What is I-O?

Although some of these plots are funny (in an absurd kind of way) the whole thing still irks me. Primarily because of my own growing suspicion that most people out there don’t know or don’t care to know the difference between the one-dimensional, inept psychologist on TV or in the movies and the effective ones in the real world. Unfortunately, negative examples of psychologists are not solely relegated to TV talk shows and hyperbolic movie plots. Take for example, motivational speakers and self-help gurus: These people are even more vexing because they are wildly successful and more insidious because they themselves are not fictitious, although much of what they portend probably is. For example, Anthony Robbins (Awaken the Giant Within and Personal Power) and John Gray (Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus) are nothing to sneer at. Although their infomercials are downright farcical, the fact is that many people see them as experts and think they are our peers!

Furthermore, in all truthfulness my very own grandmother would probably place more credibility in something she read in an Anthony Robbins book than something in American Psychologist, and would find something she read in a John Gray book more relevant than anything in JAP. Of course, you wouldn’t expect my grandmother to read American Psychologist or JAP, but the fact remains that she is reading John Gray and Tony Robbins. Her entire exposure (and that of countless others) to the world of psychology begins and ends in the self-help section of Barnes and Noble. Again, this disturbs me because a) she is not alone, and b) because it says something about the lack of knowledge the general public has about what psychology is and what it has to offer.

One person who really bugs me is John Gray—not him personally but the concept behind all his books on men, women, and their relationships. For those of you who have been lucky enough to have missed him, Dr. John Gray is the author of the international best seller Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus (1992). According to HarperCollins Publishers, this book has sold 6 million copies, making it the best-selling hard-cover non-fiction book in history and has been translated into 38 different languages (Gleick, 1997). For those of you who have not read this oh-so-enlightening book, it basically tells the lay reader: "The vast majority of conflicts between men and women stem from one basic misunderstanding: We assume that we are the same when, in many ways, men and women are as different as aliens from separate planets would be (p. 17)."

I didn’t realize that the Roswell alien autopsies were so detailed! But seriously, obviously this is a metaphor. I can appreciate a good metaphor as well as the next person, when it is used to make a valid point, but this has gone too far. To begin, just look at the choice of planets here—men are from Mars (the planet of war) and women are from Venus (the planet of love). Ladies and gentlemen let the stereotypes begin! It’s all downhill from here, my friends. I wish I had more space in which to revile the seminal works of Dr. Gray, but, since I realize that the rest of you may not have the same level of zeal for trashing bubba psychology as I do, I will do this dirty deed with as much celerity as possible. Just to give you a taste of some of the wisdom offered by Gray, I have selected some truly choice comments from Men, Women and Relationships (1993), his follow-up to the Mars/Venus book. These quotes provide a small yet representative sample of his thoughts on gender differences. Among other things, he suggests we need a new job description for relationships—any takers?

Women intuitively understand that to have a good relationship, you have to work at it. Men on the other hand, are born with the knowledge that ‘at your job, that’s where you work.’ You go to work, do your job and when you come home that’s your vacation time…. When a woman sees her man sitting in front of the TV, remote control in hand, she takes it personally and mistakenly assumes that he really doesn’t care about the relationship"…. Truly, we need a new job description for relationships. And I use the term job description particularly for men, because a man is conditioned to learn a job. (p. xiii)

Of course gender differences in shopping are well documented:

A woman becomes more centered through shopping, because there are so many things to take into her awareness. She sees a dress and her awareness soars, reflecting on the romantic occasions when she could wear it. She imagines herself in it. She tries it on. She enjoys its beauty, puts it away, and has had a fulfilling experience. (p. 89)

Participant observation reveals much about gender differences, too:

Men are worried about getting to their destinations, the women are more concerned about what will happen when they get there. This can be noticed quite clearly through observing Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. While the Boy Scouts are busy figuring out how to get from point A to point B, the Girl Scouts are already preparing what they are going to eat when they get to point B. When the Boy Scouts get to point B, one turns to the other and inquires, ‘Who brought the food?’
(p. 84)

Finally, we can also learn about the stages of human development:

As a man matures and grows in personal power he primarily develops his caring, understanding, and respectful nature. He moves from being cold, calculating, self-centered, and distant to being present, warm, and human. As a woman matures and discovers her personal power she expresses more of her accepting, appreciative and trusting nature. She moves from being manipulative to being empowering, from being chaotic or frantic to being graceful and fluid. (p. 287)

This may be a first, but I’m speechless! However, I guess that’s what Dr. Gray would predict. Obviously I have not yet moved from the manipulative and frantic stage to the fluid and graceful stage. Perhaps if I went shopping for a new dress I’d feel better.

