Public psychology: An extension of the community idea

Imber, Stanley D.; Young, Carl E.; Froman, Lawrence

doi:10.1007/bf00890101

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Developing a psychology which fulfils its role as a force for positive social change can be achieved with a 'public psychology' framework of science, society, and knowledge (Imber et al, 1978). In order for public psychology to be meaningfully incorporated into psychological research, practice, and policy, it must bring with it a concept of expertise which fosters mutually beneficial engagement by reducing power imbalances between researchers and laypeople.…”

Section: Expertise Versus Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In theory, some versions of feminist ideology and a proposed public psychology framework should be at least partly compatible in their assumptions and approaches. That is, the framework of public psychology shares theoretical underpinnings with community psychology because it is concerned with participatory action and social justice (Imber et al, 1978), which is also inherently interrelated with a feminist psychology (e.g. Cosgrove & McHugh, 2000;Hill, Bond, Mulvey, & Terenzio, 2000).…”

Section: Power Credibility and Intersectionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Expertise Paradox: Opportunities and Challenges of a Public Psychology Framework

Om¹,

Pownall²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public psychology is concerned with embedding meaningful connections between the public and psychologists. However, there may be tensions between experientially afforded ‘lived experience’ and conventional understanding of ‘expertise’ that must be navigated thoughtfully between lay audiences and psychologists. In this paper, we critically assess how the often ill-defined concept of conventional expertise may or may not be compatible with a framework of psychology that positions science and society as equally credible agents. We will use this core discussion to argue that a public psychology framework, and its inherent attempts to relocate power and voice within knowledge to members of wider society, may prompt us to rethink the notion of expertise. We argue that by reappraising concepts relating to expertise, scientific progress and impact can be made across the discipline. We conclude with a consideration of how these tensions can be eased; namely, through more embodied partnerships between society and science, such as participatory research methods, a fundamental reappraisal of what constitutes knowledge and expertise within the discipline, and an ongoing concern for intersectionality.

show abstract

Section: Expertise Versus Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Power Credibility and Intersectionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Expertise Paradox: Opportunities and Challenges of a Public Psychology Framework

Om¹,

Pownall²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goodstein and Sandler (1978) include "public policy psychology" as part of their conception of a model whereby psychology could promote human welfare. Imber, Young, and Froman ( 1978) advocated what they termed "public psychology", as a direct attempt to involve psychology in public policy formulation; they used a multidisciplinary team that included both academics and professionals to teach public psychology. The prime focus was to train students to work in policy development in public agencies such as the police, educational institutions, mayoral offices, and housing departments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The prime focus was to train students to work in policy development in public agencies such as the police, educational institutions, mayoral offices, and housing departments. Seen in a wider perspective, the approach of Imber et al (1978) basically addresses involving psychology in the public service sector. More recently, Raven (1989) has argued that it is only when psychological insights are applied to public policy that public servants and politicians can act in the best interests of the public.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Public psychology: Planning a role for psychology

Syme

Bishop

1993

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of public psychology has been mooted for some time as a vehicle by which psychologists may involve themselves in creating or managing social change. Nevertheless there has been disappointment expressed by several authors that the discipline has been ineffective in dealing with matters of public policy. This paper suggests that Australian psychology can benefit by studying the philosophical, ethical and professional role issues which have been evident in the development of other professions involved in public policy. Comparisons of the history and activities of the planning profession and psychology are made by highlighting some philosophical and professional issues. It is suggested that there is a case for greater involvement by psychologists in policy formulation or public psychology. Nevertheless it is concluded that the development of public psychology has been limited by the tendency of psychologists to rely too much on our positivistic methodological background. Opportunities do exist in the study of, and involvement in the dynamics of, the planning process itself. These dynamics include both the behaviour and ethical judgements of the psychologist and planner during policy formulation and an assessment of the criteria against which the community will determine issues such as equity and ethics. Some specific avenues of action and research are suggested in this context.

show abstract

“…Other community psychologists have sought guidance for direct primary prevention from relationships based on physical aspects of the environment (Moos, 1976;Monahan, 1975;Bloom, 1973;Wohlwill, 1970). For instance, Catalano and Monahan (1975) suggest that community psychologists participate in environmental impact assessment processes, although they and Imber, Young, and Froman (1978) note that psychologists have avoided this arena. As a consequence, the urban-planning profession has been left with minimal help as it daffy makes decisions that shape the urban environment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Physical environment correlates of psychosocial health among urban residents

Brogan

James

1980

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the hypothesis that the psychosocial health of urban dwellers is related to characteristics of the physical environment in which they reside. For each of 100 Atlanta city blocks, 21 indices of deviant psychosocial behavior were obtained, as were 104 physical environment indices (such as landscaping and nearby land use), and 106 sociocultural environment indices (such as population density and income). Factor analysis was used to define relatively independent variables measuring both the physical and sociocultural environment, and regression analysis was used to establish associations of these variables with the indices of psychosocial health. Results indicate that characteristics of the physical environment are about as important as characteristics of the sociocultural environment in explaining variation in psychosocial health.

show abstract

Public psychology: An extension of the community idea

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

The Expertise Paradox: Opportunities and Challenges of a Public Psychology Framework

The Expertise Paradox: Opportunities and Challenges of a Public Psychology Framework

Public psychology: Planning a role for psychology

Physical environment correlates of psychosocial health among urban residents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About