Surveying Psychology's Public Image - American Psychological ...

5 downloads 396 Views 1MB Size Report
survey compared public understanding of psychology and ..... indicated a master's degree or some postgraduate work, ..... Public opinion of forensic psychiatry.
Surveying Psychology's Public Image

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Wendy Wood, Melinda Jones, and Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr. Texas A&M University

ABSTRACT: Psychologists have been interested in their public image since the organization of the American Psychological Association nearly 100 years ago. Yet formal surveys of the public's opinions about and understanding of psychology are more recent, dating from the 1940s. This article reviews the published and unpublished surveys of psychology's public image to date and describes new data from a recent telephone survey of respondents in four metropolitan areas. Like earlier surveys, the present survey shows that most people hold generally favorable attitudes toward psychology, but are only marginally sophisticated in their understanding of the field. Specifically, our data show that the public is somewhat aware of both the scientific and clinical endeavors of psychologists. However, the public has virtually no understanding of the impact of psychology on their lives. Findingsfrom the present survey are compared with earlier findings, and suggestions are made for future work in this field. Psychologists have demonstrated concern about their public image since the first organizational meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1892 (Benjamin, this issue, pp. 941-946). Yet attempts to document the nature of that image through surveys of public knowledge and opinion are relatively recent. The first published survey of psychology's public image appeared in the American Psychologist in 1948 (Guest, 1948). Students from Pennsylvania State College interviewed people in their hometowns during the Christmas vacation. One section of the survey compared responses to five occupations: psychologist, architect, chemist, economist, and engineer. Another part of the survey compared public understanding of psychology and psychiatry. Respondents were asked whose help they would seek if they were selecting workers for a particular job. Surprisingly, economists and engineers were chosen more often than psychologists. As further evidence of respondents' confusion about psychology, Guest reported that little distinction was made between psychologists and psychiatrists. However, out of the five occupations listed, psychologists were correctly selected most often as the professionals to consult when conducting an attitude survey or deciding on a profession for one's child. Also, only chemists were accorded the label of scientist with greater frequency than psychologists (92.3% vs. 55.0%, respectively). These somewhat inconsistent results concerning respondents' knowledge of psychology were accompanied by an even greater inconsistency in opinions. Although the majority of respondents (61.7%) reported a positive September 1986 9 American Psychologist Copyright1986 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/86/$00.75 Vol. 41, No. 9, 947-953

overall impression of the field, many registered negative opinions on specific questions. When asked which of the five occupations they would least like their children to choose, respondents named psychologist most often. Further, they overwhelmingly voted psychologists as the persons they would feel most ill at ease with in a social situation, and almost 40% believed psychologists are more odd than chemists or engineers. Perhaps this survey stirred interest within APA, because in the 1950s the public image of psychology received considerable attention, as reflected in the pages of the American Psychologist. Except for Guest's (1948) survey, we found no other article on public image in that journal from its initial issue in 1946 through 1951. However, between 1952 and 1959 there were nine such articles (Carpenter, Lennon, & Shoben, 1957; Fein, 1954; Grossack, 1954; McNeil, 1959; Newman, 1953, 1957; Nunnally & Kittross, 1958; Paterson, 1954; Sanford, 1952). These articles noted APA's increased activities in public relations, including publication of a booklet on the subject (APA, 1954). State psychological associations were urged to form public relations committees. Psychologists addressing various public groups were advised to spend a portion of their talks on the nature of psychology; they were urged to overcome their distaste for selling psychology--to realize that such activity was necessary if psychology was to reach its potential as a force for societal change. Two of the nine articles were surveys on public attitudes (Grossack, 1954; Nunnally & Kittross, 1958). Grossack interviewed a sample of 51 blacks in the South. The questions in this survey were so general that only the vaguest outlines of respondents' reactions to psychology were assessed. Overall, respondents appeared to have a positive opinion, with more than half of the sample believing that psychologists were helping to reduce tensions between the races. However, respondents indicated little more knowledge of the field than that psychologists work with people's minds, souls, and behavior. Not surprisingly, Grossack reported that many people equated psychologists and psychiatrists. Several years later Nunnally and Kittross (1958) conducted a relatively sophisticated survey. A group of central Illinois residents who, according to major demographic attributes, were similar to the total U.S. population indicated how favorably they felt toward a variety of people involved with mental health. On ratings of value or worth and on ratings of understandability or straightforwardness, medical personnel (doctors, nurses) consistently ranked higher than psychologists, and psychologists ranked slightly higher than psychiatrists. In absolute 947

