PhD/PsyD Multiculturalism's role in psychology? Strengths/weaknesses/critiques/questions

[deleted343839]

I don't want this to turn into a debate about climate change either, I cite this example because it makes me question whether we should be involved in that at all. I would rather have the APA battling United Health and how they are unilaterally determining how long our sessions should be or how many a patient should have based on United's own practice guidelines. Our compensation has been static for about 18 years and now is being threatened further and the APA is saying....... *crickets*

Correct, and that is by design. I think a lot of us would like to see a difference stance, but APA is not a "guild" society like the AMA, ADA, etc. Their tax status prohibits them from lobbying on issues of compensation and similar profession-specific concerns. They have to keep their activities within the scope of the "public interest" as they are currently structured. For what that's worth...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

When I trained in PCIT, it was repeated over and over that time out was not a punishment within the operant system.

Technically, time out (from reinforcement) is generally employed to reduce the future probability of the behavior upon which it was contingent. Negative (something is taken away/ withheld) punishment (reduces the frequency of future (e.g., tantruming) behavior upon which it was contingent). Right?

 

[smalltownpsych]

When I trained in PCIT, it was repeated over and over that time out was not a punishment within the operant system.

Time out is a negative punishment, the removal of something positive - social engagement and fun activities.

 

[Ollie123]

Not trained in PCIT, but I'm extremely unclear how they could make that case. If it is contingent on a problem behavior and reduces it, it is by definition a punishment. The only time it wouldn't be is if it proved ineffective for a particular child (per strict behaviorist terms).

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, according to behaviorism any consequence that reduces the future likelihood of a behavior is punishment.

 

[Ollie123]

You certainly point to one of the challenges/divides, which is about the value placed on certain methods. Not about to solve that one in this thread, but I think it is a cause of a great deal of the back and forth. Anyway there's plenty of EBP literature where the basic design of the comparison group is problematic to say the least. I think we're in agreement about the poor quality of research on tailored treatments, though.

Might be worth having a whole separate discussion on this issue. Its one that has always fascinated me. I'm hard-pressed to think of a method I categorically dislike and disregard, but it seems there is a large gulf for many people. I always viewed qualitative and quantitative methods as being complementary rather than one being superior to the other. I can understand only being extensively trained in one just because of the time constraints we all have, but I do think a lot of problems result from people being unable/unwilling to bridge the gap between the two. I think they serve slightly different purposes and are ideally suited for answering different questions. Tools in the toolbox so to speak and I think a lot of the weaknesses in both literature I was referring to can be attributed to folks using a hammer when they should be using a screwdriver because damnit, screwdrivers are biased and you just can't trust em.

The number of studies I would be running if I had the time...

 

[473912]

Time out is a negative punishment, the removal of something positive - social engagement and fun activities.

I always got that confused. I thought a time out would be positive punishment because of you are applying that negative stimulus of being alone. You're applying the restriction. Which would be PP.

I guess it depends on how you look at it? From the kid's point of view it's NP, from the point of the punisher, it's PP?

 

[cara susanna]

I always got that confused. I thought a time out would be positive punishment because of you are applying that negative stimulus of being alone. You're applying the restriction. Which would be PP.

I guess it depends on how you look at it? From the kid's point of view it's NP, from the point of the punisher, it's PP?

It's negative punishment because you're taking away other people, fun activities, etc. I guess you could maybe think of it as positive punishment as well since you're adding boredom, but isn't that a natural consequence of taking away fun things? It is a bit difficult to parse out the difference.

 

[473912]

It's negative punishment because you're taking away other people, fun activities, etc. I guess you could maybe think of it as positive punishment as well since you're adding boredom, but isn't that a natural consequence of taking away fun things? It is a bit difficult to parse out the difference.

But you're also adding the restriction. Just like striking someone for a bad thing is adding that aversive, wouldn't adding that aversive restriction be a positive punishment? Not arguing the fact, it just always confused me. On exams, answers could go either way depending on how we explained it, but I was curious if there was a set answer that the prof just didn't into.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Correct, and that is by design. I think a lot of us would like to see a difference stance, but APA is not a "guild" society like the AMA, ADA, etc. Their tax status prohibits them from lobbying on issues of compensation and similar profession-specific concerns. They have to keep their activities within the scope of the "public interest" as they are currently structured. For what that's worth...

One reason I enjoy this website is it helps me to keep learning. I did not know that APA was structured that way. No wonder they do such a bad job with advocating for compensation...they aren't doing it!

 

[Ollie123]

I think the key is remembering these are squarely in behaviorist territory. Things like "boredom" don't really exist in that world (except as an establishing operation - which started as things they could "see" like depriving the rats of food, but did allow some things that are not technically observable behaviors to sneak in). "Restriction" is not really a thing and the presence of a restriction is not what is changing the behavior...its the removal of stimulation that makes time-out aversive. It becomes a "thing" when physical restraint enters the equation, at which point it could potentially become positive punishment.

This is reminding me of teaching behavior mod. Why they had me teach that class is beyond me. Definitely not a behaviorist.

 

[cara susanna]

I think the key is remembering these are squarely in behaviorist territory. Things like "boredom" don't really exist in that world (except as an establishing operation - which started as things they could "see" like depriving the rats of food, but did allow some things that are not technically observable behaviors to sneak in). "Restriction" is not really a thing and the presence of a restriction is not what is changing the behavior...its the removal of stimulation that makes time-out aversive. It becomes a "thing" when physical restraint enters the equation, at which point it could potentially become positive punishment.

