Psychology of torture

Research during the past 60 years, starting with the Milgram experiment, suggests that under the right circumstances, and with the appropriate encouragement and setting, most people can be encouraged to actively torture others.[2] John Conroy, author of Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People, said "When torture takes place, people believe they are on the high moral ground, that the nation is under threat and they are the front line protecting the nation, and people will be grateful for what they are doing."[3]

Stages of the perpetrator's torture mentality include:

• Reluctance: The perpetrator is reluctant to participate or observe the administration of torture.
• Official encouragement: As the Stanford prison experiment and Milgram experiment show, in an official setting, many people will follow the direction of an authority figure (such as a superior officer) particularly if it is presented as mandatory, even if they have personal uncertainty. The main motivations for this appear to be a fear of loss of status or respect, and the desire to be seen as a "good citizen" or "good subordinate".
• Peer encouragement: The perpetrator begins to accept torture as necessary, acceptable or deserved, or to comply due to the need to conform to peer group beliefs.
• Dehumanization: The perpetrator sees victims as objects of curiosity and experimentation rather than as human beings. The physical and psychological manipulations become just another opportunity to test the victim's response.
• Disinhibition: Sociocultural and situational pressures may cause perpetrators to undergo a lessening of moral inhibitions and as a result act in ways not normally accepted by law, custom and conscience.
• Self-perpetuating: Within the organization, once torture becomes established as part of internally acceptable norms under certain circumstances, its use often becomes institutionalized and self-perpetuating over time. What was once rarely used during extreme circumstances begins to be used more regularly with more reasons claimed to justify wider use.

One of the apparent ringleaders of the Abu Ghraib prison torture, Charles Graner Jr., exemplified the stages of dehumanization and disinhibition when he was reported to have said, "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.'"[4]

As P. Saliya Sumanatilake concludes:

"Whether it be for securing a justifiable or reprehensible end, torture cannot be effectuated without invoking and focusing one's diffused innate cruelty. Accordingly, it is the prevalence of this congenital trait of heinousness that renders every human being a potential torturer: hence, the existence of torture! Moreover, it is the natural occurrence of such nascent evil within each successive generation of human beings that serves to propagate torture!"[5]

The effects of torture on the victim and the perpetrator are likely to be influenced by many factors. Therefore, it is unlikely that providing diagnostic categories of symptoms and behavior will be applicable across countries with very different personal, political or religious beliefs and perspectives.

In addition to providing treatment for victims of torture, psychologists have the skills and knowledge to conduct research regarding interrogation methods and determine when the methods used become torture. The standards, policies, and procedures of each country's professional psychological association may influence the participation of psychologists in administering torture, researching torture methods, and evaluating the effectiveness of the results. Kenneth Pope (2011) used direct quotes to indicate the American Psychological Association believes psychologists have a key role in eliciting information from people since interrogations require an understanding of psychological processes. Each professional association sets the standards for ethics and expected professional behavior which may influence psychologist researchers who investigate interrogation or torture and clinical psychologists' participation in interrogations that use methods deemed to be consistent with torture.

For an example of policy that influences the use of torture by American psychologists, please see the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives policy released in 2015. For an example of an external review of whether psychologists adhered to the APA ethics and policy please see the Hoffman Report (2015).

Due to differences in political power globally, professional psychological organizations in well-developed countries may have a greater influence on discovering and defining what constitutes torture.[9] Psychological associations in less developed countries may choose to adopt the definitions, standards, and ethical positions regarding torture developed by the APA when they are unable to support research regarding torture themselves within their own culture.[9] The professional associations in well developed countries, such as the APA are likely to have a strong influence in defining the psychology of torture globally.[9]

People within an organization may be influenced to participate in torturing people.[10] The culture and procedures of an organization provide the foundation to allow professionals, such as physicians, to violate the medical code of ethics in a manner that appears to align and meet the necessary standards of their employment.[10]

The policies and procedures within the United States military have also been found to produce an environment in which torture and enhanced interrogation techniques were used.[11] Although the military has an excellent process for recruiting and training interrogators who use non abusive techniques successfully, changes in funding resulted in fewer highly trained interrogators being available. As more interrogators were recruited after 9/11, they were not as rigorously assessed, trained, or mentored and did not demonstrate the same abilities as the previous generation of military interrogators. In addition, the military rank of interrogators is not sufficient to control the decisions made when interrogation is needed. Military interrogators may be ordered to perform techniques they know to be inappropriate and ineffective by higher-ranking officers who have not been adequately educated about effective interrogation procedures. The combination of a change in recruitment, reduced education and mentorship, and relatively low rank result in opportunities for torture and abuse to be used during interrogations.[11]

Fictional stories, movies, and television shows may influence the beliefs people have regarding the efficacy of torture as a means for rapidly obtaining life-saving information.[12][13] People who believe torture is an effective interrogation method are more supportive of using torture and enhanced interrogation techniques than those who do not think it provides accurate information.[12] In addition, the information obtained through torture is also perceived as more valuable by people who support using torture than the same information obtained through non-abusive means of interrogation. These findings suggest confirmation bias (perception is skewed toward what a person already believes) influences the support for torture and is influenced by many commercially available sources of fictional examples.[12][14]

• Psychological torture

• McCoy, Alfred, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (Hardcover)
• Conroy, John, Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.
• Dr. Sam Vaknin, "The Psychology of Torture",
• Dr Ruwan M Jayatunge M.D, "Psychological effects of Torture"
• Amanda C de C Williams, Jannie van der Merwe, "The psychological impact of Torture"
• P. Saliya Sumanatilake, "Why Do They Torture? A Study On Man's Cruelty," Stamford Lake: Colombo, Sri Lanka (2015).

• Human Rights First; Tortured Justice: Using Coerced Evidence to Prosecute Terrorist Suspects (2008)