The unique professional identity of practicing clinical psychologists is in danger of becoming adrift in a sea of public indifference, competition and professional self-doubt. Clinical psychologists are not valued commensurate to their expertise. The intense and grueling process of education, training, personal therapy, and licensure requirements that such psychologists undergo is lost on the public. Consequently, the many other professions that are in competition are in a position to marginalize practicing psychologists. A dramatic restructuring and repackaging is necessary in order for clinical psychologists to remain relevant and vital in today’s marketplace and for practicing clinicians to maintain their identity as the most skillful, knowledgeable, and qualified therapeutic providers in the mental health community.

All Things to All People

Today’s psychologists, including many clinicians, are becoming something separate from the original purpose and mission of our discipline; they are striving to be all things to all people. Today’s psychologists borrow considerably from outside fields that have little to do with psychology and are in turn refashioning themselves as mathematicians, neurologists, anthropologists, geneticists, chemists, sociologists, biologists, and experts in education and cross-cultural studies. The APA currently boasts 54 active divisions, including such wide-ranging areas of focus such as peace, behavioral neurology, religion and environmental psychology. In the on-going fight for practicing therapists to gain prescription privileges, today’s psychologists are trying to reinvent themselves as pharmacists and physicians as well (McFall, 2002; Robiner et al., 2002; Sanua, 1996).

If all of these things were working for practicing psychologists, that would be fine. However, they are not working. There is a major gap between the ways the public views practicing psychologists and how we view ourselves (Benjamin, 1986; Fall, Levitov, Jennings, & Eberts, 2000; Farberman, 1997; Janda, England, Lovejoy, & Drury, 1998; Wood, Jones, & Benjamin, 1986). There is a disconnect between the services practicing psychologists are trained to provide and the services the public views us as being capable providers of (Hinnefeld, 1996). There is a lack of understanding and appreciation for our competencies, and even in light of services that such psychologists are considered specialists in providing, many people seek the help of other professionals instead (Hartwig & Delin, 2003).

On the reverse, if a person has a problem with their brain, they will go to a physician or a neurologist. If they need spiritual guidance, they will go to a priest, rabbi, pastor, or guru. Though clinical psychologists have some training in areas involving biochemistry and the brain, they will clearly never be the go-to professionals in these areas. Practicing psychologists will never be viewed as experts in a field separate from psychology, that is, the field specifically encompassing behavior, emotions, relationships, personality development and change.

Psychologists’ mission should be psychology, but our identity is becoming increasingly diffuse and the market that our expertise should avail us of is becoming cornered by other professionals, namely: social workers, marriage and family therapists, psychiatric nurses, pastoral counselors, philosophical therapists, and increasingly the upstart professions of life-coaching and mental coaching, not to mention motivational gurus and various other helpers. Today, non-psychologist professionals are taking over the work that practicing psychologists have traditionally done. Clearly, the uniqueness of psychology is fading rapidly along with the identity of its practitioners.

Clinical psychologists, and the art and science they practice, are under assault and in danger of losing their professional identity (Pollack, 1996). The position of being the primary providers of psychotherapeutic services, established in the last century, is in steep decline. Today, some healthcare provider programs no longer utilize psychologists for therapy, and those that do restrict and discourage traditional psychological work and assessment (Acklin, 1996; Lane, 2000). In a survey of psychologists conducted by Piotrowski, Belter, and Keller (1998), 72% of respondents expressed that due to managed care constraints, their testing practices had changed in the past five years. Indeed, personality assessment, psychological testing, and the variety of testing instruments used by psychologists have decreased due to the negative influence of managed care (Piotrowski, 1999). In the place of psychologists, social workers and MFTs have been increasingly integrated into coverage plans (Cohen, 2003).

It is the aim of this proposal to argue that clinical psychologists should restructure their professional identities and indeed, that it would be beneficial for them to do so (Benjamin, 1986). We are proposing that clinicians should market themselves as doctors of personality (referred to hereon as Personality Doctors), that is, professionals that are the known and documented experts in the understanding, assessment, treatment and study of personality. In so doing, they would set themselves apart as the personality experts, a claim that no other profession can make and an identity that no other profession can co-opt because no other profession has the necessary training or background to be the experts in personality, and this can be proven. Clinical psychologists should simultaneously reacquaint and identify themselves with the central historical vision and mission of psychology while carving out a new marketplace identity for their future.