This is reminding me of teaching behavior mod. Why they had me teach that class is beyond me. Definitely not a behaviorist.

Ahh, touche! I'm a a third wave behaviorist, not a "pure" behaviorist.

 

[473912]

I think the key is remembering these are squarely in behaviorist territory. Things like "boredom" don't really exist in that world (except as an establishing operation - which started as things they could "see" like depriving the rats of food, but did allow some things that are not technically observable behaviors to sneak in). "Restriction" is not really a thing and the presence of a restriction is not what is changing the behavior...its the removal of stimulation that makes time-out aversive. It becomes a "thing" when physical restraint enters the equation, at which point it could potentially become positive punishment.

This is reminding me of teaching behavior mod. Why they had me teach that class is beyond me. Definitely not a behaviorist.

Again, I'm not arguing (well, I guess I am, but not angrily or simply to argue), but I still don't get it. Boredom might not exist in the world of a rat, especially in the wild, but it certainly does in humans. And, whether the restriction is physical with straps or something more abstract, I'd imagine isn't important. I'd also argue that sitting with your nose in a corner or in your room alone being grounded the opposite side of the same coin as being out with those friends. Those thoughts would be adjacent to each other. Also, you aren't affecting the friends and such in this punishment. They're still out playing. You're only affecting your child... affecting them my restriction... which would be PP. If you commanded all the friends to go away and left the kid out, that would be negative punishment because you're changing the thing you're taking away. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

I wonder if an experience showing "nose in the corner" silent punishment with friends doing the same nearby or being able to go outside with freedom but without friends would be more or less effective than traditional punishment. Or compared to each other. Is it the lack of freedom or the lack of friends that has the most impact in this type of punishment? Hmm...

These are earnest questions.

 

[Elle758]

Again, I'm not arguing (well, I guess I am, but not angrily or simply to argue), but I still don't get it. Boredom might not exist in the world of a rat, especially in the wild, but it certainly does in humans. And, whether the restriction is physical with straps or something more abstract, I'd imagine isn't important.

I think what Ollie said above is exactly correct. Behaviorists aren't going to have these in-depth conversations about the role of boredom in humans. Can you (the collective "you") provide an operational definition of boredom that is consistent over time? Can we measure it accurately/reliably? If not, it's not really worth much discussion. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that "boredom" would not be a factor in determining whether something was positive or negative punishment. As others have mentioned, time out (i.e., "time out from positive reinforcement") is negative punishment in theory. You are removing (negative) the presence of something preferred (i.e., activities, items, etc.). Also, you mentioned that there is not much difference between an actual physical restriction (i.e., such as restraint) and something more abstract. In the world of behaviorism, those would be huge differences. Abstract doesn't really count for anything...in behaviorism. A physical restraint is something that can be identified, described, and/or measured. A random theoretical "restriction" we are putting on a child...not so much. Again, not going for agreement/disagreement...just clarifying how the issue is viewed by behaviorists.

 

[Ollie123]

Again, I'm not arguing (well, I guess I am, but not angrily or simply to argue), but I still don't get it. Boredom might not exist in the world of a rat, especially in the wild, but it certainly does in humans. And, whether the restriction is physical with straps or something more abstract, I'd imagine isn't important. I'd also argue that sitting with your nose in a corner or in your room alone being grounded the opposite side of the same coin as being out with those friends. Those thoughts would be adjacent to each other. Also, you aren't affecting the friends and such in this punishment. They're still out playing. You're only affecting your child... affecting them my restriction... which would be PP. If you commanded all the friends to go away and left the kid out, that would be negative punishment because you're changing the thing you're taking away. Maybe I'm splitting hairs.

I wonder if an experience showing "nose in the corner" silent punishment with friends doing the same nearby or being able to go outside with freedom but without friends would be more or less effective than traditional punishment. Or compared to each other. Is it the lack of freedom or the lack of friends that has the most impact in this type of punishment? Hmm...

These are earnest questions.

Think you missed my point. Obviously boredom exists. Even in rats (or at least there are some models to suggest that it does...best we're gonna get from rodents). My point was simply that in psychology, punishment is a specific reference to a construct from behaviorism - which as a school of thought won't address things as vague as boredom. Behaviorism is very pragmatic from a clinical standpoint, but as a theoretical view it is heavily criticized for their refusal to open up that black box (and rightly so). The key to think about is what is the active ingredient in reducing the behavior. Research shows time out is only effective insofar as it involves removal from access to pleasurable stimuli (social or otherwise). This is what drives its effect on behavior...not the application of a restriction because the restriction is only meaningful to the extent that it involves taking away access to desired stimulation. Think about taking a kid sitting alone in a room with nothing around him and putting him in "time out" in another room with nothing around him. It won't work (well it might if the idea of time out has been conditioned as a punisher...but let's not go there for the sake of this example). Its because the active ingredient isn't the application of the restriction, its the removal from stimulation. They have done endless iterations of studies to demonstrate this dating back to the 50's. Radical behaviorists can be accused of many things...but they were certainly thorough!

For what its worth, there is discussion of dropping the positive/negative concept moving forward. The distinctions are often more pragmatic or ethical than functional. And again, function is the name of the game in that world.

I'm not taking any of this personally, so don't worry about it. I'm just in professorial mode since I've had to explain this needlessly convoluted concept to a thousand or so students over the last few years

 

[WisNeuro]

Timeout is not defined as punishment in most of the corporal punishment literature that I've seen. Although, the definition of corporal punishment is quite broad in most of the literature, encompassing severe child abuse down to light spanking, one of its significant limitations.

