community psych experiment

Social Psychology Experiments: 10 Of The Most Famous Studies

Ten of the most influential social psychology experiments explain why we sometimes do dumb or irrational things. 

Ten of the most influential social psychology experiments explain why we sometimes do dumb or irrational things.

“I have been primarily interested in how and why ordinary people do unusual things, things that seem alien to their natures. Why do good people sometimes act evil? Why do smart people sometimes do dumb or irrational things?” –Philip Zimbardo

Like famous social psychologist Professor Philip Zimbardo (author of The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil ), I’m also obsessed with why we do dumb or irrational things.

The answer quite often is because of other people — something social psychologists have comprehensively shown.

Each of the 10 brilliant social psychology experiments below tells a unique, insightful story relevant to all our lives, every day.

Click the link in each social psychology experiment to get the full description and explanation of each phenomenon.

1. Social Psychology Experiments: The Halo Effect

The halo effect is a finding from a famous social psychology experiment.

It is the idea that global evaluations about a person (e.g. she is likeable) bleed over into judgements about their specific traits (e.g. she is intelligent).

It is sometimes called the “what is beautiful is good” principle, or the “physical attractiveness stereotype”.

It is called the halo effect because a halo was often used in religious art to show that a person is good.

2. Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort people feel when trying to hold two conflicting beliefs in their mind.

People resolve this discomfort by changing their thoughts to align with one of conflicting beliefs and rejecting the other.

The study provides a central insight into the stories we tell ourselves about why we think and behave the way we do.

3. Robbers Cave Experiment: How Group Conflicts Develop

The Robbers Cave experiment was a famous social psychology experiment on how prejudice and conflict emerged between two group of boys.

It shows how groups naturally develop their own cultures, status structures and boundaries — and then come into conflict with each other.

For example, each country has its own culture, its government, legal system and it draws boundaries to differentiate itself from neighbouring countries.

One of the reasons the became so famous is that it appeared to show how groups could be reconciled, how peace could flourish.

The key was the focus on superordinate goals, those stretching beyond the boundaries of the group itself.

4. Social Psychology Experiments: The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford prison experiment was run to find out how people would react to being made a prisoner or prison guard.

The psychologist Philip Zimbardo, who led the Stanford prison experiment, thought ordinary, healthy people would come to behave cruelly, like prison guards, if they were put in that situation, even if it was against their personality.

It has since become a classic social psychology experiment, studied by generations of students and recently coming under a lot of criticism.

5. The Milgram Social Psychology Experiment

The Milgram experiment , led by the well-known psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, aimed to test people’s obedience to authority.

The results of Milgram’s social psychology experiment, sometimes known as the Milgram obedience study, continue to be both thought-provoking and controversial.

The Milgram experiment discovered people are much more obedient than you might imagine.

Fully 63 percent of the participants continued administering what appeared like electric shocks to another person while they screamed in agony, begged to stop and eventually fell silent — just because they were told to.

6. The False Consensus Effect

The false consensus effect is a famous social psychological finding that people tend to assume that others agree with them.

It could apply to opinions, values, beliefs or behaviours, but people assume others think and act in the same way as they do.

It is hard for many people to believe the false consensus effect exists because they quite naturally believe they are good ‘intuitive psychologists’, thinking it is relatively easy to predict other people’s attitudes and behaviours.

In reality, people show a number of predictable biases, such as the false consensus effect, when estimating other people’s behaviour and its causes.

7. Social Psychology Experiments: Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory helps to explain why people’s behaviour in groups is fascinating and sometimes disturbing.

People gain part of their self from the groups they belong to and that is at the heart of social identity theory.

The famous theory explains why as soon as humans are bunched together in groups we start to do odd things: copy other members of our group, favour members of own group over others, look for a leader to worship and fight other groups.

8. Negotiation: 2 Psychological Strategies That Matter Most

Negotiation is one of those activities we often engage in without quite realising it.

Negotiation doesn’t just happen in the boardroom, or when we ask our boss for a raise or down at the market, it happens every time we want to reach an agreement with someone.

In a classic, award-winning series of social psychology experiments, Morgan Deutsch and Robert Krauss investigated two central factors in negotiation: how we communicate with each other and how we use threats.

9. Bystander Effect And The Diffusion Of Responsibility

The bystander effect in social psychology is the surprising finding that the mere presence of other people inhibits our own helping behaviours in an emergency.

The bystander effect social psychology experiments are mentioned in every psychology textbook and often dubbed ‘seminal’.

This famous social psychology experiment on the bystander effect was inspired by the highly publicised murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964.

It found that in some circumstances, the presence of others inhibits people’s helping behaviours — partly because of a phenomenon called diffusion of responsibility.

10. Asch Conformity Experiment: The Power Of Social Pressure

The Asch conformity experiments — some of the most famous every done — were a series of social psychology experiments carried out by noted psychologist Solomon Asch.

The Asch conformity experiment reveals how strongly a person’s opinions are affected by people around them.

In fact, the Asch conformity experiment shows that many of us will deny our own senses just to conform with others.

Author: Dr Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. View all posts by Dr Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

6 Research Methods

Ed Stevens and Michael Dropkin

Chapter Six Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Know how to use an ecological lens in guiding community research
• Identify the role of ethics in Community Psychology research
• Differentiate between qualitative versus quantitative methods
• Understand the utility of mixed methods research

In psychology, we generally call the results of our research “findings” or “outcomes.” In this chapter, we will explore how a Community Psychology lens can help shape our research and ultimately influence our findings and outcomes. We will learn how the way we measure programs cannot exist in a vacuum, and therefore we must consider the context and environment of any situation. Take this for an example: a number of years ago in a low resourced urban community, a mental health professional approached community and school leaders with an innovative program aimed at dealing with the problem of youth substance use. They agreed to use a preventive school-based intervention, and after it was launched, the research outcomes were very successful (i.e., youth substance use was reduced). However, funding for the program dried up after two years, and the mental health professional left the community when he no longer had the financial resources to mount the intervention. The school and community leaders were disappointed as they felt it had helped their youth. The mental health professional later published the outcomes in a scientific journal and described the intervention as successful. However, the community members were bitter about the program shutting down because they did not have the resources or skills to sustain it. When another mental health professional approached the same community leaders a year later with another innovative idea for a preventive program, the community was no longer receptive.

IS A COMMUNITY INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL?

You might be wondering, was the example above considered a successful intervention ? To answer this question, we need to specify the essential characteristics of evidence when measuring factors of success. Not all evidence is created equal, as the example above indicates. The best and most useful evidence is relevant, credible, believable, and trustworthy. Additionally, there are various lenses we might look through to decipher the evidence gathered from the example. From a traditional perspective, the intervention was a credible success, as youth experimented less with drugs after the intervention took place. However, from a Community Psychology perspective, the intervention was not successful as the program was not sustained, and even more important, the community members became less trusting, less open, and less willing to collaborate with others from outside their community. It is only by adopting a more ecological perspective that we can understand that interventions have impacts on individuals, groups, organizations, and communities, and even if there are positive outcomes for the youth recipients of an intervention, we must also assess a community’s receptivity for future efforts. In other words, Community Psychology would argue for broadening our research objectives to gauge the community members’ relationship to those who brought the intervention into their schools, including whether they considered them trustworthy.

To summarize, although it is important that youth might have learned certain positive skills from an intervention, it is also crucial to examine the larger context that involves whether community members feel competent to bring about effective and sustainable changes. The goals of our research need to go beyond measuring skills or abilities within youth in order to assess whether the interventions have influenced higher-level ecological issues. In this chapter, we will learn that research can be used to add to or modify our beliefs and understanding, especially when we consider how Community Psychology focuses on people and their ecological context.