Psychology Has Lost Its Vision and Mission

Clinical psychology has revolutionized understanding about the human condition, moving away from previous supernatural and biological explanations for behavior, motivation, and all manner of formerly baffling and confounding mental and physical symptoms (Whitehead, 2005). This achievement should not be understated. The field was able to remove the mysteriousness from previously mystifying conditions by revealing their psychological roots (Deigh, 2001; Barrat, 1990).

Certainly, psychoanalytic theory is considered one of the greatest advances of Western civilization. For the first time in human history, personality theorists made breakthroughs in human awareness as psychology brought an entirely new dimension to rational thought and the human experience, turning people’s awareness inwards and revealing how the variables and dysfunctions of human living and thinking emerge directly from the learned aspects of personality (Lear, 2005; Westen, 1998).

Previous to that time, many roadblocks existed on the path to such discovery in the forms of religious belief systems, philosophical dogma, sociopolitical rationalizations, and good old-fashioned human resistance and repression (Pollack, 1996; Zilboorg, 1939).

As the early dream of psychology became realized as a reality, pioneers in the field were able to dramatically alter conceptualizations of mental illness and abnormal behavior, first moving civilization away from longstanding demonological, supernatural and astrological explanations (Chevez, 2005; Kinzie, 2000; Asch, 1985; Henderson, 1982; Joshi, 1971) and then beyond the biological theories of mental illness developed in the time of the Greeks by Hippocrates and later Galen (Mora, 1985).

Apart from the superstition that continued to surround the so-called mentally ill (Dain, 1964), mental illness was viewed from either a disease-model or a nature-model, and environmental causes for abnormal behavior, let alone normal behavior, were not properly considered.

Today, our technology has advanced, giving us a false sense of scientific progress. However, the field of Clinical Psychology is reverting to regressive models as psychological researchers and academicians return to explanations that were favored two thousand years ago. The insight, progress and discovery of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental explanations for human behavior are being abandoned in favor of non-psychological ones. Brain chemistry and evolutionary theories without practical applicability are now dominating psychology. We have better microscopes alongside a diminishing of insight. Instead of an imbalance of ‘bodily humors’ psychologists now speak of chemical imbalances in the brain, which as an explanation for ‘mental illness’ is a gross oversimplification at best and a complete myth at worst (Lachter, 2001; Lurie, 1991; McLaren, 1992; Sanua, 1996; Smith, 1999). Biochemistry has replaced demonology!

Turning towards biochemistry is straying from the central purpose, vision, dream, tradition and mission of psychology, much as if psychologists were turning to astrology for answers. In fact, it represents a step backwards for us. If the fight to gain prescription privileges continues and is won, as it already has been in two states, Clinical Psychology will further be in danger of regressing towards a pseudo-science funded by the deep pockets of pharmaceutical companies (Baker, Newnes, & Myatt, 2003; Jefferson, Greist, & Katzelnick, 1997; Reist & VandeCreek, 2004). Even Sigmund Freud the neurologist drew a strict boundary between psychology and biology (Aron, 1996; Wachtel, 1997).

Our Own Worst Enemies

Clinical psychologists have become, in many ways, our own worst enemies. As a profession that has struggled mightily to establish ourselves, we are self-destructing by diluting our relevance, identity, and mission. Where is the respect for our profession? We are over-trained and then marginalized, and we are to blame for it.

Today, less actual psychology is being practiced by professionals, less psychology is being taught in colleges, and less psychology is being printed in psychology textbooks (Griggs, Proctor, & Cook, 2004; Griggs, Jackson, Christopher, & Marek, 2000). A survey of college textbook publishers revealed that introductory psychology textbooks are more focused on “biological influences on behavior, cross-cultural issues, cognitive research, evolutionary theory, neuroscience and genetics” and less on psychological factors, including psychodynamic, humanistic, and personality issues and theories (Cush & Buskist, 1997, p. 120).