 

[473912]

Think you missed my point. Obviously boredom exists. Even in rats (or at least there are some models to suggest that it does...best we're gonna get from rodents). My point was simply that in psychology, punishment is a specific reference to a construct from behaviorism - which as a school of thought won't address things as vague as boredom. Behaviorism is very pragmatic from a clinical standpoint, but as a theoretical view it is heavily criticized for their refusal to open up that black box (and rightly so). The key to think about is what is the active ingredient in reducing the behavior. Research shows time out is only effective insofar as it involves removal from access to pleasurable stimuli (social or otherwise). This is what drives its effect on behavior...not the application of a restriction because the restriction is only meaningful to the extent that it involves taking away access to desired stimulation. Think about taking a kid sitting alone in a room with nothing around him and putting him in "time out" in another room with nothing around him. It won't work (well it might if the idea of time out has been conditioned as a punisher...but let's not go there for the sake of this example). Its because the active ingredient isn't the application of the restriction, its the removal from stimulation. They have done endless iterations of studies to demonstrate this dating back to the 50's. Radical behaviorists can be accused of many things...but they were certainly thorough!

For what its worth, there is discussion of dropping the positive/negative concept moving forward. The distinctions are often more pragmatic or ethical than functional. And again, function is the name of the game in that world.

I'm not taking any of this personally, so don't worry about it. I'm just in professorial mode since I've had to explain this needlessly convoluted concept to a thousand or so students over the last few years

Thanks for the back and forth, guys. I do appreciate it.

I also get what you and Elle are saying. I understand the words and phrases and I have digested them. They are delicious. I would be able to pass this portion of your test, Professor Ollie. I'm just speaking beyond the test.

There has to be an operational definition of boredom applicable to this situation. I'd be incredibly surprised if people have not figured this one out. If we can infant interest with pacifier sucking and vanity in mice with grooming, we can measure boredom.

I'm between schools. I lost my access to databases from one school, but haven't gotten them from my next yet, otherwise I'd love to look this up. It's very fascinating. But I want to get away from the nomenclature and boredom and talk about theory if we can.

But, let's put it another way: What is causing the aversive status in a grounding or time out situation: The lack of freedom or the lack of friends/basketball/etc? You said that a time out is only effective if it takes away something desired. My argument is that freedom (even freedom to be bored) is something desired. I don't think whether my child has a play date later would matter if I'm punishing a child for doing something wrong. Sure, threat of taking away a large event may have a more controlling influence... But I don't think you have to wait for your child to make plans for you to yank away for this particular punishment to be effective. In which case, it would be the restriction of freedom that's the aversive. What's what I was getting at with my experimental outline in my previous post.

Thoughts?

 

[LAPsyGuy]

Think you missed my point. Obviously boredom exists. Even in rats (or at least there are some models to suggest that it does...best we're gonna get from rodents). My point was simply that in psychology, punishment is a specific reference to a construct from behaviorism - which as a school of thought won't address things as vague as boredom. Behaviorism is very pragmatic from a clinical standpoint, but as a theoretical view it is heavily criticized for their refusal to open up that black box (and rightly so). The key to think about is what is the active ingredient in reducing the behavior. Research shows time out is only effective insofar as it involves removal from access to pleasurable stimuli (social or otherwise). This is what drives its effect on behavior...not the application of a restriction because the restriction is only meaningful to the extent that it involves taking away access to desired stimulation. Think about taking a kid sitting alone in a room with nothing around him and putting him in "time out" in another room with nothing around him. It won't work (well it might if the idea of time out has been conditioned as a punisher...but let's not go there for the sake of this example). Its because the active ingredient isn't the application of the restriction, its the removal from stimulation. They have done endless iterations of studies to demonstrate this dating back to the 50's. Radical behaviorists can be accused of many things...but they were certainly thorough!

For what its worth, there is discussion of dropping the positive/negative concept moving forward. The distinctions are often more pragmatic or ethical than functional. And again, function is the name of the game in that world.

I'm not taking any of this personally, so don't worry about it. I'm just in professorial mode since I've had to explain this needlessly convoluted concept to a thousand or so students over the last few years

Probably why the PCIT experts won't call it a punishment. It's a pattern interrupt. Time out in PCIT is not done in separate room.

 

[mr.stinky.wizzleteats]

What is causing the aversive status in a grounding or time out situation: The lack of freedom or the lack of friends/basketball/etc? You said that a time out is only effective if it takes away something desired. My argument is that freedom (even freedom to be bored) is something desired. I don't think whether my child has a play date later would matter if I'm punishing a child for doing something wrong. Sure, threat of taking away a large event may have a more controlling influence... But I don't think you have to wait for your child to make plans for you to yank away for this particular punishment to be effective. In which case, it would be the restriction of freedom that's the aversive. What's what I was getting at with my experimental outline in my previous post.

Thoughts?

You're thinking on a higher level than one who is most likely the recipient of a time-out, though. While your argument makes intuitive sense of sorts, can you pull out your proposed mechanism of effect and let it stand alone? Not really--it's too abstract, and if you're going to talk about the logic of something grounded in strict behaviorism, you have to stick to those respective logical rules (despite their increasing gravitation toward becoming outdated). The logic of a time out is not grounded in the broader constructs that can be abstracted out from a larger study of human behavior, it's grounded in figuring out what, specifically, is the pleasurable stimulus, and removing it in order to modify specific behavior. The formula is simple and non-abstract so that it can be easily copied, modified, and pasted into a wide variety of unrelated situations, not because it's lacking an appreciation for the enigmatic aspects of being human.