HOW EVIDENCE CHANGES BELIEFS 

The introduction of new or additional evidence can challenge existing beliefs. Consequently, there are a number of examples of research evidence that have led to changes in beliefs and behaviors, as well as the way we educate people on certain concepts. For example, as indicated in Chapter 1 (Jason et al., 2019), up until the 1960s, television, radio, and print ads encouraged adults to smoke. An example of this can be found in “The cigarette preferred by doctors” video advertisement above. Later, in 1964, the US Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health reviewed over 7,000 research articles as a basis for the report, which concluded that smoking was a cause of lung cancer and chronic bronchitis. Important criteria for evidence at the time included that it was replicable and reliable . Smoking was assessed as a health hazard by checking causes of death, looking at the current health of smokers versus non-smokers, monitoring smokers’ versus non-smokers’ health over time, etc. The strongest case occurred after many investigations using multiple methods, which found similar or supporting results. After the Surgeon General’s Report in the US, policies slowly began to change regarding cigarettes and smoking. For example, advertising was significantly curtailed, cigarettes were subject to extensive state and federal taxation, and there were new regulations to reduce minors’ ability to purchase tobacco from retail establishments. As a result, rates of tobacco use declined over time.

SCIENTIFIC PROCESS

You may have encountered the scientific process in your early schooling, and maybe you were even asked to use “description” to support conclusions that you came to. But how do we interpret and draw conclusions using the research we collect? Let’s use an example to illustrate what the term “describe” means in the research process. A description could involve the number of people living in poverty, but the exact boundaries must be set for what income falls above and below the poverty line. Another example involves describing what behaviors and characteristics qualifies someone as misusing drugs. In other words, what is the definition of “misuse of drugs”? Clearly, alcohol and tobacco kill more people than all other drugs combined, and yet both of them are legal. If you define something by whether it is legal or not, there might be varying standards in different settings. For example, in the US using heroin is illegal, so it would be thought of as “misuse of drugs,” but in the Netherlands, a government-sponsored heroin distribution program began in 1988; therefore, heroin use in the Netherlands is not illegal. In describing a social or community problem, it is apparent that cultural and societal norms need to be considered. Traditional researchers might ignore these important influences, but Community Psychology researchers would put considerable efforts into understanding the politics and values that surround and give meaning to the behaviors and conditions we intend to change.

In addition to initially describing and determining how to measure a social or community problem, research also investigates how the problem or issue is associated with other behaviors. For adolescent misuse of drugs, a traditional researcher might investigate how it is related to family history, age at first use, mental health status, etc. However, a community psychologist may focus on peer use as well as locations within the community where alcohol, drugs, and tobacco are made available to youth. As indicated in Chapter 1 (Jason et al., 2019), if a school-based tobacco prevention program is launched, but youth in the community have easy access to commercial sources of cigarettes at gas stations and liquor stores, the youth receive mixed messages that compromise the outcomes of the school-based tobacco reduction interventions. Again, community psychologists give considerable weight to these types of ecological variables when trying to understand the various environmental influences on youth behavior.

Being able to explain why certain people develop drug misuse behaviors can be complicated as well and involve many factors that need to be considered when conducting research. Many traditional psychologists would focus on trying to understand biological and psychological reasons for substance use (such as depression or feelings of isolation). Community psychologists, on the other hand, would be more inclined to examine norms and opportunities within the environment. For example, if youth in a neighborhood admire apparently wealthy drug dealers who engage in illegal activities, then this risky environment and these inappropriate role models could be some of the primary reasons for increased illegal drug use. To the extent we can describe, predict, and explain why misuse of drugs occur, we are more likely to develop effective Community Psychology based interventions which deal with factors beyond the traditional individual level of analysis.

RESEARCH AND ETHICS

Performing Research

The Belmont Report (1978) outlined basic ethical principles and applications for research. The three major ethical principles are respect for persons , beneficence , and justice . When seeking institutional approval for research with human subjects, these three areas are addressed in the application.Once again, most traditional researchers focus on individual factors (e.g., level of self-esteem, mental health issues) when considering these areas, and they would assure that youth in a preventive program have informed consent to be involved in the intervention. Community psychologists would also be concerned with ecological factors. For instance, let’s consider college students being trained to provide psychiatric ward patients with mentoring and social support. If the hospital setting was poorly run and degrading, and provided limited opportunities for skill development to prepare the patients to ultimately return to the community, this mentoring program would be considered ineffective and even unethical. If the setting’s abusive features were not addressed, then the intervention would not be able to successfully help patients reintegrate back into the community .

Professional ethics from the American Psychological Association (2003) also indicate that mental health care professionals should have adequate skills and abilities for the roles in which they portray themselves as competent. For traditional psychologists, this might involve being knowledgeable about current testing and therapy techniques. For community psychologists, who often work with community-based samples of individuals who have been marginalized or who have suffered other systemic disadvantages, it might be more complicated, as these populations warrant extra care. For example, criminally justice-involved individuals who are exiting prison need more than aptitude tests and one-on-one therapy, as their greatest needs after leaving jail are housing and decent jobs. Community psychologists might not be trained to provide housing or jobs; however, this is where collaboration comes into play. Community psychologists would partner with community-based organizations which have the skills and competencies to provide ex-offenders opportunities for inexpensive housing and jobs. Thus an ecological perspective, as illustrated throughout this book, would focus our efforts on providing resources and changing the environment in order to provide these vulnerable individuals with concrete opportunities to successfully transition back into society.

Finally, the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA) also has specified ethical practice competencies for professionals (Dalton & Wolfe, 2012) . Some of these include recognizing the influence of one’s personal background on the collaboration, so if one is from a privileged group, this could have an influence when working with community members who did not have such advantages. One essential practice competency in the field of Community Psychology is dissemination . Dissemination is the deliberate sharing of research findings to groups and communities that would benefit from said findings. Along with dissemination is implementation , which takes dissemination a step further. Implementation is the adoption of evidence-based interventions with the goal of better serving the specific population. It is most helpful to develop a professional network in order to seek consultation and advice regarding these complex issues that are being encountered in analyzing social problems as well as implementing community-based interventions.

Research evidence also informs us as to whether our efforts actually adhere to these ethical standards, and an ineffective prevention program that consumes resources (e.g., time and money) may be considered unethical, as the case study below illustrates.

Case Study 6.1 A Cautionary Tale: Drug Abuse Resistance Education

The drug prevention program Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) began in the mid-1980s in Los Angeles schools, and soon was implemented nationally. During the 1990s and early 2000s, roughly 75% of students in the US were taught using this D.A.R.E. program to prevent drug use. However, research performed as early as 1994 suggested D.A.R.E. was ineffective, and by 2004, it became clear D.A.R.E. did not work (West & O’Neal, 2004). For more than 20 years, tens of millions of students were “trained” in D.A.R.E. and billions of dollars were spent on a useless program. Parents, students, and schools were, in effect, misled by “experts.”

The D.A.R.E. example demonstrates how best intentions are not sufficient in performing ethical practice, as well as shows the importance of evidence in evaluating whether harm has occurred. Without the means, resources, or system to evaluate the impact of a program, ethical concerns go unaddressed. Rather than working separately from community activists and organizations, community psychologists are trained to evaluate and conduct research with members of a community (see Chapter 7; Wolfe, 2019).

Other research issues endorsed by SCRA (2019) include active collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and community members. This work is undertaken to serve those community members directly concerned, and should be guided by their needs and preferences, as well as by their active participation. This standard recognizes the importance of the population’s voice(s) in developing and executing a research plan that has the greatest likelihood of improving the population’s well-being and minimizing harm. This principle is one of the core values of Community Psychology, and it is often referred to as community-based participatory research . Nevertheless, there will be times when funding sources have their own agendas which may not accurately reflect a population’s needs, and this can pose unique challenges for those within the field of Community Psychology. In addition, the SCRA principles embrace multiple methodologies to best generate knowledge. These attributes are more likely to lead to many studies being conducted over an extended period of time, and the development of evidence-based practices to achieve improvements.

