Forestieri, K. J., et al. (2024).
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice.
Abstract
The recent sociopolitical climate necessitates psychology professionals advocating for their clients under a social justice framework. However, research on the prevalence of advocacy by psychology trainees and professionals for marginalized groups (e.g., people of color, immigrants, refugees, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, asexual+ individuals, and unhoused individuals) and causes (e.g., police-community relations, and criminal justice reform) is sparse. Data for the present study were gathered as part of a larger research project conducted in 2018. A total of 165 participants began the survey, with only 104 completing all questions. The study aimed to understand psychology trainees’ and professionals’ attitude toward advocacy for others, frequency and type of advocacy behaviors that they engage in, and potential barriers to advocacy work. Results showed a large discrepancy between participants’ highly self-reported beliefs in the importance of advocacy and low actual engagement in advocacy behaviors. Contrary to the original hypotheses, barriers to advocacy were not the most salient predictors of lack of engagement in advocacy; instead, it appears that a less positive attitude toward advocacy and conservative political affiliation may play more of an integral role. Implications for remedying this discrepancy among psychology trainees and professionals are discussed (e.g., training), as well as strengths and limitations of the present study.
Public Significance Statement
Psychology trainees and professionals endorse advocacy for marginalized groups as important, but infrequently engage in such behaviors. A less positive attitude toward advocacy and conservative political affiliation may play more of an integral role in predicting advocacy behavior.
Here are some thoughts:
The recent sociopolitical climate has highlighted the need for psychology professionals to advocate for their clients within a social justice framework. However, research on the prevalence of advocacy by psychology trainees and professionals for marginalized groups and causes is limited. This study, conducted in 2018, aimed to understand psychology trainees' and professionals' attitudes toward advocacy, their engagement in advocacy behaviors, and potential barriers to advocacy work.
The study revealed a significant discrepancy between participants' self-reported beliefs in the importance of advocacy and their actual engagement in advocacy behaviors. Contrary to initial hypotheses, barriers to advocacy were not the most salient predictors of lack of engagement. Instead, a less positive attitude toward advocacy and conservative political affiliation appeared to play a more significant role.
Across all groups and causes, working directly on changing legislative policies was the least endorsed actionable step, while attending protests and donating money were among the most endorsed behaviors. Educating oneself and others were the most frequently reported educational steps. The study found that barriers such as lack of awareness of issues and disinterest in advocacy resulted in less participation in advocacy behaviors.
Interestingly, political affiliation emerged as a significant predictor of engagement in advocacy for certain groups, with more conservative-identifying participants less likely to advocate for people of color, women's issues, and LGBTQIA+ individuals. The study suggests that low levels of engagement in advocacy may be due to training deficits, lack of time, a micro-level focus on clients rather than systems, and insufficient knowledge about advocacy opportunities and methods.
The researchers propose that addressing advocacy training in psychology programs could help bolster engagement. This includes exploring political affiliation in training programs to understand the discrepancy in advocacy engagement between self-identifying liberals and conservatives, and framing advocacy from an empathetic, social justice lens. The study acknowledges limitations, including the timing of data collection in 2018, prior to recent significant sociopolitical events.
