Talk:Psychologist

Which countries have instituted laws allowning psychologists to prescribe medicine?

I think this needs to be mentioned

also in Australia psychology does not have any specialties as they are not one of the 3 professions listed by AHPRA that have specialties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.239.158 (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What you've said isn't entirely correct. AHPRA may not recognise specialties within psychology, but the Australian Psychological Society recognises 9 specialties, see http://www.psychology.org.au/studentHQ/careers-in-psychology/. AHPRAs position is more to ensure that all health practioners are registered, from that perspective the designation of "psychologist" is probably sufficient, regardless of specialty. For this article APS' views of psycholosts are probably more appropriate than AHPRAs.

With regard to your question about which psychologists are allowed to prescribe medications: As far as I know only appropriately trained psychologists in 3 US states, the US army and the US territory of Guam can prescribe medications. No psychologists have prescription privileges in Australia. I think that it is a similar situation in most countries around the world, but I'm not 100% of on that.MitchMcM (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from 'Contrast with Psychiatrist' section

I removed the following paragraph:

One of the major discrepancies between psychologists and psychiatrists is that, in general terms, psychiatrists basically only every treat people who are suffering from a clinical condition. Psychologists work with a wide range of people (depending on the context), many of whom do not suffer a major mental illness (with the expection of clinical psychologists who tend to work with mentally unwell clients/patients).

Here are the things that bothered me: 1) I think "discrepancies" should have been "differences". 2) Treatment is only warranted where there is some kind of clinical condition - no matter what the license. 3) psychiatrists are found in a wide variety of clinical settings treating very high-functioning patients to those requiring hospitalization. That is true for psychologists as well. 4) I think they meant to say "exception" not "expectation". 5) Maybe I'm wrong, but the main differences were already spelled out: Different licenses, Different degrees (Medical doctor), Different laws (can prescribe), different treatment approaches. SteveWolfer 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Income of Licensed Psychologists

How much the two stated types of psychologists earn on average, but is this per year, per lifetime of working in the field, etc.? This is quite confusing. (The obvious choice is per year, but I still think it could be clearer.) Stars in the Night Sky 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How to find a therapist external links

Having a link that helps a reader find a therapist is a good idea. But two of these three links violate WP Policy.

I suggest deleting two of the links currently in this section. One of them is the APA listing and only available to members who must pay dues and it excludes therapists or counselors that couldn't join APA and is restricted to the U.S. The second one that should be deleted is an advertising source that charges a significant annual fee for a listing. Both of those would be violations of WP Policy on using wikipedia to advertise.

The one which I think should be left in place, is the one by the magazine "Psychology Today" is not restricted by geography or by type of license. You need to send in a photo copy of a valid license to practice. They charge a fee - $29 - but their fee is more like a reasonable covering of their own costs of maintaining the service rather than an attempt at making a profit.

I didn't delete anything in case there are people that see this differently and want to express themselves. If I don't see any comments, then after while I'll delete the two. Steve 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that advertising site because it was added by an IP user and the disclaimer of the site states that they make no effort to verify the authenticity of advertisers. If an editor wants to make an argument for it then go ahead. As for the APA site, I see your point. However, this is a psychology umbrella organization and inclusion on the database is not an extra fee apart from membership. Although not all psychologist are members, the listed psychologists are licensed and thus I see it as a great resource for finding a Psychologist. Your argument that the APA search site "excludes therapists or counselors that couldn't join APA and is restricted to the U.S" is unfounded as I see it. This is an article discussing Psychologists and APA's membership is open to anyone with a "doctoral degree in psychology or a related field from a regionally accredited graduate or professional school...or a school of similar standing outside of the United States" (From the APA membership page). This should cover eligibility for any licensed psychologist. Their site also has search options for Psychologists by Canadian provinces. I personally use both the APA site and the Psychology Today site when looking for a referrals for my patients. Neither site is exhaustive and often provide differing results. So a search of both increases the odds of finding a Psychologist in ones area of need. But my desire is to increase the resources of potential readers while not guiding them astray. Dkriegls 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence from under 'Psychology in the professional world'

I removed this sentence:

A psychologist can also be someone who designs things. They design the normal everyday, easy-to-use type of things; such as cars, microwave ovens, and others, they are designed to be "user-friendly."

