Evidence-Based Social Policy: Can Psychologists  Go It Alone??

   By Alice Eagly, PhD, SPSSI President

 

In a recent op-ed in the New York Times (Jan 23, 2015), Justin Wolfers discussed the dominance of economists in public policy discussions. He noted that expert opinion invoked by government and other policy makers usually comes from economists, with sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists, and psychologists having relatively little voice. It is true, for example, that the President has a Council of Economic Advisors but no councils from other academic disciplines. Recently, however, the White House staff added a Social and Behavioral Sciences Team that is charged with bringing knowledge forward from a wider range of sciences to foster evidence-based policy. Surely this approach should prove useful in addressing issues such as immigration, health disparities, unemployment, and educational reform.

This new governmental focus promises increased visibility of psychology’s public policy profile. Certainly, many psychologists, on their part, believe that psychology has much to offer that is not being heard. To take advantage of emerging opportunities to gain a public voice, psychologists certainly should work harder to spread the word about our policy relevant research. SPSSI has this mission at the top of its current agenda. But working harder is not enough.

To become more effective, we psychologists should think more deeply about where our expertise best fits into the task of solving societal problems. I maintain that psychologists, and especially SPSSI members, have been much better at identifying problems than solving them. For example, we document discrimination faced by many individuals and social groups and often reveal the psychological mechanisms that enable discrimination. We also look for solutions but generally frame potential solutions in terms of individual psychology. Yet, solving societal problems requires that psychologists reach beyond their traditional focus on the individual and view problems as thoroughly embedded in the societal context that is the prime focus of the other social science disciplines.

To illustrate this assessment, I ask you to consider research in one area: stereotyping and prejudice, which has been a major focus of social psychology since its beginnings. Social psychologists have demonstrated the existence of stereotypes about many social groups. The classic focus on ethnic and nationality stereotypes gradually shifted to stereotypes about groups identified by race, gender, and social class. From an initial emphasis on explicit stereotypes, research expanded to include the study of less conscious, more implicit stereotypes.

Over many decades, psychological research has demonstrated the negative effects that can follow from stereotyping. Stereotypes, for instance, can result in misjudgments of individuals who are assimilated to group stereotypes and therefore lose opportunities to which they may be entitled based on their individual qualifications. Unfavorable stereotypes can damage the performance of members of groups whose stereotype carries the expectation of low performance. Also, backlash can be directed to individuals who violate stereotypes, for example, by being more assertive than their group’s stereotype allows. In general, the message from social psychology is that stereotypes underlie multiple forms of prejudice and discrimination.

A commitment to social justice draws psychologists to the task of alleviating the harm done by stereotyping. As psychologists, we are prone to look for remedies in the psychology of the individual who engages in stereotyping. Many elegant experiments have traced the psychological processes by which stereotyping occurs and affects judgments and behaviors. The progressive mandate is to stop these processes before they produce unfair actions. Research suggests that individuals can indeed control stereotyping under some conditions, but suppressing stereotypes over longer periods of time is difficult and can even cause them to rebound. People can refrain from acting on their stereotypes, but restraint can be foiled when people lack conscious awareness of them.

How else can psychologists contribute? Focusing outward on the social context within which groups exist can reveal the informational sources of group stereotypes. As Anne Koenig and I have argued (JPSP, 2014), groups are differently distributed into social roles, and, as a consequence, group members are often observed carrying out certain types of behaviors. When people share these observations and infer traits from these role behaviors, the stereotypes that form can pervade the culture. Can this process be stopped? Not really. It is inherent in human cognition that individuals categorize people, as well as things, and form concepts based on what they observe is usually associated with these categories. And, in relation to the categorization of people, the stereotypes that result certainly can have negative effects, depending on their content.

In looking to the societal context to find out why stereotypes have certain content, psychologists should focus on people’s observations in their everyday lives. Some groups, such as women, are disproportionately observed in communally demanding roles while other groups, such as white men, in agentically demanding roles. But why do groups come to occupy different roles? The answers to this question are mainly in the domain of other social sciences. And how about changing the roles that groups usually occupy? An understanding of the socioeconomic and cultural forces that can prevent changes in social roles comes mainly from these other disciplines as well. Also, political scientists can illuminate the feasibility of policy initiatives that can remove barriers to new roles. For example, initiatives such as affirmative action and quotas are politically acceptable in some nations but not others.

Because individuals are the agents of social change, psychologists can indeed explicate the microprocesses that enable it—that is, the attitudes and motivations that underlie group-level processes. Moreover, social psychologists help to understand the ways that immediate social contexts can protect or weaken the individual striving that can contribute to social change. Yet, this psychological knowledge does not lead to effective social policy unless it is coordinated with the societal knowledge embedded in the other social sciences. Similarly, knowledge from the other social sciences does not produce effective social policy unless it is based on correct assumptions about human psychology.

Effective evidence-based policy requires that social and behavioral scientists work across disciplinary boundaries. Before we psychologists communicate our messages outward to policy makers, we should pause to examine the socioeconomic, political, and cultural context of what we propose. And we should offer up our psychological expertise to social scientists who attempt to shape public policy from the perspective of disciplines that have a more molar focus. Working together we can make a difference.

—Alice Eagly eagly@northwestern.edu