We're Already Violating Virtual Reality's First Code of Ethics

By Daniel Oberhaus
Motherboard.com
Originally published March 6, 2016

Here is an excerpt:

Indeed, it was in light of this potential for lasting psychological impact during and after a virtual reality experience that Madary and Metzinger drafted a list of six main recommendations for the ethical future of commercial and research virtual reality applications. Broadly summarized, their recommendations are:

1) In keeping with the American Psychological Association’s principle of non-maleficence, experiments using virtual reality should ensure that they do not cause lasting or serious harm to the subject.

2) Subjects participating in experiments using virtual reality should be informed about the lasting and serious behavioral effects resulting from virtual reality experiences, and that the extent of this behavioral influence might not be known.

3) Researchers and media outlets should avoid over-hyping the benefits of virtual reality, especially when virtual reality is being discussed as a medical treatment.

4) Awareness of the problem of dual use, or using a technology for something other than its original intention, in the context of virtual reality. The author’s particularly are wary of military applications for virtual reality (which are already being put to a lot of use), whether this means its use as a novel torture device or a means of decreasing a soldier’s empathy for the enemy.

The article is here.

Sandusky Case: Man who evaluated alleged victim was not yet psychologist

By Mike DawsonCentredaily.com
Originally published March 28, 2012

Dr. Morford

After State College psychologist Alycia Chambers talked to an 11-year-old boy about Jerry Sandusky showering with him in May 1998, she concluded Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming the boy for sexual abuse.

A couple days later, a counselor, John Seasock, met with the boy and had a different conclusion. The showering episode, Seasock determined, was rather the result of a routine that coaches like Sandusky do after a workout.

Centre County prosecutors did not pursue criminal charges against Sandusky after that incident, and whether the competing conclusions factored into that decision remains a subject of conjecture.

But, almost 14 years later, the fact that Seasock wasn’t a psychologist at the time, according to state records, raises questions about how much weight his opinion should have carried.

“To take that person’s word over a psychologist who has been prepared and licensed by the state is, I would say, very surprising and a serious concern,” said Marolyn Morford, a State College psychologist.

Morford said Tuesday she’s been alarmed by Seasock’s representation as a psychologist at the time in question. That’s how the Penn State police investigation report refers to him, and that’s how Seasock has been referred to in media reports after the document was leaked Saturday.

State records show that Seasock has been licensed as a professional counselor since January 2002.

The entire story is here.

Dr. Morford is a member of PPA's Ethics Committee.

Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With Suicides of Army Soldiers 2001-2009

By Sandra A. Black, M. S. Gallaway, M. R. Bell & E. C. Ritchie
Military Psychology (vol. 23, #4), pp. 433-451

Contemporary research on suicide in the general population has shown that biological, psychosocial, and environmental factors interact to influence suicide-related deaths each year (Brown, 2006; Ellis, 2007; Leenaars, 2008; Lester, 2004; Lester, 2008; Schneidman, 1996). Research on biological risk factors suggests that genetic vulnerability to mental disorders, serotonin insufficiency, and serious physical illness or injury are particularly linked to suicide-related deaths (Heeringen, 2001; Mann, 2002; Mann, 2003; Moscicki, 2001; Roy, Rylander, & Sarchiapone, 1997). Similarly, research on psychological risk factors has also linked mood, anxiety, and personality-related disorders, as well as alcohol and substance disorders, with suicide-related deaths (Conner, Duberstein, Conwell, Seidlitz, & Caine, 2001; Harris & Barraclough, 1997; Nock et al., 2009; Simon, 2006), while other research has linked suicidal behavior with hopelessness, impulsivity, aggression, a history of trauma or abuse, and any previous suicide attempt (Beck, Brown, Berchick, & Stewart, 1990; Brown, 2006; Brown, Jeglic, Henriques, & Beck, 2006; Linehan, 1993; Martin, Ghahramanlou-Holloway, Lou, & Tucciarone; 2009; Schneidman, 1996).

Research on sociocultural risk factors suggests that race/ethnicity, marital status, lack of social support, a sense of isolation or not belonging, social losses, financial difficulties, stigma associated with help-seeking, and suicide as a noble or acceptable resolution of a personal dilemma associated with cultural or religious beliefs are correlated with suicide-related deaths (Clarke, Bannon, & Denihan, 2003; Kerkhof & Arensman, 2001; Kolves, Ide, & De Leo, 2010; Kposowa, 2000; Leenaars, 2008; Lester, 2008; Mann et al., 2005; Sartorius, 2007). Moreover, research on environmental risk factors indicates that access to lethal weapons and barriers to health care contribute to suicide-related deaths (Martin et al., 2009; Simon, 2006). Studies on the prevalence and risk factors associated with suicide-related deaths in military personnel have reported similar results. Specifically, mental disorders, substance abuse, physical illness, stigma, family separation, occupational difficulties, and relationship losses have been linked to suicide-related deaths among military personnel (Cox, Edison, Stewart, Dorson, & Ritchie, 2006; Ritchie, Keppler, & Rothberg, 2003).

This research has advanced our understanding of the prevalence and correlates of suicide-related deaths among military personnel. However, it is worth noting that little of this research has examined specific risk factors in relation to trends in Army suicides, particularly over the past decade, that is, 2001-2009. Examining the prevalence and risk factors associated with suicide-related deaths among Army personnel is particularly important given increasing operational demands associated with ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, research indicates that stress associated with deployment, combat intensity, and the potential shame of failure or weakness--all of which are known to increase the risk for mood disorders, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance-related disorders--have been linked to suicide-related deaths among military personnel (Allen, Cross, & Swanner, 2005; Bodner, Ben-Artzi, & Kaplan, 2006; Hill, Johnson, & Barton, 2006; Hoge et al., 2008; Rand Center for Military Health Policy Research, 2008). Moreover, it is worth noting that many of these risk factors may be accompanied by increased availability of firearms within the military as compared to civilian society (Marzuk et al., 1992).

Additionally, certain risk factors may differentially impact military personnel. For example, the loss of friends, particularly those assigned to the same unit, can have a deep impact, whether in combat or not (Kang & Bullman, 2008). Stress may be greater in the Army population because of increased dependence on social support provided by friends and coworkers in the military environment (Mahon, Tobin, Cusack, Kelleher, & Malone, 2005). Externalized psychopathology (drug and particularly alcohol abuse or dependence) may be more evident in the military due to greater cultural acceptability of these behaviors (Hills, Afifi, Cox, Bienvenu, & Sareen, 2009). Stigma associated with help-seeking behavior or treatment may also be more prevalent in the military, because mental illness is often viewed as a manifestation of weakness or malingering, as well as a threat to one's career (Hoge et al., 2008; Rand Center, 2008).

This is only the beginning of the article.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.