The argument you're making is a prototype for why strict behaviorism is so pragmatically-focused. It's like saying, "But we need to solve for x!" when the proposed problem is, "What's 2+2?"

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think what Ollie said above is exactly correct. Behaviorists aren't going to have these in-depth conversations about the role of boredom in humans. Can you (the collective "you") provide an operational definition of boredom that is consistent over time? Can we measure it accurately/reliably? If not, it's not really worth much discussion. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that "boredom" would not be a factor in determining whether something was positive or negative punishment. As others have mentioned, time out (i.e., "time out from positive reinforcement") is negative punishment in theory. You are removing (negative) the presence of something preferred (i.e., activities, items, etc.). Also, you mentioned that there is not much difference between an actual physical restriction (i.e., such as restraint) and something more abstract. In the world of behaviorism, those would be huge differences. Abstract doesn't really count for anything...in behaviorism. A physical restraint is something that can be identified, described, and/or measured. A random theoretical "restriction" we are putting on a child...not so much. Again, not going for agreement/disagreement...just clarifying how the issue is viewed by behaviorists.

Time out is a punishment if and only if it reduces the likely that the behavior will occur again--the intervention itself may, in fact, be a reinforcer, as in the case of escape-maintained behavior . Any consequence can be a reinforcer or punisher--though the likelihood may differ--so looking at function is key.

(Also, hi, @cara susanna! I'm another third wave behaviorist, albeit in a program with very strong strict behavioral leanings. )

 

[473912]

You're thinking on a higher level than one who is most likely the recipient of a time-out, though. While your argument makes intuitive sense of sorts, can you pull out your proposed mechanism of effect and let it stand alone? Not really--it's too abstract, and if you're going to talk about the logic of something grounded in strict behaviorism, you have to stick to those respective logical rules (despite their increasing gravitation toward becoming outdated). The logic of a time out is not grounded in the broader constructs that can be abstracted out from a larger study of human behavior, it's grounded in figuring out what, specifically, is the pleasurable stimulus, and removing it in order to modify specific behavior. The formula is simple and non-abstract so that it can be easily copied, modified, and pasted into a wide variety of unrelated situations, not because it's lacking an appreciation for the enigmatic aspects of being human.

The argument you're making is a prototype for why strict behaviorism is so pragmatically-focused. It's like saying, "But we need to solve for x!" when the proposed problem is, "What's 2+2?"

I don't see how it's abstract at all. A loss of freedom is a loss of potential. It's not just the "Aw, man, I can't go play." It's "Hey, why don't I just go and.... aw... I can't." It's close, subtle, maybe two sides of the same coin, but different. It also explains why you might (I don't know if this is true because I can't look it up) get the same punishment effect in someone that has set fun plans or no fun plans. For lack of a better term.

I'd go up to my mother and tell her "I'm bored" She responds "I'll give you something to do... give me pushups." I'd quickly find something else to do to get out of that situation. I wasn't deprived of any reinforcer in particular, but if I was forced into that situation, it's the lack of freedom to do ANYTHING else that became aversive because I went out and got into the same pushup competition with friends later. (based on a true story, just an example)

...and I don't see the difference in your last paragraph because the complete equation is 2+2 = x. So "solving for x" and "what is 2+2" is effectively the exact same question to me.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I don't see how it's abstract at all. A loss of freedom is a loss of potential. It's not just the "Aw, man, I can't go play." It's "Hey, why don't I just go and.... aw... I can't." It's close, subtle, maybe two sides of the same coin, but different. It also explains why you might (I don't know if this is true because I can't look it up) get the same punishment effect in someone that has set fun plans or no fun plans. For lack of a better term.

I'd go up to my mother and tell her "I'm bored" She responds "I'll give you something to do... give me pushups." I'd quickly find something else to do to get out of that situation. I wasn't deprived of any reinforcer in particular, but if I was forced into that situation, it's the lack of freedom to do ANYTHING else that became aversive because I went out and got into the same pushup competition with friends later. (based on a true story, just an example)

...and I don't see the difference in your last paragraph because the complete equation is 2+2 = x. So "solving for x" and "what is 2+2" is effectively the exact same question to me.

Your points are pretty valid, but they are not behaviorism. They are going beyond it which is, of course, what the cognitive revolution was all about. The nice thing about strict behaviorism is that it is simple and effective way of explaining behavior in the absence of a cognitive appraisal. When you begin adding those then you are moving out of that realm. That is why behaviorism won't work as well on an adolescent or adult, they'll outsmart it every time!

 

[mr.stinky.wizzleteats]

I don't see how it's abstract at all. A loss of freedom is a loss of potential. It's not just the "Aw, man, I can't go play." It's "Hey, why don't I just go and.... aw... I can't." It's close, subtle, maybe two sides of the same coin, but different. It also explains why you might (I don't know if this is true because I can't look it up) get the same punishment effect in someone that has set fun plans or no fun plans. For lack of a better term.

I'd go up to my mother and tell her "I'm bored" She responds "I'll give you something to do... give me pushups." I'd quickly find something else to do to get out of that situation. I wasn't deprived of any reinforcer in particular, but if I was forced into that situation, it's the lack of freedom to do ANYTHING else that became aversive because I went out and got into the same pushup competition with friends later. (based on a true story, just an example)

...and I don't see the difference in your last paragraph because the complete equation is 2+2 = x. So "solving for x" and "what is 2+2" is effectively the exact same question to me.