On a more serious note, in general the views expressed in the book are quite insulting to men and women alike and have been criticized for their sexist and demeaning nature (Hansom, 1998). What I find most offensive is the way this approach polarizes the sexes by putting them on separate planets. Instead of focusing on how we are the same or telling us to build on our shared needs and values, this approach harps on differences. It makes me wonder what his advice would be for people of different ethnicities, nationalities, religions, and party affiliations. Do Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and Shintos all come from different planets too? As an aside, I’ve heard that the title of his upcoming book is something insipid, such as Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, and Children Are From Heaven. What will the good doctor think of next?

And speaking of doctors, in my research on Dr. Gray I came across some interesting information about his background and training. First and foremost, he’s divorced. Not that I have any problems whatsoever with that but it strikes me as a more than a little odd that the current guru of male-female relationships is on his second marriage. Incidentally, his first marriage was to another self-help guru—Barbara De Angelis, author of Make Love All the Time. The two of them used to run sex and relationship workshops together until she left him for another man (Gleick, 1997). Second, his book is virtually research free. Not that I have any problems with that, but some supporting evidence for his theories would be nice. I would hate to think of six million couples out there basing their relationships on contentions that have yet to be substantiated. Third, Dr. Gray received his doctorate in human sexuality and psychology from Columbia Pacific University (CPU) located in Novato, California. For those of you who are not familiar with CPU, it is a correspondence school. Not that I have anything against distance learning, but CPU has been the subject of some very heated debates (http://www.
usdla.org/) regarding its accreditation. Strangely enough, although CPU is located in the state of California it receives its accreditation from the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Governing Council in Fallon, Nevada. Furthermore, according to the official CPU website (http://www.Cpuniv.edu/) the school isn’t accredited by either of those states’ governing bodies. Is it just me, or does this sound a little bit fishy? Anyway, to finish the tale, when I called APA to see if they accredited CPU, they told me they had never heard of it. I wish I could say the same for John Gray.

So, what to do? Frankly, this one stumps me. While I realize that this issue of psychologists in the media is not as directly related to I-O psychology as some topics I could cover, the fact remains that these people have much more presence in the mind of John or Jane Q. Public than we do. I can’t help but think that this has some impact on how we as a group are perceived. In addition, my degree is from Columbia University (sans Pacific) and I don’t mean to be a snob, but I don’t want people walking around thinking CPU is our sister school! To this end, below are several responses to the following questions I posed regarding the issue at hand:

1. What is your general reaction to self-help methods and pop psychology?
2. Do you think these types of people have an impact on how psychologists are perceived by the general public? If so, how?
3. Since these groups are only indirectly linked to us (either by a common background in psychology or one of the helping professions) is this something for I-O psychologists to be concerned about?
4. What can or should we do to differentiate ourselves from these groups?

Subj: Re: Comments for TIP Column on Psychologists

Date: 98-07-30 17:18:26 EDT

From: andrew.lee@capitalone.com

To: J9151@aol.com

1. First, just as we don’t like to be lumped together with other psychologists, I think it’s presumptuous for us to lump all self-help and pop psychologists together. Despite our distaste for some of their methods, some programs are based on sound principles, and can actually be quite helpful. Second, there’s more than one impression of psychologists out there. As assessment becomes more prevalent in the workplace, I am often identified as an expert on the CPI, MBTI or Watson Glaser, or in developing competencies and performance management scales. I think the identification of I-O psychologists with assessment and development-related expertise will increase as our economy becomes more driven by the intellectual and creative capacities of knowledge workers. Finally, we can learn from our "pop" counterparts. If our stuff works better than theirs does, why is their stuff more popular? Answer: marketing. I don’t think we should consider marketing beneath us. Sometimes it seems that we put our own cherished self-image as scientists ahead of the needs of our potential audience. I have seen both academics and practitioners take the stance when dealing with lay people that "this stuff is too complicated—you’d never understand it" and then wonder why no one listens to them!
2. I think they do to some extent, but I don’t think I’m going to be mistaken for Tony Robbins. People can tell the difference between us. Let’s face it, most of us are more likely to be confused with statisticians than with self-help gurus.
3. I think there are more important things we should be concerned about. I’d also suggest that if we want to do something about this, we actually DO something about it, instead of having annual discussions about it at SIOP for the next 3 years, as we did with competency models.

4. I think this is the wrong question. I don’t think anyone confuses us with them (though I may be wrong). How about, what can we learn from these groups and how can we deliver better services to their audience?

CapitolOne

Subj: Re: Comments for TIP Column on Psychologists

Date: 98-07-30 18:13:15 EDT

From: epswmk@panther.gsu.edu

To: J9151@aol.com

1. Mixed. Books like What Color Is Your Parachute? have helped millions who might otherwise never consider getting help for career issues. Others, such as Tony Robbins, seem to be of questionable value to me, but obviously others feel differently. I think there’s a fine line between high quality user-friendly self-help materials and those which lack substance and are therefore user friendly.
2. I don’t know, but I doubt they have much impact on psychologists’ image for most people. My sense is that some folks already have an image of psychologists, based either on an experience they or someone they know had with one, or from other sources in the media.
3. I think our limited resources can be devoted to better ends. Compared with other lines of work, such as lawyers, psychologists as a group don’t look too shabby. And the lawyers keep lawyer-ing away despite their fairly widespread and at least somewhat justifiably negative image.
4. Do good work. Become more educated about the self-help movement. Find out why people find it helpful. Maybe we’ll learn something. I could be dead wrong, but ever since I started studying helping professions, it’s seemed that the self-help movement threatened them. Some in that movement are damn helpful to people. The helping professions don’t have a monopoly on helping skills.