This is covered in a general way by the phrase, "...who makes professional contributions based upon that training, be it as a therapist, counselor, researcher, teacher, or consultant." {Emphasis added} Psychologists are occasionally called in to consult with industry on design issues, or called in as consultants to script writers, or movie directors, or as consultants to trial lawyers, etc. If more needs to be said, it should be done under the section labeled "Type of Psychologists" and as a subheading, perhaps something like "Consulting Psychologists" or "Industrial Psychologists" - but it would need sources and distinguish between engineers with a good grasp of the concept of usability or user-friendly design and a psychologist. Steve 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--Dr. Ken Carter 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have major issues with restricting the definition of psychologist to those who have chosen to follow the APA licensing guidelines.

Mentioning that different U. S. states and different countries issue licenses that give legal meaning to term “psychologist” is a good thing. But it should be clear that this is a licensing issue, and licensed psychologists are a subset of all psychologists. The more fundamental term derives from the science of psychology – regardless of the license of the individual.

It makes no sense to say that an individual who makes significant contributions to the body of knowledge we call “psychology” is not a psychologist. The next step would be to divide up the body of knowledge itself. Should we say that a research claim or hypothesis is not really about psychology because it doesn’t have some sort of membership or licensing body’s approval?

Could it ever make any sense to have a list of psychologists that don’t include names like those mentioned in the discussion page of the list of psychologists (Sigmund Freud, Melanie Klein, Alfred Adler, Havlock Ellis, Milton H. Erikson, Alfred Kinsey, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, William Masters and Virginia Johnson, Ivan Pavlov, Virginia Satir, Irvin Yalom)?

Once that limited definition is accepted (explicitly or implicitly) all that follows becomes tainted. For example: the number of individuals engaged in psychotherapy is far greater than statistics just on licensed APA members.

And the categories of employment are also skewed since it would only allow those that fit APA guidelines.

To be blunt, there are many people who ARE psychologists (in the broader and quite proper sense of the word) and who make significant contributions to our field that believe the APA’s attempt to monopolize this word is inappropriate, self-serving, and not the best way raise standards among practitioners or improve the body of knowledge.

---

I found this sentence to faulty to keep as is. "Psychologists study and try to understand the brain behavior process from a scientific view point. They also help people to understand then change bebehavior, first among themselves then in groups."

---

I wonder, is it really necessary to include statistics from the US on this page? The only way people other than US citizens (who I am sure can find the information at an employment agency) would benefit from these statistics is if other countries are listed, making a comparison in salery and maybe how large a percentage of the working community consists of phsychologists. And even if people were to add these figures from other countries, making the comparison, it seems that it would take far too much room looking as it does at the moment. I hold that we remove the bit that currently is and wait for someone to take the lead in adding, and systemazing, more countries' figures. (Sentius)

---

Re: Statistics, do you mean to put stats from other "english" speaking countries? Or all countries? These US stats are not easily found. I know because I have been hunting them down. Plus when you find them they are complicated. I'm in favor of more stats in order to show things like incomes (most people think we make a lot of money, comparable to MDs, which is sorely not the case); the gender distribution is interesting as the fields is now numerically dominated by women; similar to issues with race/ethnicity.

Possibly, these kinds of stats can be on a sub page? I know that if I were looking information I'd want to know what do psychologists do and who the psychologists are. Rsugden 20:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

List of fields and psychologists

I am putting this here to get some input before I go further with my list of psychologists (as no one, understandably, has made a comment on that discussion page). I have broken it down the way I did for clarity and because I feel that it is important as a discipline to make sure it is clear who and what a psychologist is, as opposed to who adds to psychological knowledge. Also, I thought of adding lists of eminent psychologists from other countries that more know in their own country. That's why I put the Japan list when I stumbled upon it. So take a look.