As @smalltownpsych already stated, what you're saying goes directly against the strict behaviorism framework in which the very idea of punishment/reinforcement is grounded. No one is saying your points are not valid; however, within the context of behaviorism, they simply are irrelevant. We are not disagreeing with you, we're just illustrating that you're presenting an argument that wouldn't ever be considered in behaviorism.

My "2+2" analogy was meant to illustrate that you're trying to bring abstract ideas into a discrete situation in which they simply don't work. There is no variable for which to solve in "2+2"--just one, simple answer: 4--yet you're proposing there's more to consider beyond that. Perhaps in another theoretical framework, but not otherwise.

Strict behaviorism is a topic with which many people (especially nowadays) struggle precisely because it ignores the "C" in the ever-so-popular "CBT" completely. In order to really get a grip on it, you have to look at humans as no more than the animals they are, which obviously feels counterintuitive for a number of reasons. But it was a revolutionary outlook and still has many relevant uses.

@smalltownpsych : I only disagree with your last sentence (albeit only halfway)--I think strictly behavioral txs have much more utility than most think, it's just that implementing them would probably piss a lot of people off. I don't mean corporal punishment or anything like that, just anything that requires the great philosophical minds of today to recognize their status as mammals and little more.

Admittedly, while I'm MUCH more a third-wave-oriented person, Skinner-era behaviorism is a bit of a guilty pleasure for me.

 

[Elle758]

Time out is a punishment if and only if it reduces the likely that the behavior will occur again--the intervention itself may, in fact, be a reinforcer, as in the case of escape-maintained behavior . Any consequence can be a reinforcer or punisher--though the likelihood may differ--so looking at function is key.

We don't disagree! I mentioned "in theory" because (as you stated), we have to look at what actually occurs with the behavior to determine if it has been reinforced or punished. I'm not a huge fan of time-out b/c (in my experience), although intended as negative punishment - it ends up being negative reinforcement (especially in schools)... and well, there are much better behavioral strategies/interventions to use overall.

 

[473912]

Thank you all for your back and forth.

 

[BizQuick]

@473912, your points and concerns are valid. They also demonstrate that you haven't gotten "into the weeds" with much behavioral training. And that's fine, not everyone needs to understand behaviorism at the root philosophical level to excel at what they do in this field. As someone who is strongly invested in behaviorism, I'll tell you that even in our own circles, we are STILL having prolonged, intense arguments about these topics, even though non-behaviorists think we all agree 100% of the time, singing campfire songs to pictures of Skinner and Thorndike.

If you want to learn more about why your points do not necessarily line up with stinky and smalltownpsych, here are two books I strongly recommend:

-Understanding Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture, and Evolution (William Baum)
-The ABCs of Human Behavior (Jonas Ramnero & Niklas Toerneke)

 

[473912]

@473912, your points and concerns are valid. They also demonstrate that you haven't gotten "into the weeds" with much behavioral training. And that's fine, not everyone needs to understand behaviorism at the root philosophical level to excel at what they do in this field. As someone who is strongly invested in behaviorism, I'll tell you that even in our own circles, we are STILL having prolonged, intense arguments about these topics, even though non-behaviorists think we all agree 100% of the time, singing campfire songs to pictures of Skinner and Thorndike.

If you want to learn more about why your points do not necessarily line up with stinky and smalltownpsych, here are two books I strongly recommend:

-Understanding Behaviorism: Behavior, Culture, and Evolution (William Baum)
-The ABCs of Human Behavior (Jonas Ramnero & Niklas Toerneke)

I'm a complete rookie besides a basic UG understanding of the concepts. Once I get into treatments and all, I'll be sure to remember this conversation and understand.

 

[Ollie123]

So...back to the original topic? Things were going pretty well, hope the sidetrack doesn't end that conversation...

 

[BizQuick]

I'm a complete rookie besides a basic UG understanding of the concepts. Once I get into treatments and all, I'll be sure to remember this conversation and understand.

The ABCs is a clinically focused book that does not require more than an UG knowledge base to get started with

 

[MCParent]

I see a lot more accusations of fuzzy thinking and buzzwords towards the MC literature than I see fuzzy thinking and buzzwords in the MC literature...

I have to disagree. My grad school qualifying exams topical essay was "Social justice" (it got assigned that day so we couldn't prep ahead of time). After an hour of searching papers, I as unable to find a single one that gave an operational definition of "social justice." Even "multicultural" gets used to mean "anything about anything that's not with a sample of white college students." So I think even at that basic level, the literature has a lot of weak links.

 

[calimich]

Yikes MC, sounds like they kinda put you into a difficult spot, seems it all worked out . 1 hour is not much time to become familiar with any body of research, especially one as contemporary and spread out as social justice/multiculturalism.

And I totally agree that they've become buzzwords, which, like everything, has it's pros and cons. As I shared before, my dissertation was in this area and it seemed to me that several different and related disciplines were/are approaching the large topic through their own lenses, which is understandable. I think that's one aspect of this work that excites me -- it's decentralized and has potential to inform many disciplines. Anyway, here are ten resources for anyone wishing to know more about this area. These were all used to inform my study, thus my bias is present.

Brady-Amoon, P. (2011). Humanism, feminism, and multiculturalism: Essential elements of social justice in counseling, education, and advocacy. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 50, 135-148.

Hage, S.M., Romano, J.L., & Conyne, R.K. (2007). Best practice guidelines on prevention practice, research, training, and social advocacy for psychologists. The Counseling Psychologist, 4, 493-566.

