Is "psychologist" protected or usable in all branches?

[foreverbull]

Quick question for folks, since textbooks and the internet seem to disagree about what constitutes a "psychologist" in the U.S., and I'd like clarification.

According to a few of my intro textbooks, you can be a "developmental psychologist," "social psychologist," "experimental psychologist," "clinical psychologist," "counseling psychologist," etc.

However, per my state board of psychology, the term "psychologist" is specifically reserved for folks with doctorates in counseling, clinical, or educational psychology with clinical training and meeting ALL requirements for licensure (and possess said license). Only then can you call yourself a "psychologist" in my state.

Is it accurate to say that you can't call yourself a psychologist if you are a psychology scholar/researcher in another branch of psychology, or is the term not protected across the board in the U.S.?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[EmotRegulation]

It is definitely confusing, see this: Who Can Be a Psychologist? | Behavenet. Remember, though, that the non health service psychologists (which are those who are license-eligible as psychologists--clinical, counseling and school) are not trying to call themselves practitioners. I'm guessing there are plenty of people in your state who call themselves "social psychologists" or "developmental psychologists" because, as the link I posted suggested, this describes a field of study (e.g., sociologist, linguist). The idea is that someone who *practices*/provides services cannot call themselves a psychologist without the requisite training....but it doesn't truly mean that it's a problem for a social psychologist to use the term. Protected titles are about, as you suggested, scope of practice overseen by state boards. Academic psychologists aren't licensed and therefore the state board rules have no meaning for them.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Yeah, the state regulations I've seen usually have exceptions for folks who are working in non-clinical/non-applied settings (sometimes explicitly described as academia), and allow people with doctorates in any psychology field to refer to themselves as a psychologist in academic contexts. Which makes sense.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

In my state you can only call yourself a "psychologist" if you are licensed as a clinical psychologist. All others have to use their respected academic area qualifiers.

 

[WorkLifeBalance]

Who would police this? Academics who are using terms like "Experimental Psychologist" aren't licensed, and are therefore not governed by a licensing board. So who would make them stop, and how?

 

[deleted343839]

Who would police this? Academics who are using terms like "Experimental Psychologist" aren't licensed, and are therefore not governed by a licensing board. So who would make them stop, and how?

That is circular reasoning. Restricting a title doesn’t make sense if the restrictions only apply to those who are eligible for the title.

Enforcement is another matter. No one pays much mind to academics, who are not generally offering psychological services to the public and therefore are not a threat to the public. Enforcement is aimed more at people who don’t meet standards for licensure but are calling themselves psychologists while practicing in some sort of clinical capacity.

 

[WorkLifeBalance]

That is circular reasoning. Restricting a title doesn’t make sense if the restrictions only apply to those who are eligible for the title.

Enforcement is another matter. No one pays much mind to academics, who are not generally offering psychological services to the public and therefore are not a threat to the public. Enforcement is aimed more at people who don’t meet standards for licensure but are calling themselves psychologists while practicing in some sort of clinical capacity.

I agree... thus my post. 🙂