APA President Says Psychological Science Is Not P.C.
American Psychological Association President Dr. Gerald P. Koocher recently chimed-in on viewpoints provided on the topic of domestic violence in an APA article published October 9, 2006, where he says that many groups and individuals have tried to use the topic of behavioral science as a rationale to promote or oppose a political and social policy agenda.
Koocher asserts that in many instances, psychological science can provide important answers to guide policy, but that the very nature of behavioral science data will often contribute ambiguity.
He says that most of the variables psychologists study originate with hypothetical constructs (e.g., adaptation, coping, intelligence or personality). How people choose to define and measure these constructs leads to assorted claims of validity in all its forms.
Koocher offers that as we strive to conduct and disseminate high quality behavioral research, some people might respond angrily to, discount or ignore data that do not comport with their beliefs about how things are or ought to be, and lists the following example:
John Jost and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 88 samples from 12 nations analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition and confirmed that several psychological variables predict political conservatism (e.g., heightened dogmatism, reduced openness to experience and intolerance of ambiguity). They concluded that the core ideology of political conservatism stresses resistance to change andjustification of inequality, modifiedby needs that vary across situations and disposition to manage uncertainty and threat.
Christopher Ellison and colleagues found domestic violence reports lower for the more religiously observant couples sampled.
Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression, although differing in tactics and potential for causing injury (e.g., women assailants will more likely throw something, slap, kick, bite, or punch their partner, or hit them with an object, while males will more likely beat up their partners, and choke or strangle them).
In addition, data show that that intimate partner violence rates among heterosexual and gay and lesbian teens do not differ significantly. Such findings can serve to spur on further research in a given area.
Suffice it to say: Psychological science cannot be held to a standard of political correctness by social liberals or conservatives, and thus any attempt to use isolated behavioral science findings to frame answers to broad social policy questions will require a level of explanatory detail and nuance that defies the sound bite mentality of many news outlets and political messages.
Ideally, policy-makers need to draw on the body of psychological research in a given area to inform their decisions.
Koocher asserts that in many instances, psychological science can provide important answers to guide policy, but that the very nature of behavioral science data will often contribute ambiguity.
He says that most of the variables psychologists study originate with hypothetical constructs (e.g., adaptation, coping, intelligence or personality). How people choose to define and measure these constructs leads to assorted claims of validity in all its forms.
Koocher offers that as we strive to conduct and disseminate high quality behavioral research, some people might respond angrily to, discount or ignore data that do not comport with their beliefs about how things are or ought to be, and lists the following example:
John Jost and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 88 samples from 12 nations analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition and confirmed that several psychological variables predict political conservatism (e.g., heightened dogmatism, reduced openness to experience and intolerance of ambiguity). They concluded that the core ideology of political conservatism stresses resistance to change andjustification of inequality, modifiedby needs that vary across situations and disposition to manage uncertainty and threat.
Christopher Ellison and colleagues found domestic violence reports lower for the more religiously observant couples sampled.
Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression, although differing in tactics and potential for causing injury (e.g., women assailants will more likely throw something, slap, kick, bite, or punch their partner, or hit them with an object, while males will more likely beat up their partners, and choke or strangle them).
In addition, data show that that intimate partner violence rates among heterosexual and gay and lesbian teens do not differ significantly. Such findings can serve to spur on further research in a given area.
Suffice it to say: Psychological science cannot be held to a standard of political correctness by social liberals or conservatives, and thus any attempt to use isolated behavioral science findings to frame answers to broad social policy questions will require a level of explanatory detail and nuance that defies the sound bite mentality of many news outlets and political messages.
Ideally, policy-makers need to draw on the body of psychological research in a given area to inform their decisions.
posted by Michael Burns at 4:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home