And, I need help with the categories that go into the info box. I have posted in another place (with no response) that I want to reorganize it. I want to put 15 main categories of general fields of psychology (based on my research of textbooks, outlines, etc.) and remove the "approaches" as they are basically about psychotherapy. In order to help people classify future personages for addition, I would like to put an outline somewhere as a guide. I have started one but I really don't want to add more than 15 general catergories as the box becomes too long. I could use some amplifications of the existing categories, though.

My Sandbox3 Rsugden 20:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Saying that psychologists get a Ph.d and do "clical rotations" whereas M.D. Psychiatrists' M.D.'s don't involve hands-on clinical training is proof that the writer doesn't know anything about the nature of medical school, which is 70-80% hands-on medicine, including the4 to 8 years of residency and fellowship time, meaning in the clinic/hospital, and the rest didactic testing(first two years of medical school plus in-house exams plus harse board exams, etc). Please describe it correctly or don't describe it at all; you are misleading people. Also, Sigmunf Freud and some of the others thatvwere mentiones were psychiatrists! Steve Carpenter, M.D.

Freud was a psychologist in the broader meaning of the term. He was a theorist who contributed to the body of knowledge we know as psychology - even though he was not licensed as a psychologist. Here is the very first sentence of the article: "A psychologist is a scientist and/or clinician who studies psychology, the systematic investigation of the human mind, including behavior and cognition." Then in the next section of the article it explains more completely that the word "psychologist" has two meanings - the broadest of the meanings can include psychiatrists, social workers, researchers, or others if they contribute to, or practice in the body of knowledge we call psychology. The narrower of the two meanings refers to the license that a person has. The article discusses licensing but it isn't about licensing alone. Steve 07:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: this is my 1st experience on wiki. any advice is appreciated. I'd like to make some suggestions. 1)In the first full paragraph (below the 3 bullets)it discusses the 56 divisions of the APA. This link does not take the reader directly to the 'divisions'. By deleting the current link and inserting a link that does take the reader directly to the 'divisions' would allow for more efficient validity of the information. 2)In the same paragraph the sentence reads "...are many different types of psychologists as reflected in the 56 divisions...." The divisions are merely divisions and are not necessarily a list of the types of psychologists. Yes, some types of psychologists are listed, but there are some existing types of psychologists that are not reflected by the 'division title' alone.(AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC))

Regarding the Info Page that was mentioned a few edits above...I think the posting of the 'categories of psychology' is a good idea as it would help to further educate the public about our field. The author speaks of including only 15 categories (as additional is cumbersome). APA recognizes 17 categories. If we are going to list 15 why not include all of them. Another approach to this idea would be to create a link to APA's site which would inevibly provide the reader with detail about each category as well. Or is it considered incorrect via Wiki users to create links to credible sources rather than paraphrase large quantities of info on the wiki site itself? (AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC))

Removed a POV statement!

The following statement is POV: The Ph.D. is the highest required doctoral degree awarded by universities. The term "Doctor" means "Teacher of Teachers" or "Learned Professional."

And hence was removed!

Someone with a major issue with psychiatrists or medical doctors has put it forth to highlight that a PhD is the superior degree.