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

terms, psychologists received relatively high scores on value (a mean rating of almost 6 on a scale with 7 as the highest possible value). Subsequently, two surveys were published on the public's ability to distinguish between psychology and psychiatry (Murray, 1962; Tallent & Reiss, 1959). The respondents in the 1959 survey were nonpsychology students in adult education courses, and the respondents in the 1962 survey were introductory psychology students and their friends. In these surveys, the respondents' ability to distinguish between the disciplines of psychology and psychiatry was striking. For example, in the 1959 survey only 15% thought that psychologists possess the MD degree, whereas 70% thought psychiatrists have this degree. Overall, psychologists were believed to be teachers and scientists who study human behavior. The majority of the sample believed that psychiatrists are trained primarily as practitioners (87%) and that they treat mental disorders (89%). A minority believed that psychologists are trained as practitioners alone (38%) or that they provide treatment for mental disorders (34%). The 1962 survey with introductory psychology students yielded similar findings. At about the same time Witley (1959) conducted a general survey of reactions to science and found a somewhat negative view of psychology in a randomly sampled cross section of the public. Only 50% of respondents endorsed the idea that the use of a scientific approach will lead to a true understanding of human behavior. In 1967 the American Psychologist published a survey that attempted to obtain a representative sample of respondents from the St. Louis area (Thumin & Zebelman, 1967). This survey compared reactions to a variety of occupations, including surgeon, dentist, lawyer, engineer, psychiatrist, and psychologist. As in Guest's (1948) survey, parents were asked about their preferences for their children's occupations. On this evaluative measure, the occupation of psychologist again ranked at the bottom of the list. When compared with psychology, even psychiatry was preferred more than two to one. On an openended question about what psychologists and psychiatrists do, respondents differentiated between the two professions, although not to the extent observed in prior studies using students in college courses (e.g., Tallent & Reiss, 1959). For example, 31% reported that psychologists study behavior, whereas only 3% thought psychiatrists do. Yet only 35% thought psychologists help people with their problems, and 45% thought psychiatrists do. When asked who they would contact for specific services, respondents reported that they would have a clear preference for psychiatrists if they were depressed, felt nervous and wanted a prescription for tranquilizers, were becoming mentally ill, or were drinking excessively. Psychologists were preThe authors wouldlike to thank RosalieJ. Hall, Marie LouiseKalsi, and Marian Paul for their assistanceas interviewersin this researchand Robert McCalland Brian H. Stagnerfor their helpfulcommentson an earlier draft of the article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to WendyWood,PsychologyDepartment, TexasA&MUniversity,College Station, TX 77843. 948

ferred to determine a child's intelligence (IQ) or to help with marital difficulties. In a survey with a different twist, Dollinger and Thelen (1978) polled elementary, junior high, and high school students in Columbia, and St. Louis, Missouri. By far the majority of students believed psychologists provide therapy, and a surprisingly low 14% either said they did not know what psychologists do or gave an incorrect answer. However, an open-ended question revealed that only about 20% could correctly differentiate between psychologists and psychiatrists. In order to assess respondents' evaluations of psychology as an occupation, they were asked to compare it with 24 other potential occupations. Psychologist was ranked in approximately the middle range of desirability, between scientist and salesperson by boys and between farmer and banker by girls. In 1978 a professional survey organization, hired by the American Psychiatric Association, interviewed a cross section of the public concerning their opinions toward psychiatry (Clark & Martire, 1978). Psychiatrists were viewed as more effective than psychologists in treating mental illness, which was defined as involving organic problems and antisocial behavior. Yet psychiatrists and psychologists were viewed as being equally helpful in treating emotional problems, such as an inability to cope with life, family problems, and depression. The perceived advantage of psychiatrists in treating mental illness appeared to be due to respondents' recognition that psychiatrists receive medical training. Finally, McGuire and Borowy (1979) attempted to replicate Nunnally and Kittross's (1958) earlier study on attitudes toward mental health professionals. McGuire and Borowy polled only undergraduate psychology students, and their findings were similar to those obtained by Nunnally and Kittross: Medically related occupations were evaluated most favorably, followed by psychologists and then psychiatrists. Although ratings in general were less favorable than those in the previous study, psychologists were still rated high on worth, receiving a mean score of about 5 on a scale from 1 to 7. In summary, prior surveys assessing global evaluations of psychology have consistently obtained evidence for favorable opinions (Guest, 1948; McGuire & Borowy, 1979; NunnaUy & Kittross, 1958). Specific questions assessing affect, however, have revealed more negative reactions to the field. For example, respondents tended to view psychology as an undesirable profession for their children and psychologists as difficult to interact with on an individual basis. Knowledge about the field appears to be improving somewhat, although methodological differences between studies make it difficult to clearly identify trends over time. Early surveys (e.g., Grossack, 1954; Guest, 1948) found that respondents could not differentiate between psychology and psychiatry, whereas later surveys revealed clear distinctions, with psychologists viewed primarily as behavioral scientists and psychiatrists as practitioners (e.g., Murray, 1962; Tallent & Reiss, 1959). It is unclear whether the public considers psychology to be a science: Almost half the respondents in September 1986 * American Psychologist