Kenny, M. E., Waldo, M., Warter, E. H., & Barton, C. (2002). School-linked prevention: Theory, science, and practice for enhancing the lives of children and youth. The Counseling Psychologist, 30(5), 726-748.

Kumagai, A. K., & Lypson, M. L. (2009). Beyond cultural competence: Critical consciousness, social justice, and multicultural education. Academic Medicine, 84, 782-787.

Skiba, R., Michael, R.S., Nardo, A.C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317-342.

Smedley, A. & Smedley, B.D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real. American Psychologist, 60, 16-26.

Walsh, M. E., Galassi, J. P., Murphy, J. A., & Park-Taylor, J. (2002). A conceptual framework for counseling psychologists in schools. The Counseling Psychologist, 30(5), 682-704.

Weinstein, R.S., Gregory, A., & Strambler, M.J. (2004). Intractable self-fulfilling prophecies: Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education. American Psychologist, 59, 511-520.

Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002) Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Weinstein, R.S. (2002). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

[MCParent]

Yikes MC, sounds like they kinda put you into a difficult spot, seems it all worked out . 1 hour is not much time to become familiar with any body of research, especially one as contemporary and spread out as social justice/multiculturalism.

I'm familiar with the topic area. I teach M/C at the graduate level and do research on minority groups. I'm saying I spent 1 of the 8 hours trying to find anyone who gave an operational definition of the concept in their research (which I'd never actually searched for before that), and didn't find a single thing after going through a few dozen studies. That's methodological flakiness.

 

[473912]

I'm familiar with the topic area. I teach M/C at the graduate level and do research on minority groups. I'm saying I spent 1 of the 8 hours trying to find anyone who gave an operational definition of the concept in their research (which I'd never actually searched for before that), and didn't find a single thing after going through a few dozen studies. That's methodological flakiness.

It's much easier to canonize a people or concept when it's kept so fluid it dodges any criticism and at the same time it can be used for good in any situation. (SJW, current feminism, etc)

It's also easier to demonize and exaggerate a concept when it's so large and ominous, it can't dodge criticism. (Patriarchy, racism, sexism, etc.) That is, it can't ever NOT be these things because they're ethereal and ever present and changes to fit any perceived injustice.

Any solid operational definition would allow you to falsify what they're saying. That's why there never is one. That's what I've noticed talking to most people on these topics, anyway.

 

[QAsPsych]

That's cute, but Tumblr is not a psychology journal, and social justice is not the primary focus of the vast majority of multicultural literature in psychology.

 

[BizQuick]

Thanks for sharing some references, @calimich!

 

[futureapppsy2]

That's cute, but Tumblr is not a psychology journal, and social justice is not the primary focus of the vast majority of multicultural literature in psychology.

Not to mention that tumblr's view of "social justice" is a bit... extreme (e.g., otherkin, headmates) and really oppression olympic-y, which leads to bizarre identities like "blitzgender" (having a gender that's "cold and snowy"????) and defining asexuality as "only wanting to have sex with people you know and like." Not to mention self-diagnosis....

 

[WisNeuro]

Not to mention that tumblr's view of "social justice" is a bit... extreme (e.g., otherkin, headmates) and really oppression olympic-y, such leads to bizarre identities like "blitzgender" (having a gender that's "cold and snowy"????) and defining asexuality as "only wanting to have sex with people you know and like." Not to mention self-diagnosis....

That's just like, your opinion, man...

 

[QAsPsych]

Don't even get me started on asexual identity, or the idea that gay men have "sexual privilege" over asexuals (I appreciate that there is a squiggly line under asexuals here). Some of those people are rolling back the history books on LGBT progress and using the banner of social justice to be politically regressive.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Don't even get me started on asexual identity, or the idea that gay men have "sexual privilege" over asexuals (I appreciate that there is a squiggly line under asexuals here). Some of those people are rolling back the history books on LGBT progress and using the banner of social justice to be politically regressive.

Eh, the LGBT community can be rather nasty to asexuals. I'm asexual and not straight, and I've been outright told by LGBT people that my asexuality makes me straight and was offensive to the LGBT community (because dating people of the same gender is *clearly* straight behavior... e_e)

 

[QAsPsych]

I dislike generalizations people make about the LGBT community like this, moving typically from "some LGBT people have a problem with..." anecdotes to "The LGBT community has a problem with...", and even more typically to "The GWM community has a problem with..." . I will stop because it is clear this is not a thing where you and I are going to come to consensus.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I dislike generalizations people make about the LGBT community like this, moving typically from "some LGBT people have a problem with..." anecdotes to "The LGBT community has a problem with...", and even more typically to "The GWM community has a problem with..." . I will stop because it is clear this is not a thing where you and I are going to come to consensus.

Fair enough... "some people in the LGBT community" (and for the record, I think the broader asexual community tend to be kind of... weird, and I don't associate with them).

I'm really curious--what is your opinion on asexuality?

 

[473912]

I'm curious on opinions of asexuality as well. It's also something else I'd like to do my own research on as soon as I get access to a database again.

Of the dozen or so self-proclaimed asexuals I've spoken with, some I came to be close with, without exception, they were NOT asexual. They were either 1) simply extremely, extremely picky, 2) post breakup and just swore off people as a defense mechanism, 3) Or absolutely lying to jump on the "I'm special" bandwagon.

I'm not claiming this is the case for everyone, just my personal experience.