It is worth noting that a PhD is a research doctorate whereas a MD is a professional doctorate. Both are different by their very nature! So where is the need for comparisonajisogfjaogisnaiofhnag;jdsogjfiahglkfjaghnlfiahdflkjsugedflgkjslgkjeoiahgrbnh horeanbneburnab—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.89.59 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A Ph.D. is not necessarily a research degree for psychologists. While the scientist-practitioner model is extremely popular; it is not universal. Schools may place significantly more emphasis on teaching or clinical work and describe their models in that manner. I think the statement had less to do with arguing the superiority of the Ph.D. than it did with reflecting one of the readily available online definitions for Ph.D. It's the first definition that comes up in Google (which doesn't make it right, it just means there probably wasn't an ax to grind). Tamara Young (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But putting it in bold type in a paragraph and that too without context smacks of an underlying issue! You can check the previous version of the page to note the same! I agree that many schools lay emphasis on teaching and clinical work, but the definition of a PhD automatically includes a research dissertation (the thesis taking at least 3 years to complete based on research) that needs to be defended in the "thesis defense" for conferring the title of a PhD. An absence of a research thesis equates such a degree to a Psy.D or a MD in the US sense (for in the UK a MD also requires a research dissertation though not as long and concrete as in a PhD). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.87.211 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, bold type is probably not the correct route to go on that one. I agree that it isn't the best definition and realistically, I'm not sure we need to define the Ph.D. in the article beyond saying, perhaps, that the classic training model is the Boulder model of Scientist-Practitioner although other programs opt for variations on that model. From there, we can link to the wiki article for Ph.D. and Scientist-Practitioner, which explain the info for us. Tamara Young (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion in WikiProject Medicine

Why is this article being included in WikiProject Medicine? Psychology isn't a medical discipline and psychologists are licensed as behavioral/mental health practitioners. I'm not seeing the crossover necessity here. Tamara Young (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Only Human behaviour and cognition?

People that study say animal learning, behaviour and cognition are also called psychologists, so should the article recognize that? (I am at a conference as I type this with 150 people who would call themselves psychologists, who work in psychology departments etc, but all study animal cognition) Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

well, for my this page is so good, because many students can found more information about psychologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.153.108 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited the first couple of sentences to make the role of psychologists a bit more species-neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.81.11 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

New intro section Feb 5th 2009

I think this article needs more work. It moves too quickly into mental health professionals, which is really just one part of the field, or just one part of the applied side. I've changed it with the thought that this should focus more on how the title psychologist is used, or on what a psychologist is.

Comparisons with a psychiatrist are more of a subset of clinical psychology or psychologists and should probably be moved down or around somewhere else.

In any case, I did just a bit ... more is needed. Pgm8693 (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a few changes and added a section on research psychologists, some of which I just copied from Psychology. The article definitely needs more work. Thanks for your contributions, Pgm8693. Be bold in editing! -DoctorW 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

vandalism deleted

I guess it's a good thing that the two recent (March 2009) acts of vandalism were removed. But perhaps it should be said that psychologists have a sense of humor, and that most psychologists would have found it to be funny. Pgm8693 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

well psychologist is something dat calls my attention for sum reason<b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.58.130 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all research psychologists are social sceintists

I am not sure the term social scientist would apply to Endel Tulving, Brenda Milner or Sara Shettleworth. Indeed, fields like perception, sensation, neuroscience, cognition etc are not really social sciences. What do others think?Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a psychologist? Discussion of major edit undo

I haven't been watching this page for some months, but it appears that the definition of a psychologist was changed back in September in a substantial way. There was no discussion, other than an edit note that it was being changed to reflect what is found in the reference to the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), a source that provides information about titles listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

1. I am going to revert it back to indicate that "psychologist" is a title that names certain people. This is important because the use of the title is regulated by law in all 50 States, and in the Canadian Provinces and in countries other than in North America. In each State, there is a law regulating the use of the term or the title. If the article just jumps into what psychologists do, as opposed to what they are, it misses the important point that the word is first and foremost a title. And if the article starts off by saying what psychologists do, there are endless complications in providing a definition ... there are all kinds of different types of psychologists under the basic distinction between scholars and professionals.

2. I am also going to revert back the change that was made indicating that practitioners are involved in "mental" health care, as opposed to health care in general. Practicing (clinical) psychologists are not limited to the field of just "mental" health, and the distinction is not actually meaningful.

3. I am also going to revert back in the use of the distinction between those psychologists who are scientists and those who actually apply the science. The use of the terms scholar, scientist, professional and practitioner are well established in the field as having meaning. The references for this are to the "Vail" and "Boulder" conferences, both of which have articles in Wikipedia and both of which are essential foundations for the definition of a psychologist. See: Scientist–practitioner model and Practitioner-scholar model

4. Finally, I am going to revert back in the language indicating that the public typically encounters and thinks of psychologists as being clinical and counseling types.