Guest's (1948) and Witley's (1959) surveys questioned psychology's scientific status or questioned whether a science of human behavior is possible.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

The Current Picture Psychologists continue to be concerned about the public image of their profession, particularly in light of recent actions of those who make public policy. Psychology certainly seems to have a poor image in the Reagan administration, which, upon taking office in 1980, engineered massive reductions in federal support of behavioral and social sciences. The National Science Foundation's Science Education Directorate was abolished as well, and when it was reinstated in 1983 psychology was initially left out. Even administrations thought to be especially supportive of psychology have given mixed messages; for example, during President Carter's term, psychology internship training at Veterans Administration hospitals was severely reduced. Another major display of negative sentiment toward the social sciences has been shown by Senator William Proxmire's Golden Fleece Awards, which Shaffer (1977) interpreted as reflecting a misunderstanding of the goals of social science in general and psychology in particular. Most recently, various public groups have questioned the value of research on animals, and psychological research with animals has received the greatest amount of criticism (Adams, 1984). In response to this apparent lack of appreciation for psychology, APA has increased its attempts to improve the accuracy of the public's perception of psychology and to publicize psychology's goals. APA established a Public Information Committee in 1978, produced a number of televised public service announcements in 1982, added public information staff in the APA Central Office, acquired the magazine PsychologyTodayin 1983, and published a brochure on the value of behavioral research with animals in 1984. Psychologists have also continued to survey their public image. A recent survey of students and their parents, conducted at a southwestern university, found highly favorable attitudes toward psychology (Webb & Speer, 1985). Psychologists were described with more positive adjectives than physicians, scientists, and teachers; only psychiatrists were viewed more favorably. Unlike prior ~We also located several surveyswith a more limited focus. A numberoftheseexaminedpersonnelexecutives'reactionsto industrial/ organizational (I/O) psychology(Feinberg& Lefkowitz, 1962; Hines, 1973; Thornton, 1969; Tiffin& Prevratil, 1956). Over half of the respondentsin these surveysexpresseda desire to hire I/O psychologists. Further,the perceivedareasof competenceof I/O psychologistsexpanded from the firstsurveyin 1956to the most recentstudyin 1969,but it is difficultto clearlyidentifytrends over time because of methodological differencesin the studies.Othersurveyshavefocusedon the publicimage of psychiatry.For example,a surveyof physiciansfoundthey had highly favorable attitudestoward the field (West & Walsh, 1975). One week afterthe John Hinekleyverdict,however,a randomlysampledgroup of residents from New Castle County,Delaware, expressed little or only moderateconfidencein psychiatriccourtroomtestimony(Slater& Hans, 1984). Furthe~the majorityof respondents(81.5%)thoughtpsychiatrists could determinewhethera person was legallyinsaneat best onlysome of the time. September 1986 9 American Psychologist

surveys that asked specific questions about the duties of psychologists and psychiatrists, this study focused on general attributes of the two fields and found little differentiation in responses to them. In another recent survey, Kabatznick (1984) polled physical and biological scientists, business people, psychologists, and a sample of shoppers at a mall in Connecticut about their opinions and knowledge concerning psychology. Attitudes toward the field were in general highly favorable, with over 75% of the sample indicating a positive opinion about psychology. Yet this favorable opinion was, as in prior surveys, accompanied by reservations concerning specific aspects of the field. Almost half of the sample believed that findings in psychology are not as scientific as those in chemistry. Further, less than half of the respondents thought that psychotherapists are more perceptive than other people, and little more than half believed that psychotherapists help the people they are treating. Respondents did, however, demonstrate a high level of accuracy in their knowledge of the field. For example, only about 13% believed that in order to become a psychologist one must work in a hospital. Also, over 70% knew psychologists cannot prescribe drugs. The results of this survey varied considerably from one sample to another. For example, physical and biological scientists reported significantly less favorable attitudes toward psychology than psychologists or shoppers. Current knowledge about public opinion is limited because the two most recent surveys relied on samples highly unrepresentative of the current U.S. population. Further, neither of these surveys measured the perceived impact of psychology. Given that public support for a field has been linked to the perception that the field provides concrete, immediate benefits to respondents' daily lives (Walsh, 1982), perceived impact may be an important determinant of opinions toward psychology. To obtain a more representative view of public opinion and to address the issue of perceived impact, we conducted a survey that randomly sampled respondents from several metropolitan areas across the country.

