Hey Kim,
You might be interested in a study I conducted a couple years ago that I presented at
the Eastern Psych. Assoc. meetings. See attached text document.
Kim Breivogel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I do a last day activity that has been very effective for me. At the beginning of
> Psych 150 we discuss initial impressions/stereotypes of psychology (I usually being
> with "If you were sitting next to me on an airplane and I told you I was a
> psychologist, what would go through your head?"). We generate a list on the board
> and I record this and save it.
>
> On the final day, I write those on the board once again. We discuss the changes in
> their knowledge and attitude towards psychology that have taken place over the
> semester (recording these on the other side of the board). I emphasize that they
> are now much more knowledgeable about psychology than the average person. They
> will, however, periodically, encounter people who hold incorrect views of the field
> and it is up to them to share their new knowledge.
>
> I then set up a "cocktail party" scenario (sometimes even arranging for sodas and
> snacks) and I designate half the class to play the role of the "unenlightened".
> They are to present the incorrect views they, themselves, held at the beginning of
> the semester. They pair up with a "psychology veteran" and chit-chat about the
> student's recent Psychology class experience, with the veteran countering any
> incorrect statements. I wander around, helping pairs get started, if needed, and
> just listen to the comments. After a while, the students switch roles.
>
> Students usually enjoy this and I feel it is good practice for situations they
> really may encounter. They also leave the class feeling like they have progressed
> in many ways.
>
>
>
> Kimberly Blue Breivogel
> Psychology Instructor
> Wake Tech Community College
> Office: LeMay Hall 204 B
> (919) 662-3436
>
> "When you put people in a box marked "them", you can kick them around a lot more
> easily than when they are in a box marked "us". So, I think it is useful to try and
> empty the box marked "them" and fill up the box marked "us".
> - Peter Gabriel
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Steven M. Specht, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Utica College
Utica, NY 13502
(315) 792-3171
"unanswered questions are less dangerous than unquestioned answers"
RELAX...PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE KIND AND BEAUTIFUL
Steven M. Specht, Richard J. Tushup, Jennifer A. Willet and Jan Pedersen
Psychology Department
Lebanon Valley College
Annville, PA 17003
Several studies have examined public attitudes towards psychologists (e.g.,
Caraveo-Ramos, Francis and Odgers, 1985; Hibbert, 1971; Webb and Speer, 1986) and
scientists (especially with regard to women�s attitude toward science; e.g., Smith and
Erb, 1986; Trankina, 1993).
In the present study, we were interested in assessing college students�
characterizations of the generic terms �psychologist� and �scientist�. In addition, we
were interested in how students� characterizations might change over the course of
completing an introductory experimental psychology class.
Methods
A total of 56 students from three different experimental psychology classes,
were asked to complete a series of semantic differential scales for the terms
�scientist� and �psychologist� at the beginning of the semester. The series we used
was derived from work by Osgood and colleagues (Osgood and Suci, 1955 and Snider and
Osgood, 1969) and consisted of semantic differential scales for 20 sets of opposing
adjectives such as �good-bad� and �relaxed-tense� (see Appendix A). During the last
week of the semester, the same students were again asked to complete the semantic
differential scales for �psychologist� and �scientist�.
Results and discussion
The three different experimental psychology classes from which students were
used as subjects, were taught by three different professors. Since some of the
students� ratings might be related to the attribute characteristics of the different
professors, we analyzed the ratings data using separate 2 (Psy/sci) X 2 (Pre/post)
analyses of variance for each of the twenty semantic differential scales. A table of
statistical results was then constructed to indicate statistical results of the
analyses. In order to prevent misinterpreting idiosyncratic differences which might be
related to a specific professor, we examined only differences which appeared
consistent across the three classes (see Table 1).
The data revealed that students generally rated psychologists as more
�relaxed�, �kind�, and �beautiful� and less �belligerent� than scientists (see Figs.
1-4). Significant interactions for some of the data indicated that ratings for
�psychologist� and �scientist� were more similar at the end of the semester than at
the beginning. It is interesting that after completion of an experimental psychology
course, there is some indication that psychologists might be seen as less �kind� and
more �belligerent�. If one of the educational goals of experimental psychologists is
to inform students that psychologists are scientists and that they investigate the
world scientifically, the change toward more �scientific� characterizations in terms
of the semantic differential ratings may be desired. Examining changes in students�
ratings of �psychologist� and �scientist� across the semester may provide a useful
tool for assessing changes in views of psychologists as scientists.
References
Caraveo-Ramos, L. E., Francis, R. W. and Odgers, R. P. (1985). Attitudes of
Mexican-American
and Anglo-American college students toward psychologists and psychiatrists.
Journal of
College Student Personnel, 26, 134-137.
Hibbert, K. A. (1971). Teachers� attitudes towards psychologists. Association of
Educational
Psychologists� Journal and Newsletter, 2, 25-32.
Osgood, C. E. and Suci, G. J. (1955). Factor analysis of meaning. Journal of
Experimental
Psychology, 50, 325-338.
Smith, W. S. and Erb, T. O. (1986). Effect of women science career role models on
early
adolescents� attitudes toward scientists and women in science. Journal of
Research in
Science Teaching, 23, 667-676.
Snider, J. G. and Osgood, C. E. (1969). Semantic differential technique: A sourcebook.
Chicago,
IL, Aldine Publishing Co.
Trankina, M. L. (1993). Gender differences in attitudes toward science. Psychological
Reports,
73, 123-130.
Webb, A. R. and Speer, J. R. (1986). Prototype of a profession: Psychology�s public
image.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 5-9.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
