Image Of Psychology Research Articles

Семантична диференціація поняття «сучасний психолог» у сприйнятті педагогів і батьків

Висвітлюється проблематика розуміння та розроблення понять “імідж”, “імідж психолога”, “образ психолога”. Звертається увага на те, що в сучасній соціально-психологічній літературі немає єдиного підходу до розуміння та визначення поняття “імідж”. Акцентовано проблему браку ґрунтовних досліджень іміджу практичного психолога в умовах професійної діяльності. Розглянуто особливості формування професійного іміджу загалом та іміджу практичного психолога зокрема. З’ясовано, що професійний імідж психолога будується на підставі знань про образ ідеального (в очах реципієнтів) психолога. Проаналізовано роботи, в яких розглядається формування іміджу практичного психолога у свідомості різних соціальних груп. Як основний інструмент дослідження значеннєвої характеристики образу психолога використано метод психосемантики – метод семантичного диференціала. Образ психолога досліджувався на прикладі представників певних соціальних груп, а саме педагогічних працівників та батьків учнів закладів загальної середньої освіти і вихованців закладів дошкільної освіти м. Києва та Київської обл. Наведено результати експериментального дослідження, у якому взяли участь 125 осіб. Дослідження змістового аспекту образу психолога дало змогу виділити й описати характерні особливості семантичної диференціації педагогічними працівниками та батьками учнів/вихованців закладів освіти ключового поняття – “сучасний психолог”. Виявлено загальну тенденцію позитивного оцінювання образу психолога. На підставі факторного аналізу визначено особливості оцінювання сучасного психолога його потенційними клієнтами.

Psychology’s Gordian Knot: Problems of identity and relevance.

Psychology's image has been of concern since the first organisational meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1892 (Benjamin, 1986). Almost 80 years later, George Albee (1970) stated in his presidential address to APA that... psychology has entered a paradoxical phase in its development where its problems of identity and relevance threaten it with extinction at the same time that its opportunities seem boundless (p. 1071). Concerns about psychology's image continue to be noted today (e.g., Bray, 2010; Eby, Chin, Rollock, Schwartz, & Worrell, 2011).Mental illness is the leading cause of disability in Canada (Mental Health Commission of Canada [MHCH], 2014) and costs the economy an estimated $51 billion annually (Lim, Jacobs, Ohinmaa, Schopflocher, & Dewa, 2008); yet access to mental health care in general, and psychological services in particular, is severely lacking (Peachey, Hicks, & Adams, 2013).While Canadians self-reported preferred method of mental health treatment is psychotherapy and counselling (not pharmacotherapy), it is the least likely treatment to be received (Sunderland & Findlay, 2013). In a national survey, respondents (N ^ 2,832) indicated that paying out-of-pocket (54%) and lack of provincial health care (50%) and employer's (40%) coverage were very significant obstacles to psychological care, whereas long wait times and stigma were identified as very significant barriers by only 38% and 17% of respondents respectively (EKOS, 2011). These findings indicate that lack of public and private funding are prominent barriers preventing Canadians from receiving needed psychological care.Some psychology scholars have attributed the lack of accessible and affordable psychological services in Canada to health care managers, policymakers, and insurers not recognising or valuing the differences among the disciplines providing mental health services (Cohen & Peachey, 2014; Murdoch, Gregory, & Eggleton, 2015). This inability to differentiate psychologists and their contributions from other mental health providers, however, may largely be the result of psychology's failure to articulate a clear and distinct image for itself. As such, we critically review discussions and evidence for how psychology has contributed to its own identity issues, and in particular, how psychology is often perceived as a nonspecific, nonscientific discipline, and one that is nonessential to Canada's health care mandate. Thus, by and large, psychology has come to be implicitly defined by what it is not.While psychology's problems of identity have each individually been discussed in the literature, here we highlight how these issues are interrelated and mutually perpetuate a diminished image of psychology. With the aim of upholding the high standards of care established and promoted by the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA; see Dozois et al., 2014), we propose a multipronged approach to redressing psychology's image problems. Remediation entails identifying promising opportunities for the discipline to strengthen its image so that it may come to be valued for what it is. Succinctly put, advancing the discipline's image is not only about communicating what we already do more effectively, but also about reexamining our current practices in order to improve and evolve as a discipline. The more psychology's reputation in research, training, and service provision is understood and valued, the greater the likelihood of becoming a priority for research funding and health care dollars-thereby granting the public greater access to the psychological services that they desire and need (Sunderland & Findlay, 2013). While our commentary may be critical, our critiques are offered with a sense of optimism and with the intention of engaging in self-reflection in order to enhance the relevance and application of psychology within Canada.Image Problem No. 1: Psychology Seen as NonspecificIn 2013, the CPA hosted a summit on the need, demand, and supply of psychologists in Canada (Votta-Bleeker & Cohen, 2014). …

Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific.

Data indicate that large percentages of the general public regard psychology's scientific status with considerable skepticism. I examine 6 criticisms commonly directed at the scientific basis of psychology (e.g., psychology is merely common sense, psychology does not use scientific methods, psychology is not useful to society) and offer 6 rebuttals. I then address 8 potential sources of public skepticism toward psychology and argue that although some of these sources reflect cognitive errors (e.g., hindsight bias) or misunderstandings of psychological science (e.g., failure to distinguish basic from applied research), others (e.g., psychology's failure to police itself, psychology's problematic public face) reflect the failure of professional psychology to get its own house in order. I offer several individual and institutional recommendations for enhancing psychology's image and contend that public skepticism toward psychology may, paradoxically, be one of our field's strongest allies.

Prejudice, Stereotypes, Base Rates, and Saber-Toothed Tigers

I found Fox's article on prejudice and the unfinished mind both interesting and provocative. The informal style is a refreshing change from the typical dry, jargon-laden social science piece. More important, the article nicely articulates ideas that have been floating around among scholars interested in prejudice and stereotypes for some time. Undoubtedly, the article will be highly controversial. My own stereotype is that many left-wing academic social scientists find sociobiology morally and politically repugnant. Therefore, simply by daring to discuss an especially politically charged aspect of human psychology (stereotypes and prejudice) from a sociobiological perspective will be sufficient to create considerable controversy. I suspect that two additional points will be controversial: (a) Prejudice and stereotyping are inevitable and especially (b) they are not really that bad, and we would be a lot better off just accepting them. There will be some psychologists who agree with the first point, and some who disagree; the latter point, however, runs so strongly against the current academic sociopolitical Zeitgeist that it is virtually guaranteed to provoke argument. I like contentious writing. By virtue of almost forcing one to agree or disagree, it forces one to think more deeply about the issues. For these reasons, I plan to assign this article in my advanced undergraduate and graduate classes whenever I cover prejudice and stereotypes. I also found Fox's article interesting because some of the arguments are inherently ironic, and some point out ironies within psychology's image of humans as decision makers and social perceivers. I discuss these next.

Psychologists' attitudes toward prescription privileges.

Questionnaires concerning prescription privileges were completed by 136 psychologists randomly chosen from the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology and by 110 psychologists from New Jersey. Results showed that although respondents on average believed that prescription privileges would not interfere with therapy and assessment skills and would enhance the image of psychologists, they were neutral about privileges in general. Negative attitudes toward prescribing privileges centered on their costs to psychologists in terms of increased malpractice rates and additional required training. We conclude that a consensus on prescription privileges does not yet exist.

The public image of psychologists.

The public image of psychologists.

CHILDREN, PEOPLE'S TROUBLES, AND THE IMAGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS.

Job titles given by two widely disparate samples, consisting of 100 male undergraduates and 304 (165 boys and 139 girls) culturally disadvantaged children in Grades 3 through 6, to the male figure of Plate M6 (personnel or social worker) of the Vocational Apperception Test indicates that, as compared with that of marriage counsellors or psychiatrists, the image of psychologists is negligible in both groups.