The Present Survey Participants Two hundred and one persons from four metropolitan areas, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Houston, and Washington, DC, agreed to participate in the study when contacted by telephone. Eighty-four were male and 114 were female; information concerning sex could not be obtained from the remaining 3 respondents. Our samples from LOS Angeles, Houston, and Milwaukee were slightly younger than the average age indicated for these cities by the 1980 census, whereas the Washington sample deviated from the census by overrepresenting people aged 40 to 49 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1983). In all cities, our samples tended to slightly overrepresent the higher educational levels and to slightly overrepresent women. Overall, however, there was a reassuring degree of similarity between our respondents' characteristics and the census data. 949

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Procedure

Respondents were selected through a random digit dialing method developed by Waksberg (1978). This technique involves a two-stage sampling procedure in which residential exchanges are first randomly chosen and then households are randomly selected within these exchanges. The first member of the household who answered the telephone and was 18 years or older was asked to participate in the study. The interviewer first identified herself as a researcher from Texas A&M University. The study was described as dealing with public opinions toward various occupations, including minister, medical doctor, scientist, and lawyer. After the respondent agreed to participate, the interviewer indicated that this particular interview would focus on psychology. The interview consisted of a 26-item questionnaire. The questions were read to the respondents and the respondents' answers were recorded. Each interview took about 10 minutes to complete. The percentage of persons contacted who agreed to participate ranged from 55.68% in Houston to 60.24% in Milwaukee.

Results On two 4-point bipolar scales, respondents indicated how good psychology is and how helpful it is. Responses to these items were combined into an index, r(185) = .54. In all, 91.35% of the respondents had highly favorable or somewhat favorable attitudes toward psychology. These results represent an improvement in the public's attitudes toward the field when compared with the findings of prior surveys (Guest, 1948; Kabatznick, 1984). On 4-point bipolar scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, respondents rated a number of beliefs about psychology. Consistent with respondents' overall favorable opinion of psychology, 84.43% agreed strongly or agreed somewhat that psychology is a science. Earlier surveys (Guest, 1948; Witley, 1959) had found less support for this idea. Also consistent with this general favorable opinion is the finding that the majority of respondents (58.28%) believed that psychology has not been used primarily to control and manipulate people. As in prior surveys (e.g., Guest, 1948; Kabatznick, 1984), however, respondents coupled these positive evaluations with some less favorable reactions. They believed that day-today life provides training in psychology (83.41%) and that psychology is incompatible with their religious beliefs (59.82%). In addition, they believed that psychology has supported liberal political positions (66.51%). Participants in the survey were also asked to indicate whether psychologists, and then whether psychiatrists, commonly perform certain activities. The activity list was adapted from a description of the professional activities of psychiatrists and psychologists in the U.S. Department of Labor's (1977) Dictionary of Occupational Titles. A larger percentage of the sample believed psychologists, rather than psychiatrists, survey attitudes and predict behavior (86.16% vs. 50.75%, p < .001) and evaluate chil950