Ethics are important in the design and performance of research. Community Psychology reduces risks by valuing the diversity of methods, encouraging collaboration and participation, seeking to serve others, and focusing on the issues needing to be addressed by the community.

ELEMENTS OF RESEARCH DESIGN

The purpose or objectives of the research generally define the major elements of an investigation. Based on their goals and objectives, community psychologists develop a research design to best conduct their investigation. It’s important to understand that the scope of research encompasses flexibility and creativity. The basic process can be thought of as trying to achieve an objective, as well as considering what resources and sequence of activities will result in a likely success. Community psychologists specify why the research is important, determine whether the design is likely to result in credible evidence, and secure the collaboration and/or approval of stakeholders . Some of the major design elements include:

• Unit of Analysis— is the study on the individual, group, setting, community, or societal level?
• Population of Interest— is the study made up of adults, individuals meeting criteria, organizations, schools, towns, or some other group?
• Sample Recruitment— how do we get members of the population of interest to participate in the study?
• Data Collection— how does information get collected?
• Time— is the study conducted at a single time point (Cross-Sectional) or at multiple observations over time per unit of analysis (Longitudinal)?
• Design— is the study observational (with no intervention) vs. experimental (with intervention)?
• Control— does the study have a control group or is there no control group?
• Power— does the study have enough participants for the research to result in credible evidence?
• Measurement and Data Structure— does the study use a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach? (See below)

SCRA has identified five foundational competencies that underlie all areas of research, including specifying research questions, engaging in participatory community research, managing collaborations, developing community change models, and evaluating programs. Other competencies are in areas of research design (e.g., survey design, sampling) and data analysis (Haber et al., 2017).

QUALITATIVE

Research methods.

Qualitative methods are very useful in the early stages of defining the topic of interest and selecting measures. This type of research usually utilizes relatively small sample sizes (less than 30) to allow an in-depth inquiry per individual. Thus, individual cases have significant weight. Qualitative data are usually collected through interviews, observation, or analysis of archival content . The interview may be unstructured (having minimal questions or anchoring by the interviewer) or structured (specific topics and questions that are consistent across the sample). The content of either interviewing or observing then undergoes analysis, and this process is how insights are formed that may be more generalizable than a single narrative.

Many analytic approaches are used in qualitative research. Four common methods are ethnography , phenomenology , grounded theory , and content analysis . Each of these has a different focus but they all place value on the “voice” of the individual being studied. The rich and complex information inherent in qualitative content should be “listened” to very closely before any sort of evaluation or judgment is made.

Ethnography, which has its roots in anthropology and cultural studies, seeks to understand the culture or ties of a group or community from an insider’s perspective. The method used is participant observation, as shown in Figure 1, and this results in an in-depth written account of a group of people in a particular place, such as a rural area that involves migrants and farming. Additionally, this method can also focus on an aspect of contemporary social life. As an example, a community psychologist may want to better understand the operation and benefits of a cancer survivors self-help group. Ethnography may be a good analytic approach to understanding the culture, attitudes, behaviors, and benefits that group membership signifies.

Phenomenology focuses on the individual and is directed to examine a person’s narrative to capture their perceptions and lived experiences. The researcher is often thought of as an “indirect” participant due to the coding and interpretation processes involved because the goal is to expose these perceptions and experiences as unfiltered as possible. In other words, there is an attempt to set aside any preconceived assumptions about a person’s feelings, thoughts, or responses to a particular issue. Across multiple participants, common themes may emerge, but often the real insights occur from the variability and range of lived experiences within a shared context. For example, a researcher may find a theme of “to feel better” when investigating reasons for youth drug use.

Grounded theory focuses on using unstructured interviews to formulate theory that emerges from the data. The general aim is to compare and code data when interviewing participants so that an updating of what “explains” the data emerges and eventually stabilizes. When no new set of ideas or theory emerges, data collection can be halted. Guidelines would suggest 10 to 25 in-depth interviews for coding. The most important perspective of grounded theory is that the data speaks for itself, and the researcher constructs theory from the interviews and without imposing their theories on the participants. This method has been most helpful in uncovering social processes, which are social relationships and behaviors of individuals in groups.

Content analysis includes an array of techniques for investigating material which may be text, photographs, video, audio, etc. The objective is to use a replicable, standardized process that reveals meaningful insights and patterns. Content analysis can involve text analysis where computer algorithms manipulate text to extract structured information that may be interpreted. An example of content analysis is PhotoVoice . This is a participatory, qualitative research method where individuals tell “their story” through photographs as indicated in Case Study 6.2.

Case Study 6.2 Content Analysis with a Participatory Process

PhotoVoice based research in Hawaii involved participants who were residents of Housing First (see Chapter One). Individuals took photographs and/or aided in interpretation as to their experiences in homelessness and Housing First. Fourteen major themes were developed after a participatory process of coding and summarizing findings. These included opportunity to rest, privacy, opportunity to reconnect socially, and improved mental health outcomes (greater hope, self-efficacy, and self-esteem). These findings were useful to researchers exploring different types of housing models for homelessness ( Pruitt et al., 2018).

QUANTITATIVE

Quantitative methods involve being able to count or quantify something. Of course, you have to be able to define the “something” but quantitative methods can help with that as well. Even the simplest of quantitative studies can have great value—for example, having a population list their top ten problems and rank them may provide greater insight than having an outside researcher come in and survey the population on a researcher-priority problem.

In Case Study 6.3 below is an example of this type of quantitative research, using what is called a randomized design where some individuals are provided the intervention and some are not, and then both groups are followed over time.

Case Study 6.3 A Quantitative Evaluation of a Home Visitation Program

A home visitation program was developed for at-risk low-income first-time pregnant women. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The first group received services such as transportation to prenatal care, routine child development screening, and referrals. In the experimental group, participants received the same services and, in addition, nurses conducted home visits during the prenatal period through early childhood. A 15-year follow-up study showed that the outcomes of the home visit group were fewer unwanted pregnancies, less use of welfare, and reduced child abuse and neglect. Additionally, the children showed fewer instances of running away from home and fewer sexual partners, as well as reduced alcohol consumption and criminal behavior (Olds et al., 1998).

The purpose of the research greatly determines the design and methods used in quantitative studies. Some common design decisions involve whether the research is:

• Observational or experimental—is there an intervention that the sample will experience?
• Cross-sectional or longitudinal—is the measurement a “photograph” capturing one moment in time or is it over time, capable of capturing change?
• Controlled—does the research include a control group? This can be very important for credibility.
• Random assignment —are participants randomized to either control or experimental conditions? If not randomized, the research is defined as “quasi-experimental” and if randomized, it is a true experiment.
• Single level or multilevel—since community psychology is interested in ecological context, clustering often occurs naturally in the data structure—think of students in a school clustered within classes.

The quantitative evaluation of interventions can encompass many methods and designs from a cross-sectional comparison post-intervention with a control group to pre-test and post-test studies with and without controls. The choice of these designs and methods is often limited by practical constraints (e.g., no access to a control group). A large effect size in a weaker design may be more convincing than a weak signal in a more sophisticated design.

MIXED METHODS RESEARCH

Research in Community Psychology encompasses a broad range of real-world, ecological contexts, and mixed methods research uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to capture this scope within the same study or project. In essence, there are many important strategies provided by both qualitative and quantitative research in helping us better understand the transactions between persons and community-based structures. Mixed methods provide ways to stay true to Community Psychology’s values by helping to amplify the voices within the lives of unheard and historically silenced communities. This type of research can increase validity because data are collected simultaneously on the same individuals and settings using independent methods of data collection and analysis. This method can help us better understand the complexity of the multiple levels of analysis, including individuals, families, groups, neighborhoods, communities, and cultures, as indicated in the following case study.

