American psychologists and psychology abroad.

Abstract

The roots and consequences of the isolationism of American psychology are described. American psychologists need to develop a world view of their science and profession. Such consciousness raising would best begin in their undergraduate training. The broadening process should include exposure to research of foreign psychologists through literature, international meetings, travel, and exchange programs, as well as cooperative research opportunities. Suggestions are offered as to how such exposure can be implemented and as to the availability of programs for such implementation.Can we seriously entertain the possibility of growing isolation in the light of the truly international character of our general scientific endeavor? Does not man's quest for understanding his world and himself stem from a common origin of shared needs and curiosities? Are not the objective methods and theories of science truly supranational, perhaps even supracultural?- Murphy & Kovach, 1972, p. 484

Conceptual and empirical status of mental constructs in the analysis of action

“…(They would not be as likely to be published if they did, and they would risk getting a powerful enemy). Psychologists in the world outside the USA could provide some critical discussions but they are, as noted most recently by Sexton & Misiak (1984), largely ignored.…”

Cross-Cultural Counseling: History, Challenges, and Rationale

“…Later on in this chapter and in the remainder of this handbook, it will become apparent that U.S. psychologists are now engaged in many more diverse and rich international activities. Perhaps, this is because in the 1980s, U.S. psychologists became more interested in psychology elsewhere (Rosenzweig, 1984;Sexton & Misiak, 1984).…”

“…At the time of World War I and for years to follow, however, U.S. psychologists were focused on the United States (Sexton & Misiak, 1984), and they tended "to ignore or neglect psychology abroad" (Rosenzweig, 1984, p. 877 (Sexton & Misiak, 1984).…”

“…Some scholars believed that U.S. psychologists had very limited information about the international literature (Kennedy, Scheirer, & Rogers, 1984;Rosenzweig, 1999;Sexton & Misiak, 1984), especially if it was not published in English (Ardila, 1993;Brandt, 1970;David, 1960;Rosenzweig, 1984) or by leading figures in psychology outside the United States (Denmark, 1998). These observations and more current observations have led many scholars to claim that U.S. psychology is ethnocentric (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992;Leung, 2003;Marsella, 1998;Pedersen & Leong, 1997;Takooshian, 2003), U.S.-centric (Leong & Ponterotto, 2003), or Anglocentric (Cheung, 2000;Trimble, 2001).…”

Improving the Psychology Undergraduate Curriculum in Developing Countries: A Personal Note with Illustrations from Brazil

“…American psychology has often been criticized for its lack of international integration [12,13] and efforts are underway to increase international collaboration. Often all it takes to establish collaborative agreements is an initial contact.…”