dren's performance at school (86.57% vs. 49.25%, p < .001). A larger percent of the sample believed psychiatrists, rather than psychologists, prescribe drugs for mental illness (80.60% vs. 15.42%, p < .001 ) and evaluate mental disorders and provide counseling (96.02% vs. 70.65%, p < .001). It appears, then, that respondents could differentiate between the two fields; as in prior surveys (Murray, 1962; TaUent & Reiss, 1959), they tended to view psychologists as more likely to be behavioral scientists and psychiatrists as more likely to be practitioners. Consistent with the. more recent surveys (e.g., Kabatznick, 1984; Murray, 1962), respondents demonstrated reasonable accuracy in their views of psychology. A final activity question assessed whether psychologists typically engage in legal research (i.e., conduct title searches for property ownership). Only 6.47% of respondents were so unsure of the duties of psychologists that they endorsed this item. Further, as noted earlier, less than 16% of the respondents believed that psychologists can prescribe drugs. Respondents also demonstrated a moderate level of accuracy in their knowledge of the degree required to be a psychologist. On an open-ended question concerning degree requirements for psychologists, 1.38% of respondents believed that a psychologist needs a high school diploma, 24.14% indicated a bachelor's degree, 31.72% indicated a master's degree or some postgraduate work, 37.24% indicated a PhD, 3.45% indicated an MD degree, and 2.07% indicated some other advanced degree. When respondents were asked about psychology's impact on their daily lives, 45.41% reported that it had an impact. Of these, 81.32% were able to indicate the specific effect they had experienced. Respondents' own therapy (10 responses) and the therapy experiences of friends and relations (10 responses) were mentioned most frequently. Seven respondents reported reading about psychology, and five reported taking a psychology course. Six respondents reported that psychology had helped in relations with others, four that it had helped in child rearing, three that it aided them in their job, and three that it was a help in general life. Finally, four respondents indicated that they came in contact with psychology through their job. No other form of impact was mentioned by more than one respondent. Because the most frequently mentioned type of impact on respondents' daily lives concerned therapy, the most salient effect of psychology apparently involves mental health services. Like Kabatznick (1984), we obtained information about respondents' exposure to the field and consequently about sources of information on perceived impact. However, it is difficult to compare our findings with those of Kabatznick because her survey included a disproportionate number of respondents who majored in psychology in school, and questions about exposure are likely to be highly sensitive to respondents' experiences. In our survey a surprisingly large number of respondents, 47.98%, indicated that they had taken at least one psychology course. For this subsample, the mean number of psychology courses taken was 1.58. This estimate may be inflated by the inclusion of a number of psychology-reSeptember 1986 9 American Psychologist

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

lated courses like marriage encounter groups and childcare seminars. In addition, slightly more than half of the answering respondents indicated that they were likely to learn about psychology from books, magazines, and newspapers (96 agreed with this statement and 90 disagreed) and less than half indicated that they learned about it from the visual media, such as T V and films (80 agreed and 106 disagreed). 2 The very general questions that we used to assess exposure to the field did not reveal the exact source or nature of the information available to our respondents. Several other studies are informative in this regard. Concerning the written media, a recent informal survey of titles in commercial bookstores under the heading of psychology revealed a multitude of self-help and self-improvement books, particularly ones offering simple formulas for adjustment to real-world problems (Shaffer, Moore, & Johnson, 1983). The yellow pages from the telephone book could serve as an additional source of information about the field. Yet even this portrayal of psychology may be misleading given that a recent survey found that almost 21% of the individual listings in phone books in Illinois consisted of nonregistered persons misrepresenting themselves as psychologists (Beach & Goebel, 1983). We know less about the potential impact of psychology as it is represented in the visual media. The only movies mentioned by more than one respondent in our survey emphasized the clinical aspects of psychology, supporting Fishman and Neigher's (1982) observation that radio and T V shows provide a one-sided perspective of psychologists as therapists and counselors. One final issue that has received little attention in prior surveys involves the determinants of respondents' opinions toward the field. Although our correlational data do not reveal anything beyond the concomitants of favorable and unfavorable attitudes, the relations that emerged among opinions and other variables provide possible insights into the basis for respondents' opinions. Positive attitudes were associated with respondents' beliefs that psychology is consistent with their religious orientation, r(165) = .30, p < .001; that psychology is not used to control and manipulate, r(181) = - . 2 4 , p < .01; and that psychology is a science, r(184) = .23, p < .01. A comparable relation between religion and attitudes toward the field has been observed in a prior survey: Clark and Martire (1978) found that a negative image of psychiatry appeared more likely in individuals who are highly religious and morally conservative. They also found that negative attitudes covaried with a perception of psychiatric treatment as too costly and too lengthy and with a negative evaluation of self-help psychology books. We initially anticipated that perceived impact of and exposure to psychology would affect our respondents' opinions toward the field. For the total sample, the only correlational finding approaching significance was that individuals who had taken m a n y psychology courses tended to have positive opinions, r(184) = .14, p < .06. Additional analyses revealed a somewhat complex relation September 1986 9 American Psychologist

between impact, exposure, and opinions. Among respondents who reported that psychology had no personal impact, opinions were more favorable for those who had taken a psychology course, r(96) = .20, p = .05, and opinions were marginally more favorable if they had read about psychology in newspapers, magazines, or books, r(95) = .17, p < .10. It appears that for this subgroup, exposure to psychology correlated with a positive impression of the field. However, for those respondents who reported that psychology had an impact, this relation was not obtained. To examine this group further, we evaluated the kinds of impact they mentioned. Two raters classified the listed impact as favorable, unfavorable, or neutral toward psychology (interrater reliability, r = .86). Respondents reporting a positive impact were found likely to express favorable opinions, r(60) = .29, p < .05, suggesting that the kind of impact respondents experienced may have formed the basis for their opinions toward the field. Consequently, our other measures of exposure were not related to opinions for this subgroup. 3