Case Study 6.4 A Mixed Methods Approach to Institutional Change

Allen et al. (2016) combined qualitative approaches with quantitative ones to enrich our understanding of a statewide network of family violence coordinating councils. Throughout the inquiry process, these authors used qualitative and quantitative methods. The methods were used in a sequential way so that one data collection method informed the next in terms of analysis and understanding of the data. For example, these community psychologists started by examining years of archival data, which then allowed them to better understand how the violence coordinating councils were associated with access to orders of protection across sites. This archival qualitative data allowed the investigators to better understand how the councils achieved positive outcomes. They then collected current data from councils, and this quantitative data showed a high degree of leader effectiveness. Qualitative interviews they conducted allowed them to better understand the roles of other council members not in the convener role. This helped them to better understand all the roles involved in building council capacity for institutionalized change efforts.

This innovative way of collecting data allows community psychologists to see research as a dynamic process, which helps uncover the texture and inner workings of how groups try to bring about important changes to their communities.

OTHER METHODS

Several other methods that are becoming increasingly useful as tools have evolved to include meta-analysis , which is a method for statistically summarizing the findings of multiple studies to quantify an average effect and identify possible predictors of variability of outcomes. A meta-analysis of primary prevention, mental health programs for children and adolescents found that very few programs reported negative results (Durlak & Wells, 1997). This research incorporated 177 studies and the findings provided strong evidence that prevention is beneficial for fostering the mental health of children. Another meta-analysis of youth mentoring programs suggested that evidence and theory-based programs did better (DuBois et. al., 2002). Overall, meta-analysis is a powerful technique to understand what past research offers as evidence. In the mentoring arena, many of these summary studies have been listed in the Chronicle of Evidence-Based Mentoring, which is a website developed by community psychologist Jean Rhodes.

Practical Application 6.1 The Chronicle

The Chronicle of Evidence Based Mentoring  translates research into practice recommendations and is an important forum for researchers, practitioners, policy-makers, and volunteers. Since its launch, the  Chronicle  has attracted over a million views from its tens of thousands of monthly visitors and nearly 8,000 subscribers. The site features an impressive editorial board and an ever-changing array of research summaries, profiles, etc.

Geographical information systems (GIS) is a method that can be useful in identifying and measuring visual influences on a map. For example, the presence of “food deserts” (i.e., areas without access to affordable, quality food) among neighborhoods can be both visually and quantitatively understood by using mapping with analytic capabilities. The presence or absence can then be modeled with other neighborhood and demographic characteristics to better understand possible remedial policy or action. For example, Chilenski (2011) found that closeness to alcohol and tobacco retailers was a significant predictor of adolescent problem behaviors.

Social network studies provide insight on how relationships may influence attitudes and behaviors. Let’s assume Joey ends up primarily socializing with a group where most members use alcohol. We then learn that Joey begins using alcohol. Did the group influence Joey to begin using alcohol or did Joey join the group to be able to drink with others and not be negatively judged? This question of why youth take on risky behaviors is important to know for the development of interventions and policy. Below is a very practical use of social network analysis in school settings.

Case Study 6.5 A Social Network Analysis of a School-Based Intervention

Social network analysis was used with a school-based intervention focusing on improving the academic, behavioral, and social success of elementary school African American and Latino boys. The intervention included mentoring, family involvement activities, and after-school programming. The elementary school classroom teachers were supported by one or two “lead teachers,” who were meant to provide support and help with teaching strategies to improve student achievement. Social network analysis was used to help understand the teachers’ existing advice networks for spreading intervention strategies and helping document the lead teachers’ abilities to influence their colleagues. This method allowed the community psychologists to understand how the structure of teacher advice networks could either facilitate or hinder the spread of successful classroom intervention practices (Kornbluh & Neal, 2016).

Community psychologists feel that effective research can utilize a multitude of designs and methods (Jason & Glenwick, 2012). One possible framework for conceptualizing methods maps the relationship between the degree of structure and the purpose of the research. The most tightly controlled experiments are focused on testing an intervention’s effect. While unstructured investigations are unlikely to lead to definite conclusions, they are, instead, an exploration of how things operate in the world. Figure 4 below portrays this arrangement.

Research is a powerful tool that helps us better define phenomena, measure it, make predictions about it, develop theories to explain it and put our knowledge to use for the betterment of our world. Community psychologists are trained to use research to understand what might be accounting for certain community problems like homelessness, as well as to evaluate whether particular interventions are effective. The ecological framework allows community psychologists to broaden the evaluation to include how the intervention affected a community’s commitment, openness, and readiness for change.

Community psychologists might have similar goals as community organizers, but their training in research and their ecological perspective provide them unique contributions to bringing about social justice. Ethics and research are interconnected—as good research should ethically generate evidence and evidence should guide ethical action. Clearly, the commitment of community psychologists is always “first do no harm” and that ineffective and resource-wasteful action should be stopped. There are a variety of ecological research methods that can help point the way to bringing about social justice and more equitable distribution of resources.

Critical Thought Questions

• Which research method (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, or mixed) would you utilize to research childhood obesity in the African-American community? Why? What are the ethical considerations when working with this population?
• D.A.R.E. was ineffective for numerous reasons. How would you use research to create an effective youth drug use intervention?
• Watch the video linked in the dissemination of findings section and here . There is a movement among scientists to disseminate research findings to as many people as possible. What are the possible benefits of making research findings open access? Are there any downsides?

Take the Chapter 6 Quiz

View the Chapter 6 Lecture Slides

_____________________________________________________________________

Allen, N. E., Walden, A. L., Dworkin, E. R., & Javdani, S. (2016). Mixed methodology in multilevel, multisetting inquiry. In L. A. Jason & D. S. Glenwick (Eds.), Handbook of Methodological Approaches to Community-Based Research: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods . (pp. 335-343). Oxford University Press.

American Psychological Association (2003). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct . https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Chilenski S. M. (2011). From the macro to the micro: A geographic examination of the community context and early adolescent problem behaviors.  American Journal of Community Psychology ,  48 (3-4), 352-64.

Dalton, J. & Wolfe, S. M. (2012). Joint column: Education Connection and The Community Practitioner. Competencies for community psychology practice. The Community Psychologist, 45 (4), 8-14.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30 , 157–197.

Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adolescents: A meta‐analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology , 25 , 115-152.

Haber, M. G., Neal, Z., Christens, B., Faust, V., Jackson, L., Wood, L. K., Scott, T. B., & Legler, R. (2017). The 2016 survey of graduate programs in Community Psychology: Findings on competencies in research and practice and challenges of training programs. The Community Psychologist, 50 (2), 12-20.

Jason, L. A., & Glenwick, D. S. (Eds.). (2012) . Methodological approaches to community-based research. American Psychological Association.

Jason, L. A., Glantsman, O., O’Brien, J. F., & Ramian, K. N. (2019). Introduction to the field of Community Psychology. In L. A. Jason, O. Glantsman, J. F. O’Brien, & K. N. Ramian (Eds.), Introduction to Community Psychology: Becoming an agent of change. https://press.rebus.community/introductiontocommunitypsychology/chapter/intro-to-community-psychology/

Kornbluh, M., & Neal, J. W. (2016). Social network analysis. In L. A. Jason & D. S. Glenwick (Eds.), Handbook of methodological approaches to community-based research: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods . (pp. 207-217). Oxford University Press.

Olds, D., Pettitt, L. M., Robinson, J., Henderson Jr., C., Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Cole, B., & Powers, J. (1998). Reducing risks for antisocial behavior with a program of prenatal and early childhood home visitation. Journal of Community Psychology, 26 , 65-83.