The graduate curriculum and program options of America’s highest-ranking universities are also telling. In a published list of top psychology graduate schools, programs are broken into the categories of Behavioral Neuroscience, Cognitive, Developmental, Experimental, Industrial and Organizational, and Social Psychology (U.S. News & World Report, 2006). Clinical Psychology is apparently not a specialty deemed important for organizational purposes. Furthermore, the top ranked school for graduate psychology is Stanford, which does not offer a Clinical Psychology graduate program. Princeton and Georgetown also offer no Clinical graduate concentrations to speak of. All in all, on the list of highest ranked national universities for 2006 published by the U.S. News & World Report, only 8 of the top 23 offer an accredited Clinical Psychology graduate program (U.S. News & World Report, 2006).

A self-imposed brain drain has been instituted on Clinical Psychology through the non-psychological cultivation and training of graduate students. The current gate keeping of the graduate programs is symptomatic of this. Statistics and biology courses are becoming the major prerequisites for PhD programs. Cerebral accomplishments are celebrated over innovation, psychological insight, communication, and interpersonal skills. We are admitting students that rate high in scientific aptitude with little regard for the interpersonal, when the role of clinician and their success is largely contingent on interpersonal skills. It is no wonder then that psychology today has “eschewed broad theorizing,” resulting in the invention of “new names for old concepts,” “fragmentation of the field,” and “isolation from the general cultural dialogue” (Kruglanski, 2001, p. 871).
It would seem that ‘true’ psychological training, and maybe clinical psychology as a whole, is moving away from traditional academia and into professional schools. The PsyD, although not nearly as common as the PhD, may represent a brighter future for our field.

Therapy Providers and Public Disconnection

In a study conducted by Donna Davidovitz, it was reported that among psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, social workers performed half of all brief therapy, whereas psychologists performed approximately a third (Davidovitz, 1997). The work of practicing psychologists is being transferred to other professions by default. As cited by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), “more than 600,000 people [in the U.S.] hold social work degrees. Also, 320,000 professional social workers hold state licenses” (NASW, 2006). According to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists (AAMFT), “since 1970 there has been a 50-fold increase in the number of marriage and family therapists. At any given time they are treating over 1.8 million people” (AAMFT, 2006). Furthermore, the AAMFT reports that today more than 50,000 marriage and family therapists treat individuals, couples, and families nationwide.

It is symptomatic of the profession’s muddled image (psychologists as therapists) that now society is developing ‘life coaches’ who may have no professional psychological training at all, and yet are replacing psychologists still further (Norcross, 2000). The general public is often not even sure how psychologists differ from MFTs, social workers, and psychiatrists, and possibly couldn’t care less. An APA study consisting of focus groups and telephone surveys attempted to measure the public’s attitudes towards mental health providers. “The research showed that the public has very little understanding of the qualifications and credentials of psychologists and cannot tell one mental health provider from another” (Farberman, 1997, p. 128).

This confusion is compounded by the negative imagery and misrepresentation of psychologists and psychotherapy in the popular media (Farberman, 2000; Sleek, 1998.) The media both shapes and reinforces widespread misconceptions about the nature of psychotherapy as well as appropriate therapist / client relationships (Berkley, 1998).

Ronald E. Fox, former president of the APA, points out that practitioners are pressured to conform to organized systems of health care and adopt the procedural codes that come with the territory (Fox, 1995). Corporate-run health management will increasingly not deal with individual therapists. Fox also points out many marketplace biases against psychotherapy, including biases against long-term therapy, psychological assessment in general, confidentiality, and mental health specialists (Fox, 1995).

The California Psychological Association (CPA) has recently battled legislation proposed by the Governor of California in an attempt to keep him from dissolving the independent Board of Psychology operating in the state. The legislation would have caused psychologists in California to be licensed and disciplined by the same board as MFTs and LCSWs. This illustrates a similarly confused view (or perhaps a well-deserved lack of impression) of the field of psychology in the eyes of politicians and legislators. Clearly, psychologists are not perceived or valued as unique and highly trained practitioners as we compete with those of significantly lesser education, training and expertise.

However, fighting for these rights politically is a band-aid disguising the deeper problem, which is the weak, muddled, and ever-negative image of psychologists and Clinical Psychology. Rarely does one hear, “Oh good, a psychologist is coming!” Where is the respect for our field? We are over-trained and then marginalized.

Psychologists as Assessors of Personality and Agents of Change

When the revolution of psychology began, for the first time it was clear how psychological disorders could be explained through people’s history. Progressively, clinicians have dropped the ball in regards to the importance of studying personality.