BTW, Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting was one of the best psychologists portrayed in film. Others have told me they feel the same.

Georgia State University

Subj: Re: Comments for TIP Column on Psychologists

Date: 98-08-13 13:03:25 EDT

From: nancy.tippins@telops.gte.com (Nancy Tippins)

To: J9151@aol.com

I am constantly amazed at the gullibility of the American public. Many people believe that if something is printed in a book, magazine, or newspaper, then it must be true. The willingness to accept as fact any printed material is widespread. Few of us seek out complete, unbiased information about any topic. The ability to think critically is sadly lacking in many areas. When it comes to pop psychology and self-help, anything goes. Pop psychology is dangerous because we are so willing to accept it as the truth. If we could keep it in perspective, self-help might even be entertaining.

1. Needless to say, I loathe most of the stuff I read, and I am often disappointed that friends and family prefer the pop psychology to something I would consider legitimate. Corporate America in particular loves the simple solutions to complex problems that pop psychology so often provides. While general disgust is my overriding reaction, I have to admit that another reaction is to ask what makes these people so popular. Clearly, these authors connect to a large portion of the American public. I think the answer lies in two areas. First, the questions posed by the pop psychologists are more interesting. It’s not that the question of the utility of a selection program is of no interest; rather, the question of how I can personally be more effective is much more interesting. Second, the answer is written more persuasively. Most of us would admit that some of the self-help books are easier to read than our professional publications. Many don’t require much hard intellectual work. Unfortunately, there are few "popular" publications that print good research written for the layperson.
2. To the extent that the pop psychologists are confused with hard core I-O psychologists, we are affected by the public’s general perceptions of psychology. Interestingly, I’m not sure who affects whom positively or negatively. I have found myself in situations in which the pop psychologist was perceived as useful and helpful while people like us were perceived as unhelpful and self-focused.
3. Assuming that some of these pop psychologists are perceived as clueless, psuedo-intellectual, inept, and so forth., I believe we should be concerned about the spill-over effect. I would rather spend my time talking about what I can do to help an organization than to spend it convincing others that I am not a touchy-feely psychobabbler.
4. Obviously we can’t control what others say and do, but we can modify our own actions. We need to educate the public informally and formally. We need to constantly remind everyone that we are Industrial-Organizational Psychologists and that we base our work on research and data.

GTE Telephone Operations

Whew! It seems that things are not as bad as I initially thought. However, if there is indeed some negative "spill-over," as Nancy so aptly put it, we simply need to hammer home how we are different from the rest. I can see it now, my next book Pop Psychologists Are From Pluto, I-O Psychologists Are From….

In the end the whole thing still agitates me. Sometimes I feel as if I’m going through a professional identity crisis. On one hand, I don’t really want to think of myself as just another "consultant." Not to be too critical, but consultants these days are a dime a dozen. Plus, I’ve met a lot of slick, sleazy, snake oil salesman types out there. I believe that as a field we have a great deal more to offer more than that. We have an expertise that few people have and a code of ethics to go with it. On the other hand, though, it’s getting harder to proudly call myself a psychologist. The negative stereotypes, coupled with the ever-increasing population of new age crackpots and non-degreed wanna-be psychologists, are a bit daunting even for me. What is a semi-serious self-respecting scientist practitioner to do? As the old saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em. Maybe I’ll give it all up and dedicate my life to writing self-help books and promoting them on infomercials. All I need now is a good haircut.

On that note, I would like to thank my contributors, Nancy Tippins, Andy Lee and Bill Kahnweiler for providing their very thoughtful comments for this column. I would also like to thank Allen Church for his input and never-ending proofreading. As always, please feel free to contact me either by e-mail at J9151@aol.com or at W. Warner Burke Associates, Inc., 201 Wolfs Lane, Pelham, NY 10803 (914) 713-0080 (tel.), (914) 738-1059 (fax).

Gleick, E. (1997, June). Tower of Psychobabble: Pronouncing on the differences between the sexes has made John Gray master of a self-help universe. But is he more of a healer or a huckster? TIME Magazine, 149, 24.

Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and betting what you want in your relationships. New York: HarperCollins.

Gray, J. (1993). Men, women and relationships. New York: HarperCollins.

Hansom, S. (1998). The rebuttal from uranus: Enough already! Men and women are from earth! In R. T. Francoeur & W. J. Taverner (Eds.). Taking sides: Clashing views on controversial issues in human sexuality (Vol. 6, 75–81). New York: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.