What We Know About Public Image What do nearly 40 years of survey data show about psychology's public image? As noted earlier, it is difficult to identify trends over time because the surveys described have differed substantially in terms of samples, methods, and the kinds of questions asked. In general, it seems that overall attitudes toward psychology have been positive over the past 40 years; there is also some evidence that opinions have become slightly more favorable during that time period. More recent surveys(e.g., Kabatznick, 1984) have also found that respondents can differentiate psychology and psychiatry with some accuracy. Yet in the present survey a number of inconsistencies appeared in people's responses to the field. For example, a majority of respondents indicated positive opinions, yet a majority also indicated that psychology is inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Further, although most were moderately 2When asked to indicate the specific printed material they had read, more respondentsmentioned magazines(n = 39) and books (n = 28) than newspapers(n = 15). Concerning the magazineslisted, 14 respondents indicated that they had read PsychologyToday.No book title or news article was mentioned more than once. When asked to indicate the specific movie or TV show they had seen, 18 respondentslisted specificmovies,but little consensusappeared in the moviesindicated. Eighteen people mentioned specificTV shows they had seen, but again there was little consensus. 3We also collectedinformation about respondents'sex, city of residence, age, and educational level. Few differenceswere found between male and female respondents or between residents of different cities. However, younger respondents reported more exposure to psychology than older ones: Respondents 39 years of age or less reported taking somewhatmore psychologycourses than older respondents and a larger percentageof youngerrespondentsreported that psychologyhad an impact on their lives. The most consistent finding for the demographic variableswasthat better educated respondentsdifferedfrom lesseducated ones: Better educated respondentswere less likelyto believepsychology controls and manipulates people, were more likely to report that psychology had an impact on their lives, were more likely to have taken a psychologycourse, were more likely to have taken a large number of such courses,were more likelyto report readingpsychology-relatedmaterial, and werelesslikelyto believepsychologistsperform legalresearch.

951

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

well informed about psychologists' activities, few respondents appeared able to specify in any detail psychology's impact on their lives. Perhaps the seeming inconsistency in responses should not be surprising given the diversity of perspectives and activities within the field of psychology. Respondents may have focused on one aspect of psychology when answering a given question and another aspect for another question. Also, given the disagreements among psychologists concerning the potential contribution of psychology, some confusion about psychology's impact is understandable. Questions about the applicability of psychology have existed since the founding of psychology as a science, for example, in the disputes at the turn of the 20th century regarding psychology's capability of solving the problems of American education (Benjamin, this issue). Some contemporary psychologists have suggested that psychology can frame questions and define problems in ways that make solutions possible, but that it is unlikely to produce solutions directly (see Bevan, 1982, for a review of this perspective). Others, however, have argued that response to current social problems and input to public policy decisions are an integral part of psychological research and services (e.g., DeLeon, O'Keefe, VandenBos, & Kraut, 1982). Certainly the public continues to search for psychological solutions, as indicated by their requests for services and information involving psychological expertise. For example, the section of the public that is attentive to scientific developments, along with a selected group of science policy leaders (e.g., eminent scientists, physicians, and science journalists), ranked the human learning process as one of the top research priorities for increased federal support in the next 5 to 10 years (National Science Board, 1983). Further, the majority of the general public wants to increase federal support for such psychologyrelated areas as social services for the elderly (as shown in an American Enterprise Institute press release dated December 15, 1981, cited in National Science Board, 1983) and drug addiction (Davis & Smith, 1982). It is interesting to note that, despite the apparently strong support for these specific issues, general, diffuse goals such as finding out more about people and nature have typically been ranked low in funding priority by the general public (National Science Board, 1981). This suggests that the field's image depends, to some extent, on whether the public thinks immediate solutions to problems are likely to result from psychological research and services. Our data on the impact of psychology, along with what we can glean from research on sources of information about the field (Beach & Goebel, 1983; Shaffer et al., 1983), suggest that the primary perceived impact is to provide help for individual problems. The public has some awareness of the research aspect of the field, at least in terms of survey research; a large proportion of our sample identified conducting surveys as an activity performed by psychologists. But our data suggest that 30% of the public does not even credit psychologists with 952