I don't think I'm going to get to this today, and I will follow with additional discussion as needed when I make the changes.Pgm8693 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope this potential new version takes into account that not all psychologists study humans, and that there are PhD psychologists at Universities for example that have nothing to do with clinical and counselling practice. It would be good if any big change like that, maybe we could come up with wording here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck: Your comment highlights the problem with trying to define a "psychologist" in terms of what psychologists do, rather than what they are. You are absolutely correct, some study rats rather than humans, some study machines (e.g., artificial intelligence) and some just write about math and research methods. Even on the applied side of the house, there are professionals whose work has nothing to do with counseling and therapy ... industrial/organizational psychologists are the best example. The field of psychology is defined elsewhere in Wikipedia. It's a big tree with a lot of limbs and branches. This article answers the question: What is a psychologist? ... if it tries to go down the path of "what is psychology?" or "what do psychologists do?," there is no end of side roads that need to be followed.

Another thing about how this article was changed: If it starts out by saying that "a psychologist is someone who studies the mind and human behavior," then it has included my barber and my bartender as part of the definition. Pgm8693 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing for Dbrodbeck: the term "social scientist" is commonly used as an umbrella term to distinguish certain fields (including psychology) from the "natural sciences." The distinctions and definitions are problematic in many ways ... the distinction between "hard" and "soft" science is problematic as well. The wikipedia articles on natural and social science are troubled. That having been said, it is a common convention to describe psychology as a "social science." Psychology is a science, but it is generally understood as not being rocket science.Pgm8693 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(i hope this is an OK section to post this)..Note that I am speaking on behalf of the US only & NOT Canada.I have not researched Canada. If Canadian regulations are different then maybe the countries should be under separate headings... Within the second full paragraph under the heading 'US and Canada' there is a statement made re: an exception made for school psychologists to be referred to as psychologists regardless of their degree level ie M.A. or Doctorate. If my interpretation is correct I believe then that this statement is incorrect. On the APA's website it clearly states that for an individual to identify themself as a psycholgist he/she must hold a doctorate level degree. I agree ( & have found evidence to support) that people with a masters degree can work in the field of school psychology however they cannot call themselves or be called psychologists. I would like to change the wording to reflect this. Can we eliminate the sentence that reads "The exception to this is the profession of a school psychologist who can be certified by boards of education to practice and use the title "psychologist." Can we reframe the idea to read something like 'in the field of school psychology the board of education in some states can certify persons to practice psychology in a school setting, however under no circumstances can they refer to themselves or be called psycholgoists. (AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC))

Germany, Diplom-Psychologe

The claim "the use of the title 'Diplom-Psychologe' is restricted by law" is near tautological and beside the point: It amounts to "It is illegal to claim to have an academic degree that one does, in fact, not have.", and says nothing about "Psychologe" (psychologist) per se.88.77.152.162 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

the controversy about the usefulness of psychology

there are well-known groups who believe that much of "psychology" is ineffective, or even harmful. psychologists are also the ones most likely to be referred to as "quacks" (fakes, frauds). the college major is commonly joked about as being one of the easy ones. this should be included in the article at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. But remember that you need to provide reliable citations for your conjecture. Mark D Worthen PsyD 16:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-Exclusive Definition of Psychology

I've seen more than one person read a definition of "psychologist" and conclude, "Oh, psychologists are the ONLY ones who can evaluate, diagnose, or treat mental disorders!" I doubt this is true anywhere. In my state (Oregon), evaluating, diagnosing, and treating mental disorders is legitimate for psychologists, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurse practitioners, clinical social workers, counselors, and marriage and family therapists. This is a significant error, so I felt it necessary to add a clarification right after the definition.

On other notes, I noticed in the section for the USA on "Licensing and Regulation" that APA membership was discussed first, though it's pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand. But I just moved it to the bottom rather than deleting it. (A section on licensing and regulation really needs to talk about licensing and regulation in its first paragraph!) RobertPlamondon (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)