical Deviations

The American Psychological Association (APA) has faced allegations of ideological , particularly a left-leaning orientation influencing its communications, , and prioritization. Critics contend that APA members exhibit strong political homogeneity, with a survey of approximately 800 psychologists finding that only 6 percent identified as conservative, potentially fostering an environment resistant to dissenting viewpoints. This homogeneity is said to manifest in APA's press releases from 2000 onward, which analyses describe as pervasively promoting left-wing partisan and positions, such as emphasizing systemic oppression narratives over balanced empirical inquiry, thereby undermining the organization's scientific credibility. Such patterns are viewed as extending to the and teaching within , where ideological is alleged to suppress alternative perspectives on topics like political ideology's impact on outcomes. Allegations of empirical deviations center on APA's endorsement or amplification of claims lacking robust replicability or causal evidence. For instance, APA has been accused of persistently distorting evidence linking violent video games to , ignoring meta-analyses and cautions that show weak or null effects, while issuing statements implying stronger causal ties without sufficient justification. In treatment guidelines, a review found that 56 percent of APA-designated "empirically supported treatments" performed poorly across replication metrics, including statistical power and consistency, raising questions about the rigor of APA's evidential standards. Critics further argue that questionable practices, such as selective reporting or p-hacking, prevalent in psychological literature, contravene APA's own yet receive insufficient institutional rebuke, perpetuating deviations from first-principles evidentiary thresholds. These concerns have prompted resignations and public critiques from insiders, who assert that APA's ideological capture prioritizes narrative alignment over causal realism, as seen in revised multicultural guidelines embracing frameworks that critics say conflate descriptive demographics with prescriptive oppression models absent strong empirical backing. In 2023, an international group of 228 scholars cautioned APA against overstating scholarly consensus on media effects like violence, highlighting risks of influence without evidential warrant. Proponents of reform argue that such deviations erode , urging APA to prioritize replicable and viewpoint diversity to restore empirical integrity.

Recent Developments

Integration of Emerging Technologies and Treatments

In response to the accelerated adoption of remote services during the , the American Psychological Association revised its Guidelines for the Practice of Telepsychology in August 2024, expanding to 11 guidelines that address ethical, legal, and competence standards for delivering psychological services via digital platforms, including , privacy protections, and in virtual settings. These updates emphasize competence in technology use, requiring psychologists to evaluate platform security and cultural adaptations for diverse populations, with implementation supported by a of applications and resources published in 2025. The APA has increasingly integrated artificial intelligence (AI) tools into psychological practice, with approximately 1 in 10 psychologists reporting use for administrative streamlining, clinical decision support, and workflow efficiency as of May 2025. In June 2025, the APA released ethical guidance tailored for health service psychologists, recommending transparency with clients about AI involvement, bias mitigation, data privacy safeguards, and validation against evidence-based standards before deployment. To aid evaluation, APA provided a preliminary guide in October 2024 outlining steps for assessing AI-enabled tools, such as reviewing developer transparency and clinical outcomes data. However, the APA has raised concerns about unregulated AI chatbots mimicking therapists, meeting federal regulators in February 2025 to highlight risks of public harm from unverified advice and inadequate safeguards. To advance —software-based interventions for conditions like and anxiety—the APA partnered with Big Health in early 2023, aiming to bolster evidence for clinical integration and reimbursement while prioritizing psychologist-led oversight. (VR) has emerged as a tool for , with APA-monitored applications showing efficacy for PTSD, phobias, and anxiety by simulating controlled environments and tracking physiological responses like , as detailed in October 2025 reviews. supported by APA highlights VR's potential in remote group to enhance immersion and group cohesion, though adoption barriers include clinician inexperience and equipment costs. On novel pharmacological treatments, the APA has tracked psychedelic-assisted therapies amid growing , noting preliminary evidence from randomized trials for in depression and in PTSD, but maintains that broader clinical endorsement requires further rigorous, long-term data to establish safety and efficacy beyond controlled settings. In 2024, APA representatives engaged congressional discussions on psychedelics for PTSD, for regulated research pathways while cautioning against premature therapeutic claims unsupported by comprehensive empirical validation.

