Print

6 Operational Psychology The OSS was disbanded by an executive order following World War II, and its functions were split between the Department of State (DoS) and the Department of War (DoW). The OSS’s research and analysis branch was subsumed under the DoS (later to form the Interim Research and Intelligence Service). The DoW received the OSS’s clandestine branch that formed the Strategic Services Unit. Shortly after this time, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the military’s Special Forces were created. There seems little doubt that critical remnants of the OSS were used in the formation of both organizations. In the absence of the OSS, operation- ally minded psychologists continued to provide support to national secu- rity and defense elements. Their activities included special operations personnel selection influence and information operations consultation indirect behavioral assessments Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training support and interrogation and debriefing support (Banks, 2006 Williams et al., 2006). In addition to the areas of intelligence and defense, psychological sci- ence and its practitioners were employed in several other operational are- nas during the second half of the last century. For example, police, public safety, and other law enforcement agencies witnessed widespread growth and development in their operational use of psychologists and behavioral science. Applications included personnel suitability screening, fitness-­for-­ duty evaluations, consultation to investigations, and hostage negotiations. A discussion of these developments is beyond the scope of this chapter however, readers are referred to the substantial literature in this area (Corey, 2012 Kitaeff, 2011 Reese & Horn, 1988). September 11, 2001 The attacks against the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were a watershed moment for psychologists support- ing national security, defense, law enforcement, and public safety. The military and intelligence apparatus for the United States was anxious to find answers and to prevent a future attack. Law enforcement and home- land security were equally alert to potential risks and, alongside military and intelligence counterparts, pressed their psychologists into service at an accelerated rate. The number of psychologists trained to support inter- rogations and debriefings was increased. This expansion facilitated the development of formal training programs to prepare non-­operationally trained psychologists to support these activities (Dunivin, Banks, Staal, & Stephenson, 2010 Greene & Banks, 2009). Unfortunately, this infusion