In the early 20th century, when psychotherapy was still controlled by psychiatrists, psychologists first found their vocation as assessors of personality (Benjamin, 2005; Hogan, 2005). World War II created a great need for personality assessment of the myriad drafted and enlisted soldiers who would be sent out into battle (Marlowe, 2000).

Personality assessment is a major heritage of psychology. It is a heritage that has been mostly forgotten, as psychological assessment and testing have continued to decrease (Norcross, Karpiak, & Santoro, 2005). However, despite the decrease, clinical psychologists are still the only profession qualified to do this work. Licensed psychologists are the only professionals educated and trained to do personality assessment.

Personality Doctors Could Project a Meaningful, Powerful, Consumer-Friendly Identity That No Other Profession Could Claim
Practicing psychologists should market themselves as doctors of personality. That is, experts in the research, assessment and treatment of the human personality. Such an identity of ‘Personality Doctor’ has marketplace advantages over that of psychologists and psychotherapists that include moving away from the confusion, diffusion, mixture, threat and stigma associated with psychotherapy.

In many ways, psychotherapy is an ancient term, a term which the public does not have a clear understanding of, and to which many people have a fearful or negative reaction (Benjamin, 2003; Ben-Porath, 2002). Dynamic psychology is not perceived to be very credible by uninitiated laypersons (Bragesjo, Clinton, & Sandell, 2004). Even for those who utilize therapy, clients have misconceptions and unrealistic expectations that must be clarified (Curtis, 1984). The therapeutic process may be viewed by clients with skepticism, apprehension, or awe (Castelnuovo-Tedesco, 1984).

Mental illness, mental disease, psychiatric illness, craziness, insanity; these are all terms that have been used to describe people’s psychological dysfunction and contribute to the stigma that has kept people from doing necessary therapeutic work. By surrounding ourselves with threatening terms, practicing psychologists drive consumers toward directions where they feel safer. Life coaching and marriage counseling have positive, health-focused connotations that are much less stigmatized than psychotherapy. Clinical psychologists could learn something from such examples, and indeed, some have. Positive psychology and growth-focused services would become essential factors in the promotion of Personality Doctors.

But the public should be made to understand that no other profession currently receives the appropriate training in regards to the assessment, research, and treatment of human personality (Hall, Howerton, & Bolin, 2005; Merenda, 1997). Clinical psychologists have been proven to be even more accurate in personality assessment than computer programs (Epstein, 2000). Social workers, life coaches, MFTs, and even psychiatrists do not have the qualifications for this kind of work (Frauenhoffer, Ross, Gfeller, Searight, & Piotrowski, 1998; Peterson, 1999). As doctors of personality, we can occupy a unique position in the marketplace so long as we remain true to our mission.

It is only licensed psychologists who are legally permitted to purchase and utilize psychological testing instruments such as the WAIS, MMPI-2 and Rorschach tests. MFTs, psychiatrists, social workers are not specifically trained for this type of work. Also, psychology is the only profession that does consistent research on personality (Linton, 2004).

People go to the dentist or orthodontist in order to take care of their teeth. Why don’t they go to a physician about their teeth? Because, it is the dentists who are the experts. Likewise, physical therapists are experts in physical rehab, nutritionists are experts in diet, and massage therapists are experts in the art of giving massages. Psychologists promoting themselves as doctors of personality, then, would become the experts in personality. Just as people cannot straighten their own teeth or fix their own cavities, people cannot effectively treat their own personality. Indeed, one cannot examine one’s own personality accurately (Kolar, Funder, & Colvin, 1996; Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Wilson & Dunn, 2004). Like medical and dental problems, psychological dysfunctions will impair your quality of life; the extent of which depends on the severity of the dysfunction.

If physicians are experts on the physical (or biological) body, then clinical psychologists can become the experts on personality development, dysfunction and healing. The personality can really be thought of as the ‘psychological body.’
Directly related to this proposed reinvention of professional identity is the explanation of ‘personality’ itself. Using a pathology or disease model is problematic in that it propagates, promotes and perpetuates fear, social stigma, avoidance and misunderstanding. Furthermore, laypersons tend to have shallow, unrealistic conceptualizations of personality that are only fueled by the glut of self-help books, TV specials and motivational gurus that promise quick fixes to deeply entrenched characteristics.