Pruitt, A. S., Barile, J. P., Ogawa, T. Y., Peralta, N., Bugg, R., Lau, J., Lamberton T., Hall, C., & Mori, V. (2018). Housing First and Photovoice: Transforming lives, communities, and systems. American Journal of Community Psychology , 61 ,104-117

Society for Community Research and Action (2019). Principles. http://www.scra27.org/who-we-are/

Smoking and Health (1964). US Surgeon General’s Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service . US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. US Government Printing Office.

The Belmont Report (1978). National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. United States Government Printing Office.

West, S. L., & O’Neal, K. K. (2004). Project D.A.R.E. outcome effectiveness revisited.  American Journal of Public Health ,  94 (6), 1027-1029.

Wolfe, S. M. (2019). Practice Competencies. In L. A. Jason, O. Glantsman, J. F. O’Brien, & K. N. Ramian (Eds.), Introduction to Community Psychology: Becoming an agent of change. https://press.rebus.community/introductiontocommunitypsychology/chapter/practice-competencies/

A field that goes beyond an individual focus and integrates social, cultural, economic, political, environmental, and international influences to promote positive change, health, and empowerment at individual and systemic levels (SCRA27.org).

Prevention or promotion programs that aim to promote behavioral change in defined community contexts to address social problems.

Understanding the relationships between people and their social environments (e.g., families, groups, communities, and societies).

The ability to replicate a study’s findings.

The degree to which a study produces results that prove to be consistent, no matter who is conducting the research.

A research ethics principle that states children, prisoners, and pregnant individuals are considered vulnerable populations, and they require special protections when involved in research.

A research ethics principle that requires that researchers do no harm and maximize possible benefits, and they can do this by finding less risky methods to achieve research goals.

A research ethics principle that indicates research should have similar benefits, risks and burdens to all populations.

A group of individuals that share a characteristic which is the focus of scientific research.

SCRA is the official organization of Community Psychology in the United States, yet it also supports global connections and goals, with about 20% of its membership international.

The deliberate sharing of research findings to groups and communities that would benefit from said findings.

Sequence of actions that goes from the planned on paper to actions in natural community contexts. Good implementation depends on the skills of the community psychologists involved and the degree of community readiness.

An approach to intervention based on research that systematically demonstrates its effectiveness.

Research that involves an exchange of resources and ideas between researchers and the community members as a way of understanding that is guided by community needs, also known as "participatory action research."

A collection of decisions a researcher(s) makes tailored to what is being studied.

Those who have something to gain or lose from a study.

Methods involving collecting data that typically consists of words that provide comprehensive descriptions of participants’ experiences.

The use of different research methods to understand person-environment interactions and also determine whether community interventions have been successful.

Methods involving collecting data in the form of numbers using standardized measures in an attempt to produce generalizable findings.

A design decision that involves the random assignment of participants into either an experimental group or a control group.

A pool of people that are volunteering or being paid to participate in a study.

A design decision that dictates whether or not there is a control group (a group that is used for a baseline without intervention and to compare with the group of participants with the intervention).

A test designed to gauge participants’ baseline scores.

A test designed to gauge participants’ scores after an intervention.

Thoughtful combining of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods.

A method for statistically summarizing the findings of multiple studies to quantify an average effect and identify possible predictors of variability of outcomes.

The focus on actions that stop problems before they happen by boosting individual skills as well as by engaging in environmental change.

The ability to assist community members to identify personal strengths and social and structural resources they can develop further and use to enhance empowerment, community engagement, and leadership.

A method for identifying how relationships may influence attitudes and behaviors.

Introduction to Community Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Leonard A. Jason; Olya Glantsman; Jack F. O'Brien; and Kaitlyn N. Ramian (Editors) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Community Psychology and the Capabilities Approach

Marybeth shinn.

• Author information
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding author.

What makes for a good life? The capabilities approach to this question has much to offer community psychology, particularly with respect to marginalized groups. Capabilities are freedoms to engage in valued social activities and roles—what people can do and be given both their capacities, and environmental opportunities and constraints. Economist Amartya Sen’s focus on freedoms and agency resonates with psychological calls for empowerment, and philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s specification of requirements for a life that is fully human provides an important guide for social programs. Community psychology’s focus on mediating structures has much to offer the capabilities approach. Parallels between capabilities, as enumerated by Nussbaum, and settings that foster positive youth development, as described in a National Research Council Report (Eccles and Gootman (Eds) in Community programs to promote youth development. National Academy Press, Washington, 2002) suggest extensions of the approach to children. Community psychologists can contribute to theory about ways to create and modify settings to enhance capabilities as well as empowerment and positive youth development. Finally, capabilities are difficult to measure, because they involve freedoms to choose but only choices actually made or enacted can be observed. The variation in activities or goals across members of a setting provides a measure of the capabilities that the setting fosters.

Keywords: Capabilities approach, Empowerment, Positive youth development, Settings, Mediating structures

Introduction

What makes for a good life, and how can it be promoted? Many disciplines address these questions. In this paper, I describe the capabilities approach, as developed by economist Amartya Sen (1992 , 1999) and philosopher Martha Nussbaum (2000 , 2011) , why I think it is useful for community psychologists and others interested in promoting better lives for people who face various forms of marginalization or social exclusion, and how community psychology can contribute to it.

The Capabilities Approach

Capabilities are freedoms to engage in valued social activities and roles—what people can do and be given both their capacities and the opportunities and constraints in their environments. What Nussbaum (2000 , 2011) calls “combined capabilities” are a joint function of personal capacities and what psychologists might call environmental affordances (e.g. Gibson 1982 ; Withagen et al. 2012 ). Thus, capabilities can be reduced in two ways. Internal capacities can be warped or stunted, for example by lack of education or violence; combined capabilities can be further constrained by “social, political, familial, and economic conditions” that prevent people from exercising internal capacities ( Nussbaum 2011 , p. 30). Crucially, the focus is not on enacted behaviors but on the range of behaviors and roles that a person is free to enact.

An analog to the capability approach in psychology may be Cantor and Sanderson’s (1999) work on the importance of participation in life tasks to well-being. But whereas Cantor and Sanderson focus on the activities people enact, Sen and Nussbaum emphasize what they are “able to do and be” ( Nussbaum 2000 , p. 69). A capability set is the set of freedoms or possibilities realistically open to a person; the one she actually enacts is called a functioning. For example, both starving and fasting suggest the same functioning with respect to nutrition, but fasting implies a choice not to eat when food is available. Depending on the reason for fasting (is it enforced by social or other pressures?), fasting is likely to involve a larger capability set than starving ( Sen 1999 , p. 75). I will return to the distinction between capability and functioning later.

The capabilities approach, which Sen (1992 , 1999) originated in the field of developmental economics, underlies the United Nation’s Human Development Index. It addresses deficiencies in both Gross Domestic Product and resource-based approaches to measuring welfare and various forms of subjective utility, happiness, or life satisfaction (e.g. Nussbaum 2011 , chapter 3). Resource approaches treat wealth as an end rather than as a means and typically average across people, with insufficient attention to inequality. Nor is equal distribution of resources sufficient to yield equality in the domain of capabilities—additional resources may be required to afford equal capability to a person with a disability or to overcome differences arising from persistent social inequalities. And because the requirements of social functioning are higher in wealthy than in poor countries, relative income deprivation in rich countries, can lead to “absolute deprivation in the space of capabilities” ( Sen 1992 , p. 115). Resource approaches also ignore the inherent multi-dimensional nature of capabilities, as emphasized by Nussbaum. Even wealth is no guarantee against deprivation of capabilities in other domains, for example social exclusion of stigmatized groups ( Nussbaum 2011 , p. 58).

Subjective approaches to assessing well-being are problematic because life circumstances explain relatively little variance in subjective reports. Set-point theory in social psychology describes how quickly reported well-being returns to previous levels after major events ( Diener et al. 1999 ), and theories of response shift show the changing frames of reference people use in appraisals of quality of life (e.g. Rapkin 2000 ). For example Brickman et al. (1978) famously found that people who had won up to a million dollars in lotteries did not rate their happiness higher than others who lived in the same neighborhoods.

