APA GRADUATE STUDENTS
APAGS HOME

JOIN APAGS

ABOUT APAGS

APAGS Leaders
APAGS Staff
Contact Us
FAQ's
Get Involved
Listservs
Scholarships and Awards

Site Map for APAGS

APAGS TOPICS
APA Convention
Advocacy
Careers
Diversity
Education
Funding
Professional Development
Student Resources
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
Psi Beta
Psi Chi

 

It’s Great To Be a Scientist Psychologist!

Kurt Salzinger, PhD, Exec. Director, APA Science Directorate

Kurt Salzinger, PhD
Executive Director, APA Science Directorate

(This article was first published in the Winter 2002 issue of the APAGS Newsletter.)

I am quite sure that as graduate students you must be marveling at the variety of subjects covered by the word "psychology." I suspect that to be equally true of those of you who are practitioners in training because even here there are so many different kinds of therapists—behavior therapists, cognitive behavior therapists, cognitive therapists, psychoanalysts, gestalt therapists, etc.

But I want to discuss the diversity that is present among scientist psychologists (including, of course, scientist practitioners)—in some way we are all represented in the various divisions that are harbored by the APA and each of those can be divided into groups with many different interests as well. Take Division 1—General. Well all right, I’m cheating. General seems to cover all. In fact, when you think about it carefully, you realize that it is still another specialty. How about Division 2, Society for the Teaching of Psychology? Clearly, you can teach each of the branches of psychology from clinical to social to experimental to comparative to physiological to cognitive to learning to memory to industrial organizational to applied experimental to statistical or quantitative and so on. I’m quite out of breath and I haven’t even mentioned introductory psychology, which covers them all.

Ok, what about Division 3, Experimental Psychology? To what behaviors can you apply experimental procedures? To what can’t you apply experimental procedure? What, you can’t apply it to thinking? You just haven’t thought hard enough. Just set up a problem for someone and measure how long it takes to solve it. Change the wording of the mathematical problem and then measure how long it takes to solve that problem. What? You are bothered by the fact that thinking is inferred rather than actually observed. You can, of course, follow Herbert Simon who followed the procedure first used by the behaviorist John B. Watson. What you do is perfectly simple. You instruct your subject (I know you’re supposed to say "participant" but the Pub manual does not mandate it, it simply "prefers" it, and I think that the word "participant" implies something about the subject that is simply not true, namely that he or she somehow had something to say about the design of the experiment or its analysis, or its conception, etc.). But let me return to the subject (!) at hand, namely how to study thinking. If you follow Simon and his predecessor, Watson you simply ask the subject to "think aloud," that is, to speak while solving the problem.

You can, of course, study thinking also by measuring the subject’s brain activity by measuring his or her evoked potential by placing an electrode on his scalp and another on his earlobe (as a ground) and determine whether you get a reaction that is different when the subject is thinking of a problem that you’ve set for him or her, as opposed to say watching Madonna. When you measure brain activity, however, you are often labeled a physiological psychologist rather than an experimental psychologist. And when you do problem solving with a rat, you are called an animal psychologist or a comparative psychologist, even though you are doing an experiment. When you experiment with groups of subjects, you’re called a social psychologist. My point is that the labels we use are to some degree misleading because they point only to one aspect of your work. That is important because the labels might well make you think that your skill or talent or knowledge is limited to what that label describes or connotes. The fact is that when you learn how to do an experiment or design a study in which you observe methodically a situation that you cannot manipulate, you still have the requisite knowledge to move from one area of psychology to another. That is only one of the attributes that makes being a psychologist such a delight in allowing us to leap from one area to another without having to leave all our skills and knowledge back where we started from.

Being a scientist, in other words, allows you to study violent behavior in adolescents as well as auditory thresholds in the goldfish. To be sure, you must in each case take the time to study the organism of interest, its habitat, its typical behavior, the variables that control its behavior, the events that reinforce it, and so on. But once you have learned those very important aspects of the organism of interest, you can apply the same general principles of study to discover what makes each one tick.

My point is that in your graduate days, you should be very careful to take a large enough variety of courses outside your specialty and teach yourself the critical skill of reading in various areas of psychology so that you will be able to switch easily to another of the many different areas that constitute psychology. There is but one psychology and it is science. Learn that and you are free to explore its many different aspects.

Which brings me to the Science Directorate in the APA and to ask whether you are making full use of what we are offering. In most cases the clear answer is "NO." So please listen to me and immediately go to the URL www.apa.org/science/ to see all the things that you can do if only you prepare yourself to be a scientist psychologist.

 


© 2009 American Psychological Association
American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS)
750 First Street, NE • Washington, DC • 20002-4242
Telephone: 202-336-6014 • Email
PsychNET® | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Security | Advertise with us