The public needs to be educated that 1) personality has deep roots, 2) those roots are complex, 3) nobody can see their own personality accurately, 4) personality does not heal itself, and 5) personality requires an outside expert who is thoroughly trained and qualified to assess and work with its dysfunctions.

Clinical psychologists have a responsibility to educate the public as they secure their place as unique health providers who understand and treat personality. Positioning clinical psychologists as Personality Doctors would furnish the profession with the attention and opportunity to educate the public about the reality of personality and its needs in a non-threatening, easy to understand way. It could also be demonstrated that the assessment and adjustment done by Personality Doctors is actually desirable, just as people attend to their bodies, teeth, etc. with the help of professionals.

Do you have goals or dreams that you haven’t been able to achieve? Do you have feelings that you would like to express but are unable to? Are you concerned about your relationship with particular persons in your life? Do you have any maladaptive behaviors that interfere with your life? People have few qualms about seeking out a medical doctor when they suspect that something is wrong with their body. Ideally, the same should be true for personality issues.

Put On Your Thinking Caps

It should be clear that the purpose of this paper is to argue for the need for professional reinvention and to stimulate discussion, not to offer a final solution. Consider it a call for action to those concerned with the state of the profession.
By marketing ourselves to the public as doctors of personality, practicing psychologists will have an opportunity to remove stigma and misunderstanding, promote the importance and necessity of our work, as well as have the opportunity to implement a new system (if necessary) for going about that work. All practitioners would benefit from an innovative way of making the field and its work a non-threatening and even inviting healing art.

Clinicians could reclaim the position of primary providers of the much-needed help that medication can only barely begin to offer, and more importantly be viewed as the best providers of that help. The intensity, breadth, and demands of the training of practicing psychologists should be made visible to the public, allowing psychologists to separate themselves from the many other ‘mental health professionals’ whose training does not come close to the training that clinical psychologists receive. The public does not realize the difference. It is incumbent on us as practicing psychologists to change that or risk losing the hard-won, civilization-transforming heritage we were on the verge of achieving.

This is not about a name change, this is about how we describe ourselves and market ourselves to the public. Being a doctor of personality needs to be integrated into the concept of being a psychologist. Change will require the cooperation and brainpower of every psychologist who realizes that we are in dire straits. We are a profession under siege. We have no fans. How much would we be missed if we disappeared tomorrow?

References

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapists (2006). FAQs on MFTs. Retrieved April 19th, 2006, from http://www.aamft.org/faqs/index_nm.asp.

Acklin, M.W. (1996). Personality assessment and managed care. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 194-201.

Aron, L. (1996). From hypnotic suggestion to free association: Freud as a psychotherapist, circa 1892-1893. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 32(1), 99-114.

Asch, S. S. (1985). Depression and demonic possession: The analyst as an exorcist. Hillside Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 7(2), 149-164.

Baker, E., Newnes, C., & Myatt, H. (2003). Drug companies and Clinical Psychology. Ethical Human Sciences & Services, 5(3), 247-253.

Barrat, B. B. (1990). Reawakening the revolution of psychoanalytic method: Notes on the human subject, semiosis and desire. Psychoanalysis & Contemporary Thought, 13(1), 139-163.

Benjamin, L. T. (1986). Why don’t they understand us? A history of psychology’s public image. American Psychologist, 41(9), 941-946.

Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (2003). Why can’t psychology get a stamp? Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 5(4), 443-454.

Benjamin, Ludy T. Jr. (2005). A history of Clinical Psychology as a profession in America (and a glimpse at its future). Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 1-30.

Ben-Porath, D. D. (2002). Stigmatization of individuals who receive psychotherapy: An interaction between help-seeking behavior and the presence of depression. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 21(4), 400-413.

Berkley, M. (1998). Writing towards change: Changing public attitudes about psychotherapy [Abstract]. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59(4-B), 1840.

Bragesjo, M., Clinton, D., & Sandell, R. (2004). The credibility of psychodynamic, cognitive and cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy in a randomly selected sample of the general public. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 77(3), 297-307.

Castelnuovo-Tedesco, P. (1984). Psychotherapy and the fear of change. Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa, 9(2), 67-70.