One reason for the surprisingly modest relationship of subjective well-being to life circumstances is the human tendency to allow existing conditions to circumscribe one’s sense of the possible. For example, Barr (2004b) contrasted her own view of a dark, sour-smelling, noisy, dirty basement shelter with that of a resident who, despite sleeping in a chair with his head pillowed on his sneakers to safeguard them from theft, described “the accommodations” as “very nice, very pleasant” (p. 171). Circumscribing one’s goals is often adaptive: people need not waste time or regret on unrealistic endeavors. For example, Nussbaum (2000) describes giving up her ambition to become an opera singer. However, adaptation also leads people to give up on what “human beings have a right to have” (p. 138). Nussbaum proposes a list of the latter, which she calls central human functional capabilities (See left column of Table 1 , reordered and abbreviated from Nussbaum 2000 , pp. 78–80). The list includes the material preconditions of freedom, but reaches beyond them to human relationships and fulfilling activities; it “bridges material and social registers of disadvantage” ( Hopper 2007 , p. 875), and both bread and roses. Nussbaum (2000) argues that each of the capabilities must be satisfied at some minimal level to afford people a life worth living, a fully human life.

Central human functional capabilities ( Nussbaum 2000 , 2011 ) and features of positive developmental settings (National Research Council; Eccles and Gootman 2002 )

Nussbaum’s Central Capabilities

The most mundane of Nussbaum’s (2000) capabilities are denied too often, not only in poor countries, but also in the United States. I illustrate selectively, with a spotlight on a particularly disenfranchised group, people who experience mental illness and homelessness and a capability-enhancing program that serves them. Pathways to Housing is a housing first program built on principles of consumer choice. It offers apartments with private landlords to people living on the street, without requirements for sobriety or participation in treatment. In experimental studies, it ends homelessness more successfully than traditional models of supportive housing that do have such requirements ( Aubrey et al. 2015 ; Tsemberis et al. 2004 ).

The first capability is life , that is, living to the end of a normal human life, and not dying prematurely. Research on health disparities has shown that African Americans ages 35–54 are over twice as likely to die in any given year as are their white contemporaries ( Otten et al. 1990 ), and in some communities, such as Harlem, African American men are less likely to reach old age than men in Bangladesh ( McCord and Freeman 1990 ; Sen 1999 , p. 22). Similar patterns hold for other socially excluded groups. Clients of public mental health systems have mortality rates twice those of others of the same age and gender ( Colton and Manderscheid 2006 ) and people experiencing homelessness, already a gross deprivation of capabilities, have mortality rates three to six times those in the general population ( Hwang et al. 1998 ).

My goal here is not to attempt some hierarchy of disadvantage. Multiple forms of marginalization often co-exist and compound one another: Homeless people are especially likely to be members of stigmatized minority groups, although the particular group at risk varies from country to country ( Shinn 2007 ), and they have higher than average rates of mental illness, substance abuse, and disability everywhere (e.g. Burt et al. 1999 ; Philippot et al. 2007 ). Clients of public mental health systems are disproportionately members of minority groups, and like people who experience homelessness, are often desperately poor. Income accounted for 38 % of the racial disparity in mortality in one study ( Otten et al. 1990 ). The point is that there are multiple, overlapping groups whose lives are too often foreshortened, in this most basic deprivation of capabilities.

Nussbaum’s (2000) second capability is health , including adequate nutrition and shelter. The United States ranks in the bottom fifth of 29 developed countries in infant mortality, low birth weight, and a composite housing and environment index ( UNICEF Office of Research 2013 ). Sen (1999) points out that there has never been a famine in a functioning democracy but the protection of democratic institutions does not extend to hunger. In 2013 over 14.3 % of U.S. households were food insecure—a sanitized term for hunger ( USDA Economic Research Service, 2013 ), and over 1.42 million used homeless shelters (HUD, 2014), with many more affected over longer periods.

Nussbaum’s (2000) third capability is bodily integrity , including freedom of movement, security against assault, and having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and reproductive choice. The National Coalition for the Homeless (2014) documents 1,437 acts of violence against people experiencing homelessness over the last 15 years, in which 375 victims lost their lives, so housing is critical to bodily integrity. But residential programs for people who have been homeless often constrain movement and assume residents are asexual. Homeless shelters in many cities still do not allow even married couples to live together ( U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2006 ), and transitional housing programs often have curfews and rules prohibiting guests. Many shelters and housing programs lack privacy: families often share a room, and single individuals, when not in a dorm or barracks, typically have roommates not of their choosing. Contrast this to both the real possibilities at Pathways to Housing, where individuals come and go freely from private apartments, and the symbolic message (and direct contribution to health) provided by the bowl of condoms on the receptionist’s desk.

Senses, imagination, and thought includes abilities to imagine, think, and reason and produce self-expressive works, along with freedom of self-expression and religious exercise. Emotions includes the ability to experience emotions and, like the first half of affiliation , to live in relationship to others. None of these are novel ideas for community psychologists who study social support and social capital.

The second half of affiliation , having the social basis of self-respect and non-humiliation, is one of the capabilities most regularly denied by the public, which stigmatizes both homelessness and mental illness ( Phelan et al. 1997 ), and shelter and housing programs that treat adults as though they were children and usurp parenting roles ( Mayberry et al. 2014 ).

Practical reason includes the critical reflection and planning of one’s life and the ability to engage in meaningful social roles. Nussbaum suggests that although all central capabilities are essential to a life worth living, practical reason and affiliation stand out because they “suffuse all of the others” ( Nussbaum 2000 , p. 82). Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai (2004) speaks of the “capacity to aspire” which is diminished for poor and subaltern members of a society, not because of any inherent deficit, but because it “like any complex cultural capacity, thrives and survives on practice, repetition, exploration, conjecture, and refutation.” The limitation of such possibilities is, Appadurai suggests, one way to define poverty, and where such possibilities are limited, “the capacity itself remains relatively less developed” ( Appadurai 2004 p. 69). Many programs for homeless individuals or families assume that clients require guidance to overcome their problems, and use the opportunity for housing as leverage to increase residents’ adherence to treatment plans ( Susser and Roche 1996 ). Pathways to Housing assumes far greater capacities and rights for tenants, and assumes they will set meaningful goals for themselves, given the opportunity. The program’s array of supportive services is under tenant control, with no privileges for choosing or penalties for refusing services.

Political control over one’s environment includes effective participation in “political choices that govern one’s life” and freedom of association. Along with practical reason, it corresponds to the individual aspect of what community psychologists mean by empowerment. Effective participation involves more than a psychological sense of control, but for Nussbaum, it is an individual rather than a collective right.

Like all capabilities, material control over one’s environment —the right to hold property—involves not simply formal rules but real opportunity. Wealth in the United States is even less equally distributed than is income ( Piketty 2014 ; Stiglitz 2012 ). Although the Great Recession reduced wealth at the top, the wealthiest 1 % of households still had 225 times as much wealth as the median household at its end ( Stiglitz 2012 ). Racial disparities in wealth grew worse: White families’ wealth fell 11 % but Black families lost 31 % and Latino families lost 40 % from 2007 to 2010 ( McKernan et al. 2013 ), in part because low-income and minority neighborhoods and households were targeted for the sub-prime loans that were more likely to lead to foreclosures ( Immergluck 2009 ). Thus the “real opportunity” to hold property is lacking for many poor Americans, particularly those of color. Even formal opportunities are abridged for individuals with mental illnesses, because disability benefits cease if an individual has more than $2,000 in assets. A home one owns is excluded from that total, but savings to obtain a home are not ( Social Security Administration 2014 ).