 

[calimich]

So I think we can agree, as MCParent and others have pointed out, a weakness of multicultural research is the lack of an operational definition of social justice. That folks on this message board pointed that out is congruent with my lived experience, and others' it seems, that also in "1st life" (as opposed to online life) people spend time debating just what does social justice mean.

I suggest we agree on that point and move past it to consider questions.

Does the "methodological flakiness" in defining social justice prevent us from pursuing tangible lines of research perhaps embodying social justice? Need the two be mutually exclusive? Does psychological science have potential to address and reduce systemic inequalities? In my experience, this term -- systemic inequalities -- is also sometimes debated and seen as too vague. I'll offer a few specifics to consider in the US -- the persistent academic achievement gap between students of color and White students; the persistent correlation between race and SES; health disparities (e.g., obesity rates, life expectancy) between people of color and White people; job call back rates correlated with "ethnic sounding names". The list could go on and on...

So, does psychology have potential is one question. Does psychology (and therefore do psychologists) have a duty, an obligation, to address the aforementioned issues is another question. Whaddaya think?

Something else I think we're beginning to see played out in this thread is what I've heard coined as Inclusive or Exclusive Multiculturalism. Inclusive = all kinds of diversity conversations/considerations belong (e.g., ability status, sexuality, gender, age...). Exclusive = focus primarily on race & ethnicity. I've heard good arguments for both.

Lastly, it seems to me that the academic debate regarding definitions, methods, boundaries, etc is one example of a phenomena that gives academics the "out of touch, elitist" reputation. I find the debate intellectually stimulating and worth some time, however I'm not sure how much good it does for the people we're purporting to help. I don't think folks negatively affected by the issues I mentioned above really care how we academic-types define terms. I do think spending public resources devoted to debating/defining terms serves those already, and historically, in power -- mostly White men and large institutions.

Again, my bias is present in that I'm assuming people (psychologists) care about the issues I mentioned and believe reducing systemic inequalities is good for all of us, whether personally affected or not.

 

[Ollie123]

I don't believe the present methodological flakiness in any way prevents us from pursuing tangible lines of research within that general aim. You highlight some perfect examples of things that psychologists could, should and do address quite freqiently in their work (which includes research and many other activities). I don't know that anyone would suggest the existing problems with methods/terms within that field should preclude us from getting involved in the area.

In the broadest sense, I think we have a duty to foster a climate conducive to psychological and physical health. "Social justice" (however defined) would absolutely fall under this umbrella, as would many other things. How that manifests in a given situation and/or what the appropriate course of action to take in a situation is the thornier issue. For instance - a patient of mine says something derogatory about a group of people. Do I call him/her out on it? Maybe. Am I obligated to do so? That is where it gets extremely dicey as I would need to weigh that against a multitude of other factors, including my obligations as a clinician. Context matters and when in doubt, I would likely err on the side of my role as clinician and helping the individual. I do think I'm ethically obligated to have that debate though and consider the broader harm.

I'm afraid I have to disagree regarding debate surrounding definitions/methods. If that makes me out of touch and elitist, I can live with that. To me, this is a serious ethical issue. We are talking about groups who have historically (and oftentimes presently) been marginalized. If we genuinely want to change that, I think we have an ethical obligation not to half-ass the work we're doing. Failing to do so could put the very individuals we're trying to help at greater risk and bring harm to the very individuals we're trying to help. I think the discussion I was having with QAsPsych on the first page highlights some of the issues perfectly. The fact that a go-to recommendation by supervisors is to disclose one's own cultural perspective and encourage the client to "educate us" has apparently not been studied in scientifically rigorous ways is very concerning to me. What if we found out we've been hurting rather than helping? The approach makes intuitive sense to me and I don't think that is the case, but sometimes results are surprising. To me, its extremely disrespectful towards the issues NOT to have those debates and address those concerns. I think we all can agree that progress on reducing inequities has been slow at best (non-existent at worst). There are many reasons for that, but I think people doing intellectually sloppy work certainly isn't going to get us there any faster and might lead us to discover we've been going in the wrong direction at times.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I agree that we need to stay rooted in science even more so when dealing with multicultural issues. My own dissertation research was multicultural and it involved obtaining the participants individual and cultural perspective. I think the difficulty many in our field have is bridging the gap between the more concrete and reducible to the more abstract and intangible. Cultural perspective is clearly more of the latter, whereas something like depressive symptoms or panic attacks would be the former. One is easy to study using experimental design, the other less so. I used ethnography in my dissertation and it generated some valuable information. It would have been impossible to design an experiment to get that information. A few experiments could potentially be designed to further test any hypotheses generated (I forget what those are off the top of my head), but that does not mean that any of the information I obtained is not genuine or real until it is tested in a lab. It is to be interpreted as it stands in light of how it was obtained.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

One of the most succinct distillations of what 'science' (and, by extension, scientific practice) is goes something like, 'science is the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be.' The problem I have with framing issues of psychological science in 'social justice' terms is that it may involve 'rigging the game', so to speak, when it comes to listening (or not listening) to data or empirical evidence. A good scientist 'bends over backward' to rigorously test their hypotheses/theories...they do not systematically seek out evidence to confirm the present hypothesis and ignore evidence inconsistent with a particular hypothesis or worldview.

 

[QAsPsych]

One of the most succinct distillations of what 'science' (and, by extension, scientific practice) is goes something like, 'science is the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be.' The problem I have with framing issues of psychological science in 'social justice' terms is that it may involve 'rigging the game', so to speak, when it comes to listening (or not listening) to data or empirical evidence. A good scientist 'bends over backward' to rigorously test their hypotheses/theories...they do not systematically seek out evidence to confirm the present hypothesis and ignore evidence inconsistent with a particular hypothesis or worldview.