Chevez, L. G. (2005). Latin American healers and healing: Healing as a redefinition process. In R. Moodley & W. West (Eds.), Integrating traditional healing practices into counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 85-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

Cohen, J. A. (2003). Managed care and the evolving role of the Clinical Social Worker in mental health. Social Work, 48(1), 34-43.

Curtis, J. M. (1984). Motivational techniques for individual and group psychotherapy. Psychology Reports, 54(1), 271-277.

Cush, D. T., & Buskist, W. (1997). Future of the introductory psychology textbook: A survey of college publishers. Teaching of Psychology, 24(2), 119-122.

Dain, N. (1964.) Concepts of insanity in the United States, 1789-1865. Oxford, England: Rutgers U. Press.

Davidovitz, D. (1997). A national survey on the practice and training in brief therapy of psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers [Abstract]. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 57(7-B), 4701.

Deigh, J. (2001). Emotions: The legacy of James and Freud. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 82(6), 1247-1256.

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69-106.

Epstein, J. (2000). The utility of computer versus clinician-authored assessments in aiding the prediction of patient symptomatology. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(5), 519-536.

Fall, K. A., Levitov, J. E., Jennings, M., & Eberts, S. (2000). The public perception of mental health professions: An empirical examination. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22(2), 122-134.

Farberman, R. K. (1997). Public attitudes about psychologists and mental health care: Research to guide the American Psychological Association public education campaign. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28(2), 128-136.

Farberman, R. K. (2000). Preparing for media interviews: some trick of the trade for promoting psychology when speaking to the media. Monitor on Psychology, 31(10), 68-69.

Fox, R. E. (1995). The rape of psychotherapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26(2), 147-155.

Frauenhoffer, D., Ross, M. J., Gfeller, J., Searight, H. R., & Piotrowski, C. (1998). Psychological test usage among licensed mental health practitioners: A multidisciplinary survey. Journal of Psychological Practice, 4(1), 28-33.

Griggs, R. A., Jackson, S. L., Christopher, A. N., & Marek, P. (1999). Introductory psychology textbooks: An objective analysis and update. Teaching of Psychology, 26(3), 182-189.

Griggs, R. A., Proctor, D. L., Cook, S. M. (2004). The most frequently cited books in introductory texts. Teaching of Psychology, 31(2), 113-116.

Hall, J. D., Howerton, D. L., & Bolin, A. U. (2005). The use of testing technicians: Critical issues for professional psychology. International Journal of Testing, 5(4), 357-375.

Hartwig, S., & Delin, C. (2003). How unpopular are we? Reassessing psychologists’ public image with different measures of favourability. Australian Psychologist, 38(1), 68-72.

Henderson, J. (1982). Exorcism and possession in psychotherapy practice. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 27(2), 129-134.

Hinnefeld, B. J. (1996). Public perception of psychologists: The effects of information about psychologists on consumers’ willingness to utilize psychological services [Abstract]. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 56(11-B), 6392.

Hogan, R. (2005). In defense of personality measurement: New wine for old whiners. Human Performance, 18(4), 331-341.

Janda, L. H., England, K., Lovejoy, D., & Drury, K. (1998). Attitudes toward psychology relative to other disciplines. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(2), 140-143.

Jefferson, J. W., Greist, J. H., Katzelnick, D. J. (1997). ‘Evolutionary trends in the pharmacotherapeutic management of depression’: Comment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 58(10), 450-452.

Joshi, P. (1971). Mental health in a historical perspective. Annales Medico-Psychologiques, 1(2), 185-214.

Kinzie, J. D. (2000). The historical relationship between psychiatry and the major religions. In J.K. Boehnlein (Ed.), Psychiatry and religion: The convergence of mind and spirit (pp. 3-26). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1996). Comparing the accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of Personality, 64(2), 311-337.

Kruglanski, A. W. (2001). That ‘vision thing’: The state of theory in social and personality psychology at the edge of the new millennium. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 871-875.

Lachter, B. (2001) Chemical imbalance: A clinical non sequitur. Australasian Psychiatry, 9(4), 311-315.

Lane, R. C. (2000). Psychoanalysis: The state of the profession. Journal of Psychotherapy in Independent Practice, 1(1), 89-111.