Nussbaum’s (2000) last two capabilities are play and other species . The first is straightforward, but the second, the ability to live in relationship with animals, plants, and nature, deserves some unpacking. Fair Housing Law requires landlords to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, and courts have held this to include relaxing “no pet” rules to permit service animals, including animals that provide emotional support to people who have mental disabilities ( Arusha 2004 ). A tenant at Pathways to Housing had previously remained homeless because most shelters and housing programs do not allow pets. She slept in the stairwell of an apartment building where a friend housed her cat. After the friend’s husband left for work, the woman was permitted to go inside, take a shower, and visit her cat. When offered her own apartment where she could keep her cat, the woman gladly accepted ( Shinn 2014 ). Once again, capabilities are freedoms. The point is not that everyone who lacks a puppy or a house plant is failing to live a fully human life. Rather, it is the freedom to live with plants and animals, along with other capabilities, that is important.

In emphasizing freedom, I am not advocating licentious abandon. Practical reason includes the ability to choose discipline and even privation to accomplish other goals. For example, people struggling with addiction may choose to enter supportive communities where substance use is prohibited. But there is an important difference between choosing a drug-free community or for that matter choosing a vocation that requires poverty, chastity, and obedience, and having those privations forced upon one. Agency and well-being are often intertwined, but there are circumstances where people exercising agency choose to reduce their well-being to accomplish other goals ( Sen 1999 ).

The capability approach’s emphasis on agency is quite compatible with community psychology’s commitment to social justice and empowerment. “An approach to justice and development that concentrates on substantive freedoms inescapably focuses on the agency and judgment of individuals; they cannot be seen merely as patients to whom benefits will be dispensed by the process of development” ( Sen 1999 , p. 288). Arguably, capabilities provide an alternative approach to the antinomy between needs and rights that Rappaport (1981) cited in his initial advocacy for empowerment. Nussbaum (2011) describes all capabilities, even those that correspond to Maslow’s (1962) deficiency needs, as rights. Her enumerated list of capabilities is both more specific than empowerment and also broader, drawing attention to conditions of material and social deprivation as well agency in “a life worth living.”

The capabilities approach has certainly been criticized. Nussbaum (2000) makes claims of universality for her list, although it is not necessary to defend that claim in order to employ it in a Western context. The items are not mutually exclusive and may not be exhaustive. Sen’s (1992) focus on equality of capabilities is criticized both by those who prefer equality in some other domain, and by those who worry about trade-offs between equality and efficiency, arguing that maximizing freedoms on average should not be sacrificed for promotion of equality ( Sen 1992 ). Nevertheless I hope my examples suggest that the capabilities approach is useful, not simply for people experiencing homelessness or mental illness, but also for community psychology more broadly.

What Community Psychology can Contribute to the Capability Approach

Thus far I have described how community psychology can benefit from the capability approach. Now I turn to ways that community and other psychologists can contribute, by filling a surprising lacuna in the approach with respect to children, theorizing and demonstrating how settings can foster capabilities, and assessing both characteristics of capability-enhancing settings and capabilities themselves.

Extension to Youth

Neither Sen nor Nussbaum devote much space to youth development, although Nussbaum (2011 , Appendix A) cites Heckman on the importance of early childhood education. Across two books, Sen (1992 , 1999) devotes one footnote to children ( Sen 1992 , p. 91). Nussbaum (2011) wants to guarantee the same threshold level of capabilities to all humans capable of “some sort of striving” excepting only people who are anencephalic or in a permanent vegetative state. (p. 24) but children, she says “are different” (p. 26). She deems it legitimate to deny choices to children to promote their “health, emotional well-being, bodily integrity, and dignity” ( Nussbaum 2000 , p. 90). Of course, no one would claim that a two-year old should have the same freedoms as an adult, and I agree with Nussbaum that requiring certain types of functioning of children is necessary to develop later capabilities. But I believe her framework applies better to positive youth development than Nussbaum realizes.

A National Research Council (NRC) list of setting characteristics that promote youth development ( Eccles and Gootman 2002 , pp. 90–91) is strikingly similar to Nusssbaum’s capability list ( 2000 , pp 78–80), as shown in Table 1 . The NRC’s principal of physical and psychological safety encompasses parts of what Nussbaum classifies under bodily health and bodily integrity . “Safe and health-promoting facilities” parallels Nussbaum’s adequate nourishment and shelter, and a decrease in “unsafe or confrontational peer interactions,” parallels freedom from violent assault. Opportunities for skill building includes “physical, intellectual, psychological, emotional, and social skills,” parallel to Nussbaum’s emotions : “being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason, [in a way] cultivated by an adequate education.” The emotional and social aspects of opportunities for skill building , along with the “caring, support, and guidance” of supportive relationships correspond to Nussbaum’s emotions , “being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves.” Supportive relations is also relevant to the first half of Nussbaum’s affiliation , “living with and toward others.” The second half of affiliation , “having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation.” includes protections against discrimination like those enumerated in the NRC’s “ opportunities to belong .” And both Nussbaum’s practical reason (“being able to … engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life” and the political half of control over one’s environment ” parallel the NRC’s support for efficacy and mattering , including “empowerment practices that support autonomy, [and] … responsibility granting.”

The Capabilities with no parallel in the NRC’s features of developmental settings ( life, play, other species ) are as important to youth as to adults, although the NRC’s list includes some issues more central to youth ( appropriate structure, integration of family, school, and community ). Considering youth as a group whose freedoms can be enhanced in developmentally appropriate ways, rather than thinking of childhood as simply a way-station to adulthood, would be a worthy addition to the capabilities approach.

Empowering and Capability-Enhancing Settings

How can capabilities be fostered? As the NRC’s report on settings that promote youth development suggests, characteristics of settings are important. Community psychology reminds us that people live most of their lives in social settings—schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, churches, voluntary organizations, and, particularly for people whose capability sets may be limited, social programs. Berger and Neuhaus (1977) described such settings as mediating structures that stand between individuals and the larger society, and Rappaport (1981) discussed their importance for creating community, opportunity, and empowerment. Community psychologists are in a good position to generate theory about how settings can foster capabilities.

Neither Sen nor Nussbaum pay much attention to the potential of such settings. Sen (1992 , 1999) discusses the role of governments and society in promoting capabilities for citizens and the creation of social norms through democratic discourse. That is, he considers what Rappaport (1977) called the institutional level of analysis and Bronfenbrenner (1979) dubbed macrosystems. For example, Sen points to the benefits of education and literacy, particularly for women, in reducing fertility, infant mortality and differential deaths among girls, and the importance of developing human resources in promoting economic development more generally, but the discussion remains quite broad. He does not speculate, for example, about how to fix crumbling inner-city schools that fail to educate the children who attend them. He emphasizes the importance of individual agency, but beyond education and access to markets, he says little about how agency comes about. Sen (1999 , p. 284) does give a brief nod, almost in passing, to the importance of settings, suggesting that “political and social organizations, community-based arrangements, nongovernmental agencies of various kinds,” as well as the state, have a role to play in creating freedom, but he says nothing about how this happens.

Nussbaum also focuses on national governments and dismisses mediating structures. She considers the central capabilities on her list to be human rights and the existence of rights implies a corresponding duty to secure them. She assigns that duty to the state ( Nussbaum 2011 , p. 64). Nongovernmental organizations and private philanthropy have done some good but they are not accountable to people in the same ways as a democratic state, which must play a central institutional role ( Nussbaum 2011 , chapter 5). Her exclusive focus on the nation is surprising to a community psychologist, since Nussbaum (2000) illustrates the central role of a mediating structure, the Indian Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), in creating capabilities for its members via credit, education, and a labor union. What about SEWA enables it to play this role?