With the very slight problem that nobody does science in this way. Many famous figures in psychology (and other disciplines including the "hard" sciences) push for years for ideas that everyone else will tell you is nonsense and against the evidence. Science is a slow, self-correcting, accretive process, but it is not the disimpassioned search for truth on the individual level.

Also, a priori values and philosophical assumptions underlie all inquiry, although these are often unstated and unexamined. Scientific observations can inform our understanding of the world, but they do not provide answers for what to do with that information, which when we are talking about human beings should be informed by both good scientific evidence and values.

 

[QAsPsych]

I don't know, before I found this thread interesting, but increasingly now I think it is confirming my biases about people who do not take M/C research in psych seriously.

I'm afraid I have to disagree regarding debate surrounding definitions/methods. If that makes me out of touch and elitist, I can live with that. To me, this is a serious ethical issue. We are talking about groups who have historically (and oftentimes presently) been marginalized. If we genuinely want to change that, I think we have an ethical obligation not to half-ass the work we're doing. Failing to do so could put the very individuals we're trying to help at greater risk and bring harm to the very individuals we're trying to help. I think the discussion I was having with QAsPsych on the first page highlights some of the issues perfectly. The fact that a go-to recommendation by supervisors is to disclose one's own cultural perspective and encourage the client to "educate us" has apparently not been studied in scientifically rigorous ways is very concerning to me. What if we found out we've been hurting rather than helping? The approach makes intuitive sense to me and I don't think that is the case, but sometimes results are surprising. To me, its extremely disrespectful towards the issues NOT to have those debates and address those concerns. I think we all can agree that progress on reducing inequities has been slow at best (non-existent at worst). There are many reasons for that, but I think people doing intellectually sloppy work certainly isn't going to get us there any faster and might lead us to discover we've been going in the wrong direction at times.

A couple points:

First, certain groups that are historically/presently marginalized also have strong preferences about how research should be conducted. This constrains the type of research that we want to do if we are going to stop marginalizing these groups, and it also constrains the type of research we can do if we cannot get participants for certain types of studies.

Second, I absolutely believe the portion I have bolded above has been studied in scientifically rigorous ways and demonstrated and recommended by study results multiple times (although I think you misstate the principle here a bit). It's clear that there is a disagreement about what "scientific rigor" is.

 

[Ollie123]

Cultural perspective is clearly more of the latter, whereas something like depressive symptoms or panic attacks would be the former. One is easy to study using experimental design, the other less so. I used ethnography in my dissertation and it generated some valuable information. It would have been impossible to design an experiment to get that information. A few experiments could potentially be designed to further test any hypotheses generated (I forget what those are off the top of my head), but that does not mean that any of the information I obtained is not genuine or real until it is tested in a lab. It is to be interpreted as it stands in light of how it was obtained.

Smalltown: I'm certain it did and it is not my intent to disparage work of that nature. Ethnography has certainly made some tremendous contributions to our field and others. I also believe it is better suited to addressing certain questions than others (see my earlier toolbox analogy). Just as traditional clinical trials are better suited for addressing questions of treatment efficacy, other designs for effectiveness, etc. We did quite a bit of qualitative work in my laboratory. I'm actually hoping to learn more about it on fellowship. I'm by no means categorically opposed to all things not in the laboratory. In many cases it is the best option (in some cases - the only option). I do take issue with using one method while purporting to answer questions better suited by the other. In my view, the previous example is such a situation. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but a strong argument needs to be made. We may be framing the question itself differently, so I'm curious what your study was actually designed to demonstrate.

QAs:I agree my description of the principle wasn't stated perfectly - forgive me as I'm frantically busy but genuinely interested and trying to keep the conversation going. I'm curious how others frame it.

Obviously some studies may not be feasible for a variety of reasons. I find it extremely difficult to believe we could not run a laboratory analogue of what I described above, given very similar things are done by our social psych colleagues every day. I know a plethora of individuals running traditional clinical trials with a pretty wide range of exclusively minority samples that are sometimes quite large. Obviously there are an endless number of possible minority groups and this may not be feasible with some. The potential for sampling bias is an issue that needs to be considered. I think the implication that one simply couldn't look at this in the context of a clinical trial is simply false.

I wouldn't allow my statements to categorically confirm biases. Isn't allowing a single person/incident to confirm biases about a group part of what we're working to avoid?

 

[smalltownpsych]

@Ollie. I wasn't responding directly to your post. Rather, I was speaking more generally about the false dichotomy I often see so prevalent in our field between experimental design and other methodologies. I would love to see a solid study designed to test the "get to know the other's perspective" aspect of multicultural work. Although it would probably not yield results.

One reason is I have seen problems with that perspective in my own clinical work. A good example is when patients try to pass off pathology as being something that is part of their culture. It helps when I get a broader sample of a cultural group so I can call,patients out on irrational beliefs or unproductive behaviors that are inconsistent with said culture. My own research was on the culture of AA and this is especially problematic when working with substance abusers who use this to justify relapses. I have seen it play out with many other groups though and if I have enough immersion/knowledge/resources in the culture, then I can call out the defense or resistance more effectively.

Another thing is that I am better tha average at relating to people from other cultures because of a variety of personal factors. A question I ask about culture is going to be seen one way and from another colleague it might be seen as offensive or invasive.

It's just tough to parse out that many variables. Look at project Match to see what happens when you try to run that many variables. They cancel out and nothing is statistically significant.