The cultivation of diversity.

Abstract

EENLY aware of the serious problems threatening the very existence of human civilization, psychologists have shown a growing concern with the contributions they can make to the solution of social problems. That psychologists in large numbers are in fact deeply concerned about such problems is evident in many ways. One need only look at any issue of the American Psychologist or at the annual convention program of the APA to find references to topics ranging from ecology to racism and sexism, or from the education of inner-city children to the prevention of wars between nations. Several discussions center around the more general question of the mechanisms whereby psychologists can make their most effective contributions, such as basic research, technology, or social action.Like the rest of humanity, psychologists display wide individual differences in both their professional and their personal orientations. This is not only an incontrovertible fact, but also, I maintain, a desirable condition. It is both unrealistic and presumptuous to expect representatives of a single psychological specialty, or members of a single discipline, or persons in a single category, however characterized, to possess the magic formula that will save humanity. I should now like to examine some implications of diversity-with regard to psychology in relation to other disciplines, as well as within psychology itself. MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO SOCIAL PROBLEMSCurrent social problems are complex and their solutions are not the exclusive province of any one field of expertise. Psychology has no monopoly on human behavior. Over the centuries, many other

After the “Crisis” in Social Psychology: The Development of the Transactional Model of Science

“…The symptoms of the ''crisis'' have also been identified. Specifically, social psychology was criticized for being trivial (Allport, 1968;Ring, 1967), artificial (Levine, 1974;Moscovici, 1972), fragmented (Katz, 1967;McGuire, 1967), reductionistic (Pepitone, 1976;Sherif & Sherif, 1969), isolated as a discipline (Anastasi, 1972;House, 1977), limited in generalizability (Cartwright, 1979;Cronbach, 1975), method-bound (Lachenmeyer, 1970;Levine, 1974), culture-bound (Berry, 1978;Murphy, 1965), culture-blind (Berry, 1978;Triandis, Malpass & Davis, 1973), historically-bound (Gergen, 1978;Samelson, 1977), conceptually and theoretically naive (Elms, 1975;Tyler, 1970), hampered by over-reliance on statistics (Bakan, 1967;Boulding, 1980), narrowly focussed on individualism (Pepitone, 1976;Sampson, 1978;Tajfel, 1979), irrelevant for understanding social issues and problems (McGuire, 1967;Smith, 1973), value-laden (Gergen, 1973;Vallance, 1972), ethnocentrically American (Brandt, 1970;Cartwright, 1979;Sampson, 1977), ideologically reified (Chorover, 1980), and confounded with experimental artifacts (Adair, 1973;Orne, 1969;Ronsenthal & Rosnow, 1969).…”

Women Psychologists

“…Both addresses focused on the theory of psychology and neither made mention of the uniqueness of their positions. Fifty-one years later, Anne Anastasi (1972) was elected the third female president of the APA, and despite the fact that her presidential address centered on diversity, she too failed to speak to gender. When one couples these facts with an understanding that only 11 women have presided over the APA in its 200+ year history, the rationale for research on the experiences of women psychologists is clear.…”

On the reproduction of consumer psychologists.

“…In her presidential address to the APA, Anne Anastasi (1972) dealt with the feelings that I have been struggling to express. She asked, What, then, do psychologists as a group, in all their diversity of roles, subject matter, and theoretical orientation, have in common?"…”