Imparting psychological knowledge,promoting scientific literacy,and adjusting the public image of psychological science: The manifold functions of teaching psychology to non-psychologists. Comment on Dutke et al.,2019

With the question of how psychology curricula for non-psychology students should be designed, the target article by the EFPA Board of Educational Affairs tackles an important and timely issue. In the following, I will first make some general comments on the relevance of the problem and then suggest some complements and refinements on the criteria curriculum design proposed by the EFPA board.

The target article rightly points out that the students taking psychology courses in non-psychology study programs by far outnumber students taking psychology as a major subject. Nevertheless, professors of psychology and others in charge of the teaching of psychology often focus exclusively on the major psychology programs, undervaluing the teaching for non-psychology students. The target article impressively substantiates this claim by reporting data from a survey that the EFPA board of Educational Affairs conducted among psychology departments in Europe. These data illustrate quite clearly that people in charge of teaching psychology as part of non-psychological study programs are often ignorant of the responsibilities and potential benefits that are associated with these teaching activities.

The situation described in the target article is unfortunate for two reasons. First, the teaching of psychology as part of other study programs potentially has a huge and broad impact on the image of psychology in the public. Psychologists have known and complained for a long time that lay people have only vague ideas of what psychology is about (Webb & Speer, 1986). Moreover, there is a widespread skepticism with regard to the question whether psychology is a science and whether psychology produces knowledge that is useful to society (Lilienfeld, 2012). The teaching of psychology as part of non-psychology study programs provides excellent but yet to be fully exhausted opportunities for correcting or preventing such misconceptions. Second, psychological competences are relevant for many different occupations, from schoolteachers to medical personnel to software engineers who care about the usability of their products. Psychology has a lot to contribute to preparing students of many different disciplines for their later professions. However, as the target article argues, “a one-size-fits-all approach” will not work for these diverse groups of students. Instead, the EFPA board provides strong arguments that the content and didactics of the psychology courses must be tailored to the specific needs of each discipline.

The target article proposes five criteria for developing curricula for psychology courses for students of other disciplines. These criteria are clear, well-reasoned, and feasible guidelines. In my comment, I would just like to offer some thoughts on three of the proposed criteria that may be regarded as complements and further elaborations rather than criticisms. In their Criterion 3, the authors recommend designing psychology curricula for non-psychologists in a process-oriented way, that is, oriented towards particular problems that students of a given discipline might encounter in their later professional activities. This recommendation certainly makes a lot of sense when psychology courses are geared towards preparing students for working as practitioners, e.g. teachers, doctors, or social workers. That said, psychology as a science is based on theories and general models that—to the extent that they are empirically valid—lay the foundation of all practical applications of psychology (“there is nothing as practical as a good theory”, Lewin, 1943, p. 118). When psychology is taught at university level to non-psychologists, it seems good advice to design curricula and instruction in such a way that a balance between a bottom-up (problem-oriented) and a top-down (theory-based) approach is achieved. Moreover, a certain (admittedly small) proportion of non-psychology students will pursue a career in academia. For these students, psychology courses serve the important function of getting an idea of what psychology as a science is about, paving the way for future interdisciplinary research endeavors.

According to Criterion 4, psychology curricula for non-psychologists should be limited to the professional field or the field of study of the respective target group. Again, as a general guideline for curriculum design, this is certainly a useful recommendation, but one that might deserve a closer look. Let me illustrate this point by way of the example provided in the article. I completely agree with the EFPA board that teacher students who learn about psychological problems that students might develop should not be trained as therapists. However, it would certainly be useful even for teachers to know something about effective treatments of learning or behavioral disorders and about adequate diagnostic strategies. This knowledge can be helpful, for example, to give advice to parents regarding the qualifications of a therapist they should contact, to understand that diagnosing learning or behavioral disorders requires standardized diagnostic instruments, or to be able to communicate effectively with school psychologists or clinical psychologists. Moreover, certain elements that cognitive behavioral therapists routinely use for behavior modification, for example, may also be integrated successfully in teachers' classroom management routines. Thus, teaching content that does not fall squarely into their professional field or the field of study of non-psychology students can sometimes be very useful to help these students to “think outside the box” and broaden their professional competencies.

In Criterion 5, the authors stress that curricula for non-psychologists should be internally consistent and systematic enough for understanding the relevant psychological phenomena. When discussing this criterion, the authors briefly touch on the importance of methodological skills. In my view, this is indeed a very important point that deserves more emphasis. Psychology is a well-developed empirical science that possesses a broad arsenal of methods, from versatile experimental paradigms to sophisticated statistical methods. The rigorous application and high standard of research methods distinguishes psychology as a science from many neighboring disciplines in the diverse fields of educational and social sciences and, even more so, from the many pseudoscientific, often very popular approaches that also trade under the name “psychology.” By providing students of non-psychological disciplines with a basic understanding of psychological thinking and psychological methods, psychology can make a huge difference in the academic and professional training of these students. Such efforts can help fight back pseudoscience, correct misconceptions of psychology in the public, and contribute to the scientific literacy of students in a broad range of disciplines.