Lear, J. (2005). Freud. Philadelphia, PA: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Linton, J. C. (2004). Psychological assessment in primary care. In L.J. Haas (Ed.), Handbook of primary care psychology (pp. 35-45). New York, NY: American Psychology Society.

Lurie, S. (1991). Psychological issues in treatment of the chemical imbalance. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 45(3), 348-358.

Marlowe, D. H. (2000). Psychological and psychosocial consequences of combat and deployment with special emphasis on the gulf war. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

McFall, R. M. (2002). Training for prescriptions vs. prescriptions for training: Where are we now? Where should we be? How do we get there? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(6), 659-676.

McLaren, N. (1992). Is mental disease just brain disease? The limits to biological psychiatry. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 26(2), 270-276.

Merenda, P. F. (1997). Update on the battle for psychological testing rights, 1997. Psychological Reports, 80(3, Pt 1), 1019-1026.

Mora, G. (1985). History of psychiatry. In H.I. Kaplan & B.J. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehensive text book of psychiatry (pp. 2034-2054). Baltimore, M.D.: Williams & Wilkins.

National Association of Social Workers (2006). Social work image campaign: Respect. Retrieved April 19th, 2006, from http://www.naswfoundation.org/imageCampaign/default.asp.

Norcross, J. C. (2000). Here comes the self-help revolution in mental heath. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 37(4), 370-377.

Norcross, J. C., Karpiak, C. P., & Santoro, S. O. (2005). Clinical psychologists across the years: The division of Clinical Psychology from 1960 to 2003. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(12), 1467-1483.

Peterson, S. A. (1999). On the practice of feedback provision in objective personality assessment: An inquiry into the state of the art in our science [Abstract]. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59(7-B), 3708.

Piotrowski, C. (1999). Assessment practices in the era of managed care: Current status and future directions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(7), 787-796.

Piotrowski, C., Belter, R.W., & Keller, J.W. (1998). The impact of managed care on the practice of psychological testing: Preliminary findings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 441-447.

Pollack, W. S. (1996). The survival of psychoanalytic psychotherapy in managed care: ‘Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.’ In J.W. Barron & H. Sands (Eds.), Impact of managed care on psychodynamic treatment (pp. 107-129). Madison, CT; International Universities Press, Inc.

Reist, D., & VandeCreek, L. (2004). The pharmaceutical industry’s use of gifts and educational events to influence prescription practices: Ethical dilemmas and implications for psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(4), 329-335

Robiner, W. N., Bearman, D. L., Berman, M., Grove, W. M., Colón, E., Armstrong, J., & Mareck, S. (2002.) Prescriptive authority for psychologists: A looming health hazard? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(3), 231-248.

Sanua, V. D. (1996). The myth of the organicity of mental disorders. Humanistic Psychologist, 24(1), 55-78.

Sleek, S. (1998). How are psychologists portrayed on screen? The APA Monitor Online, 29(1). Retrieved September 22, 2006, from http://www.apa.org/monitor.nov98/film.html.

Smith, D. C. (1999). The limits of biological psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis & Dynamic Psychiatry, 27(4), 671-680.

U.S. News & World Report (2006). Rankings and guides. Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/rankguide/rghome.htm

Wachtel, P. L. (1997). Psychoanalysis: From medicine to psychology. In P. L. Wachtel (Ed.), Psychoanalysis, behavior therapy, and the relational world (pp. 13-25). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Westen, D. (1998). The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 333-371.

Whitehead, C. C. (2005). The theory of knowledge and the third psychoanalytic revolution. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 33(2), 287-298.

Wilson, T. D., & Dunn, E. W. (2004). Self-knowledge: Its limits, value and potential for improvement. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 493-518.

Wood, W., Jones, M., & Benjamin, L.T. (1986). Surveying psychology’s public image. American Psychologist, 41(9), 947–953.

Zilboorg, G. (1939). The fundamental conflict with psycho-analysis. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 20, 480-492.

 

Author Note

Herb Goldberg, Department of Psychology, Professor Emeritus, California State University, Los Angeles and licensed Clinical Psychologist, Los Angeles, California.

Justin Powlison, 2005 B.A., Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to H. Goldberg, 3739 Mayfair Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90065-3208. E-mail: drherbgoldberg@aol.com.