evaluating mental disorders and providing counseling. It should be no surprise, then, that such areas as energy conservation, worker satisfaction, developmental disabilities, design of home appliances, and weight reduction were not identified in the present survey as part of psychology's impact on the public. In short, the public does not appear to have the understanding of psychologists' activities and their potential impact that most psychologists would desire. Our survey and earlier ones suggest that much of the domain of psychology is not labeled as such by the public. Public opinion mirrors the narrow view of psychology provided in the U.S. Department of Labor's (1977) Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Additional evidence for this labeling problem can be found in magazine coverage of psychological research under the heading of "medicine," for example, Time Magazine's cover article on research on human infants (Friedrich, 1983) and Newsweek's cover story on sleep (Clark, Gosnell, Shapiro, & Hager, 1981). Further confusion comes from museum exhibits that are based largely or wholly on psychological research but are not identified as such (e.g., Philadelphia's Franklin Institute's display on visual perception). The APA's recognition of the labeling problem is illustrated by its recent efforts to create a traveling museum exhibit demonstrating psychological science (see Mervis, 1985).

Conclusions As we noted at the beginning of this article, psychologists seem concerned about the image of their field, and this concern has existed since psychology separated from philosophy. In recent years the APA Monitor has published a number of articles lamenting psychology's poor image, and APA presidential candidates have campaigned on promises to improve it (e.g., Bales, 1984; Fisher, 1986; Mervis, 1984). Responding to this concern, APA has stepped up its public relations work in the past several years. The success of the APA's efforts will partly depend on an accurate diagnosis of the image problem. Our review of the extant surveys, the present survey included, leads us to believe that the necessary knowledge base does not exist. Most of the previous surveys have used samples of convenience, rather than samples that could be considered representative of the population. This problem could be easily remedied with a sample of appropriate scale and composition. A more difficult problem is to ask questions that will generate a clearer picture of public image, particularly the public's understanding of psychology (who psychologists are, how they are trained, what they do, what the field has contributed to the betterment of the world) and how this understanding is manifested in behavioral support for the field (seeking help from psychological services and supporting funding of psychological research). In short, the focus of future surveys should be not on whether parents would rather that their children grow up to be engineers or psychologists or whether the public is capable of differentiating between psychology and psySeptember 1986 9 American Psychologist

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

chiatry, b u t rather on detailing the p u b l i c ' s evaluations o f psychology along with w h a t the p u b l i c u n d e r s t a n d s a b o u t the field a n d where they o b t a i n their i n f o r m a t i o n . To m a p such c o m p l e x r e a c t i o n s accurately, it m a y be fruitful to a d o p t a slightly different assessment strategy t h a n has b e e n used in p r i o r surveys. Such surveys asked questions s t r u c t u r e d b y the researchers. A better strategy would be first to identify, perhaps t h r o u g h a small n u m b e r o f intensive interviews, the way people n a t u r a l l y t h i n k a b o u t the field. A cross section o f the p o p u l a t i o n c o u l d then be p o l l e d on these r e s p o n d e n t - g e n e r a t e d items. In conclusion, a fuller understanding o f psychology's p u b l i c i m a g e can suggest ways in w h i c h organized psychology m i g h t better e d u c a t e the p u b l i c a b o u t the n a t u r e o f the field a n d its significance for everyday life. W i t h o u t better p u b l i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f its worth, psychology rem a i n s v u l n e r a b l e to persons w h o w o u l d r e d u c e or e l i m inate g o v e r n m e n t s u p p o r t for psychology because o f their belief t h a t b e h a v i o r a l science research a n d practice p r o d u c e little o f value. I n c r e a s e d p u b l i c u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the value o f psychology would give psychology a better chance o f achieving one o f its m o s t i m p o r t a n t g o a l s - - i m p r o v i n g h u m a n welfare. REFERENCES

