The APA's Emotion

The People v. Power, Profits, Prestige...and Prescriptions

Emotion is the new and long-awaited journal of the American Psychological Association (APA). At first blush, Emotion is a beautiful thing. Finally . . . an APA journal dedicated to "the full range of affective phenomena," of interest to a general readership, "one central forum for the very best research in emotion," "open and innovative - maybe even daring," featuring original reports on the "fundamental mechanisms of emotion," "interdisciplinary" and "international." What's not to like?

But first, a little history. The APA was founded in 1902 and incorporated by 1925. During the 1920s, Behaviorism became the ruling paradigm in American psychology, and it dominated the field for nearly half a century (Hunt, 1993, p. 257). The Behaviorists believed that consciousness - including emotion - was too subjective to be studied scientifically, so they gave up on it altogether (Zimbardo, Weber & Johnson, 2000, p. 20 & p. 85). During this hollow time, Behaviorism dominated academia (Hunt, p. 262). The consequence? Psychological research during these decades was superficial and unenlightened, and has been called "the sterilist of the sterile." Behaviorism finally lost its dominion over psychology after the emergence of "cognitive science." And now, back to the journal.

The early verdict after one full year? Emotion is a searing disappointment. It is lifeless and unfeeling, and offers little that inspires or truly informs. Consider the four lead articles this year: (1) "Source Memory Enhancement for Emotional Words," (2) "Linkages Between Facial Expressions of Anger and Transient Myocardial Ischemia With Coronary Artery Disease," (3) "Does Emotional Intelligence Meet Traditional Standards for an Intelligence?," and (4) "Patterns of Hemi-spheric Perceptual Asymmetries: Left Hemispatial Biases Predict Changes in Anxiety and Positive Affect in Undergraduate Women." The APA is hereby discarding real emotion and real feeling, and banishes them to languish as lowly and incomprehensible. But far more importantly, the failure of Emotion reminds us of the failure of the entire institution of psychology.

Ironically - and almost unbelievably - we are in the midst of the APA's retro "Decade of Behavior" (Azar, 1999). This vapid and deplorable sound-byte celebrates much of what is wrong with mainstream psychology. This is not a sincere effort to serve humanity; rather, it is political posturing to increase funding and legislative support. While the "official" issues are health, safety, and education, only the most naïve could miss the underlying lust for power, profit, and prestige.

Even worse, the APA is currently celebrating its victory with respect to "prescription privileges." As of March 5, 2002, New Mexico became the first state to empower psychologists - not only medically trained physicians and psychiatrists - to prescribe psychiatric medications such as Paxil and Prozac, Xanax, and Zoloft. Moreover, at least eight other states have introduced similar bills. But the APA, in its haste to join the powerful medical-industrial complex, has wrongly looked away from the damage caused by such drugs. The psychiatrists Peter Breggin (1991) and Joseph Glenmullen (2000) are among those who have issued unmistakable warnings about the toxicity and backlash of psychiatric drugs. What about the ominous long-term side effects, such as permanent neurological disorders and debilitating withdrawal symptoms? And shouldn't psychologists be protecting - rather than medicating - the suffering, the innocent, and the vulnerable?

One in every ten Americans has taken Prozac and similar antidepressants. Most of us have been blitzed by their "direct marketing" campaign on television and in print, yet very few of us are aware of the dangers of these drugs, or that there are better and safer alternatives (Glenmullen, 2000). How can this be? Psychiatry and psychology have abandoned their ethic to do no harm. And now, in a world of hope and possibility, mainstream psychology now aspires to join the pill pushers. Thankfully, the current issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) explores the problems that occur when research is funded by drug companies. Is it any surprise that it is the manufacturers themselves who actually fund the studies? That they unduly influence how researchers report their results? That studies are misleading, and fail to mention study limitations and industry funding? That unfavorable findings are suppressed? This is commerce, not science.

"Does psychology do any good for anybody?" asks APA president Dr. Philip Zimbardo (2002, p. 5) in his current column. Zimbardo hopes to demonstrate that psychology does, in fact, make significant differences in the lives of individuals and organizations, and he has been gathering this input via a "Psychology Makes a Difference" web survey (http://research.apa.org/survey/compendium). My answer? Absolutely. So continue to research and practice real psychology, not behaviorism and pseudo-pharmacology.

Unfortunately, the APA has never displayed the inspiration of the International Primal Association (IPA). I know of nothing in the APA, for example, that suggests the integrity of the IPA's past and present editors Richard Greeman, Arnold Buchheimer, Mickel Adzema, and Sam Turton. And the long list of APA publications pales in comparison with the authenticity of Primal Community, Aesthema, Primal Renaissance, and the IPA Newsletter. But how in the world can it be right for the APA to sell the future of psychology to Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Upjohn?

References

Azar, B. (1999, March). 'Decade of Behavior' moves forward. APA Monitor, 30(3) http://www.apa.org/ monitor/mar99/decade.html
Breggin, P. R. (1991). Toxic psychiatry: Why therapy, empathy, and love must replace the drugs, electroshock, and biochemical theories of the "New Psychiatry." New York: St. Martin's Press.
Glenmullen, J. (2000). Prozac backlash: Overcoming the dangers of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and other antidepressants with safe, effective alternatives. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hunt, M. (1993). The story of psychology. New York: Doubleday.
Zimbardo, P.G. (2002). President's Column: Let's show how we make a difference. Monitor on Psychology, 33(6), p. 5
Zimbardo, P.G., Weber, A.L., & Johnson, R.L. (2000). Psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.