Policy Advocacy and Societal Influences (2020s)

In response to the , the American Psychological Association (APA) launched the Stress in America 2020 initiative, surveying U.S. adults and revealing that 81% cited the pandemic as a significant stressor, with 67% reporting increased anxiety and depression symptoms, prompting calls for expanded funding and parity in federal policies. The organization advocated for sustained investments in evidence-based interventions, including and Medicare expansions for psychological services, to mitigate long-term societal burdens like workforce absenteeism and family strain. APA's advocacy extended to violence prevention, urging in 2022 to treat gun violence as a public health crisis and pass legislation incorporating psychological research on risk factors such as aggression and trauma. By 2025, priorities included reducing and interpersonal violence through school safety measures and public education campaigns grounded in behavioral science, while addressing post-pandemic surges in educator-targeted aggression, which linked to heightened resignation rates among K-12 teachers. On environmental issues, APA positioned as a driver of psychological distress, including and spikes in vulnerable communities, and lobbied for integrated responses in federal adaptation policies during its 2022 Advocacy Summit. Similarly, the group highlighted immigration enforcement's toll, such as family separations exacerbating trauma in children, and pushed for humane reforms emphasizing in care delivery. Societally, APA influenced policy by mobilizing over 18,000 member communications to in 2025 to avert NIH funding cuts and protect training amid federal hiring freezes, while reaffirming commitments to and dignity in resolutions addressing equity disparities in and . These efforts, often framed through equity, diversity, and inclusion lenses, sought to shape approaches but drew scrutiny for potentially overemphasizing narratives amid academia's prevailing ideological tilts, as evidenced by surveys showing disproportionate progressive affiliations among psychologists. Youth advocacy, including General-aligned calls for enhanced emotional support in schools, underscored APA's role in countering rising adolescent distress rates post-2020.

Impact and Critiques

Contributions to Psychological Science and Practice

The American Psychological Association (APA) has advanced psychological science primarily through extensive publishing and standardization efforts. It publishes nearly 90 peer-reviewed journals covering diverse subfields of psychology, facilitating the dissemination of empirical research findings to researchers and practitioners worldwide. These journals emphasize rigorous peer review and include support for replication studies, including those yielding null results, to enhance the reliability of scientific knowledge. Additionally, APA's development of the APA Style manual standardizes scientific communication, promoting clarity and consistency in reporting research methods, results, and interpretations across psychological literature. In promoting evidence-based psychological practice, APA adopted a policy in 2005 defining evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP) as the integration of the best available research evidence with clinical expertise and patient characteristics, culture, and preferences. This framework has guided psychologists in applying empirically supported assessment and intervention principles, aiming to improve treatment efficacy and public health outcomes. APA has further operationalized EBPP through clinical practice guidelines, beginning with targeted developments since 2016, such as the 2017 guideline for treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which synthesizes evidence on psychological interventions like cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure. These guidelines are derived from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and observational data, providing actionable recommendations for disorders including depression and, more recently, broader health care applications. APA's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and , revised and effective from , establishes standards for professional behavior, emphasizing accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in research, teaching, and clinical work. This code influences daily practice by outlining obligations for , , and avoiding harm, thereby fostering ethical integrity in settings such as and organizational consulting. Through these mechanisms—publishing infrastructure, EBPP advocacy, guidelines, and ethical standards—APA has contributed to bridging basic research with real-world applications, though adherence varies by individual practitioner and empirical validation of impacts remains an ongoing area of study.

Systemic Criticisms and Calls for Reform

The American Psychological Association (APA) has faced systemic criticisms for exhibiting ideological in its communications and positions, which undermines the organization's scientific and . An of APA press releases from 2000 onward revealed a pervasive left-wing , characterized by disproportionate emphasis on progressive themes such as systemic and social inequities while neglecting or marginalizing conservative or alternative perspectives. This extends to official statements, such as those framing America's foundational as rooted in and , which critics argue distorts historical and empirical realities to align with ideological priors rather than evidence-based assessment. Such patterns have prompted resignations from members who contend that the APA enforces a monolithic view on topics like , defining it solely as systemic and excluding individual-level or analyses, thereby stifling within the discipline. Related concerns include selective attention in APA conferences and publications, where sessions on politically charged issues like policing during the era prioritized one-sided narratives, exacerbating perceptions of institutional echo chambers. In clinical training, this manifests as pedagogical emphases on cultural-ideological tendencies that limit exposure to diverse viewpoints, potentially impairing practitioners' ability to address client needs objectively. Critics, including groups of psychologists, have highlighted failures in response to internal ideological , such as antisemitic in APA divisions, calling for measures to restore balance. Broader scholarly commentary attributes these issues to a lack of viewpoint diversity in , where homogeneity in political affiliations—predominantly left-leaning—compromises empirical rigor and innovation in and practice. Calls for reform urge the APA to prioritize ideological neutrality in , communications, and standards, including suspending or revising diversity criteria that may inadvertently enforce conformity over scientific pluralism. In response, some APA divisions have issued open letters advocating revisions to diagnostic systems to better incorporate humanistic and evidence-driven alternatives, though systemic overhauls remain limited. These reforms aim to realign the with first-principles scientific inquiry, mitigating risks to and standards.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.