Adams, P. M. (1984, August). Animal research and animal welfare: An overview of the issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, Toronto, Canada. American PsychologicalAssociation. (1954). Public information guide. Washington, DC: Author. Bales, J. (1984, November). Field's image needs polish. APA Monitor, p. 18. Beach, D. A., & Goebel, J. B. (1983). Who is a psychologist?A survey of Illinois yellow page directories. Professional Psychology, 14, 797802. Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (1986). Why don't they understand us? A history of psychology's public image. American Psychologist, 41, 941-946. Bevan, W. (1982). A sermon of sorts in three parts. American Psychologist, 37, 1303-1322. Carpenter, C. R., Lennon, R. T., & Shoben, E. J. (1957). Suggestions for public relations. American Psychologist, 12, 218. Clark, M., Gosnell, M., Shapiro, D., & Hager, M. (1981, July 13). The mystery of sleep. Newsweek, pp. 48-55. Clark, R., & Martire, G. (1978). The image of psychiatry today. Psychiatric Opinion, 15, 10-15. Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (1982). General social survey, 1972-1982. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. DeLeon, P. H., O'Keefe, A. M., VandenBos, G. R., & Krant, A. G. (1982). How to influence public policy: A blueprint for activism. American Psychologist, 37, 476-485. Dollinger, S. S., & Thelen, M. H. (1978). Children's perceptions of psychology. Professional Psychology, 9, 117-126. Fein, L. G. (1954). PsychologymA profession or what? American Psychologist, 9, 81. Feinberg, M. K., & Lefkowitz, J. (1962). Image of industrial psychology among corporate executives. American Psychologist, 17, 109-111. Fisher, K. (1986, January). Scrutiny attends more public role. APA Monitor, pp. 20-21. Fishman, D. B., & Neigher, W. D. (1982). American psychology in the eighties: Who will buy? American Psychologist, 37, 533-546. Friedrich, O. (1983, August 15). What do babies know? Time, pp. 52-59.

S e p t e m b e r 1986 ~ A m e r i c a n Psychologist

Grossack, M. (1954). Some negro perceptions of psychologists: An observation on psychology's public relations. American Psychologist, 9, 188-189. Guest, L. (1948). The public's attitudes toward psychologists.American Psychologist, 3, 135-139. Hines, G. H. (1973). The image of industrial psychologists in crosscultural perspective. Professional Psychology, 4, 64-71. Kabatznick, R. (1984). The public's perception of psychology: Attitudes offour selected groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York. McGuire, J. M., & Borowy,T. D. (1979). Attitudes toward mental health professionals. Professional Psychology, 10, 74-79. McNeil, E. B. (1959). The public image of psychology.American Psychologist, 14, 520-521. Mervis, J. (1984, November). APA public policy as a story of conflict. APA Monitor, p. 10. Mervis, J. (1985, August). Traveling museum exhibit weighed. APA Monitor, p. 13. Murray, J. B. (1962). College students' concepts of psychologists and psychiatrists: A problem in differentiation. Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 161-168. National Science Board. (1981). Science indicators 1980. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Science Board. (1983). Science indicators 1982. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Newman, E. B. (1953). EPA goes on the air. American Psychologist, 8, 747. Newman, E. B. (1957). Public relations--For what? American Psychologist, 12, 509-514. Nunnally, J., & Kittross, J. M. (1958). Public attitudes toward mental health professions. American Psychologist, 13, 589-594. Paterson, D. G. (1954). A public relations tool. American Psychologist, 9, 642. Sanford, E H. (1952). Across the secretary's desk. American Psychologist, 7, 46-48. Shaffer, L. S. (1977). The golden fleece: Anti-intellectualism and social science. American Psychologist, 32, 814-823. Shaffer, L. S., Moore, S. E, & Johnson, S. (1983). An unobtrusive assessment of public conceptions of psychology using commercial bookstore titles. Psychological Documents, 13(1, Ms. No. 2527). Slater, D., & Hans, V. E (1984). Public opinion of forensic psychiatry followingthe Hincldey verdict. American Journal of Psychiat~ 141, 675-679. Tallent, N., & Reiss, W. J. (1959). The public's concept of psychologists and psychiatrists:A problem in differentiation. The Journal of General Psychology, 61, 281-285. Thornton, G. C., III. (1969). Image of industrial psychology among personnel administrators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 436-438. Thumin, E J., & Zebelman, M. (1967). Psychology vs. psychiatry: A study of public image. American Psychologist, 22, 282-286. Tiffin, J., & Prevratil, W. (1956). Industrial psychology in the Mr-craft industry. American Psychologist, 11, 246-248. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1983). 1980 census of population: Vol. I. Characteristics of the population. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Labor. (1977). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Waksberg,J. (1978). Sampling methods for random digit dialing. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 40-46. Walsh, J. (1982). Public attitude toward science is yes, but -. Science, 215, 270-272. Webb, A. R., & Speer, J. R. (1985). The public image of psychologists. American Psychologist, 40, 1063-1064. West, N. D., & Walsh, M. A. (1975). Psychiatry's image today: Results of an attitudinal survey. American Journal of Psychiat~ 132, 13181319. Witley, S. B. (1959). Public opinion about science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly, 23, 382-387.

953