Community psychologists who have examined features of organizations that foster members’ empowerment ( Maton and Salem 1995 ; Maton 2008 ) can contribute here by examining whether the same features, or additional ones, characterize organizations that promote capabilities. Nussbaum’s description of SEWA makes clear that it embodies the four characteristics of empowering organizations described by Maton and Salem (1995) : inspirational leadership, a strengths-based belief system, mutual support, and an opportunity role structure. In Nussbaum’s account, the opportunities arise largely from loans that allow women to become financially independent. SEWA’s website, http://www.sewa.org , suggests that the organization also creates opportunities by brokering services, such as child care, banking, health care, and legal assistance that women can provide for one another, thus creating jobs for some and allowing others to earn incomes outside the organization; it also provides roles within the organization for women to participate in democratic governance.

Although neither Nussbaum (2000) nor the website speak specifically to the setting maintenance and change dimension that Maton (2008) identified in his updated work on empowering settings, the organizational history on SEWA’s website suggests that the organization has adapted flexibly to external challenges such as being thrown out of its parent organization of trade unions due to its outspoken support for lower caste Harijans. Nor is Maton’s (2008) core activities dimension fully clear. For at least some SEWA members, it is externally focused activities such as banking that seem most important. Of course, neither Nussbaum’s account nor the SEWA web site are structured around Maton’s theory about how organizations work to empower their members, but the theory seems a good starting point for understanding capability-enhancing organizations.

The creation of opportunity role structures, that is, opportunities to participate in valued social roles, is particularly important for groups who are often denied such participation. Stein and colleagues ( Stein et al. 1992 ; Stein and Wemmerus 2001 ) document the importance of normative social roles such as wife, mother, or student to people with experiences of mental illness. Zimmerman et al. (1991) , describe how GROW mutual help groups for people who experience mental illness intentionally created underpopulated settings, that is settings with more roles than members, to encourage members’ participation. Barker’s (1968) theory of manning or staffing posits that underpopulated settings create social “press” to engage in activities, an effect that is particularly important for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized if others were available to take on the same roles. For people whose lives are often bounded by programs and agencies, capabilities may also depend on relationships between staff and service users. Bond and Keys’ (1993) description of how an organization can co-empower different groups of people may be particularly relevant here.

Community psychologists’ theoretical understanding can be employed in transforming settings, often in collaboration with setting members, in order to promote positive outcomes such as youth development, empowerment, and capabilities. For example, Weinstein (2008) described working with schools to actualize high expectations for youth who are too often shunted into paths of low-achievement; Henry (2008) showed how to change classroom norms about aggression by feeding back data to children about disapproval for aggressive behaviors; Maton et al. (2008) described a transformative change process at a university that increased the representation, retention, and achievement of African American students in the sciences; and Speer (2008) described community organizing efforts that empowered youth. Although the authors did not use this language, all of these interventions transformed settings in ways that enhanced capabilities for their members.

Measuring Setting Characteristics that Enhance Capabilities

Each of the authors cited as showing how to transform settings also described how to measure relevant setting features in order to motivate, guide, and monitor change ( Shinn and Yokishawa 2008 ). Measurement of such features, which varied from setting to setting, is another way community psychologists can contribute to the capabilities approach. Let me offer an extended example, again involving Pathways to Housing.

As part of an experiment comparing Pathways to Housing to other housing programs for people with mental illnesses in New York City, researchers queried staff and consumers about the extent to which the programs fostered choice. They assessed Staff Values with anonymous questionnaires. Staff at Pathways to Housing were more likely to agree with statements such as “Homeless people with psychiatric disabilities (or dually diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities and alcohol or drug use problems) have a right to refuse treatment,” or “have a right to independent housing, regardless of their problems.” Staff in the other programs were more likely to endorse statements such as, “Homeless people with serious mental illnesses require structure and supervision to put their lives in order,” or “need clinical support to make wise choices regarding their lives” ( Henwood et al. 2013 ). Staff also responded to a version of the Tolerance for Deviance scale ( Moos and Lemke 1983 ). It asked how the agency would respond to assertive and deviant behaviors such as refusing to take prescribed medicine, being drunk, pilfering or stealing others’ belongings, and physically attacking another resident. Although none of the behaviors are particularly desirable, the crucial question was whether they would lead residents to be excluded from their housing, that is, would disruptive behavior lead to capability deprivation in this domain. Such exclusion was least likely at Pathways to Housing ( Henwood et al. 2013 ).

Finally consumers responded to a 16-item choice index, based on Srebnik et al. (1995) , which asked how much choice they had over aspects of their housing and lifestyle such as the place they live, the people they live with, who can come over, and how they spend their day. Pathways tenants reported significantly more choice than tenants of other programs. All three of these measures tap people’s freedoms to do and be, and suggest that Pathways to Housing was more successful than other programs in enhancing capabilities. Interestingly the last measure, subjective choice, may have some of the same problems of adaptation as other measures of subjective well-being. Perceived choice among Pathways tenants was high 6 months after they were randomly assigned to the program, but somewhat lower (although still well above the control group) at 12 months. At first blush, tenants who had left the streets for a private apartment experienced enormous new freedoms. Later, as they acclimated to their new setting, the constraints of poverty and mental illness may have become more salient. They could live anywhere, as long as the rent was not too high, and welcome anyone into their homes, but that did not stop many from feeling socially isolated ( Yanos et al. 2004 ). The capability approach suggests a dimension—affiliation—along which the program could develop further.

Measuring Capabilities

Psychologists can also contribute to measuring capabilities themselves. As Sen (1992) discusses, measuring freedoms is inherently difficult when one can observe only choices actually made, or functioning, not other choices available. Nussbaum also notes the difficulty of inferring capabilities from functioning and suggests qualitative measurement and discursive analysis ( Nussbaum 2011 , p. 62). Sen (1992 , p. 67) engages in a sleight of hand called the principle of “counterfactual choice” in relating some aspects of welfare or functioning to capabilities. For example, given the choice of having malaria or not having malaria, everyone would chose to be free of malaria, so freedom from malaria is a “freedom” even if no direct choice is made. This sort of reasoning, which underlies the United Nations Development Index, works only for basic capabilities such as life and health where one can safely assume that everyone would indeed make the same choices. In situations where people’s choices might differ, how can one make inferences about the range of realistic possibilities (the capability set) if one can observe only the single choice enacted (the functioning)?

I propose that assessing variation in functioning at the setting level provides a solution to this puzzle, by offering insights into the capability set available to members of that setting. If everyone in a setting has the same observable functioning, it is perhaps not unreasonable to infer that the setting provides real opportunity for only that functioning. If there is considerable variety in observed functioning, that implies that the capability set is large. Take supported employment programs for people who experience mental illness as an example. Too often these result in jobs in “food, filing, and filth.” If everyone in a supported employment program becomes a janitor, one may safely infer that janitorial work is the only capability the program promotes. However, if people get varied jobs, as a computer programmer, architectural draftsman, auto mechanic, cake decorator, history writer, laboratory analyst, paralegal, webmaster, data analyst, as well as secretary and worker in a hospital laundry, one may infer that the program fosters a much broader set of capabilities. The latter examples are real ones from the Association for Study and Psychosocial Integration in Lisbon, which helps members with psychiatric disabilities to get jobs with ordinary employers, doing varied work consonant with their education along with additional training in specialized skills necessary for the jobs ( Ornelas et al. 2010 , 2014 ).

The capability set for an individual setting member is not the same as the range of functionings enacted by other members of the setting—I could no more get a job as a cake decorator than as an auto mechanic. Nevertheless, compared to a setting with little variability, a setting that supports varied functionings for different members is likely to afford greater opportunities to any individual member—including new possibilities not undertaken by any current setting members.

Variability in goals held by setting members may also reflect how well a setting cultivates the “capacity to aspire” and hence the capability of practical reason, or the ability to plan one’s own life. For example, Barr (2004a , p. 160) asked participants in the experiment comparing Pathways to Housing to services-first programs about their goals. The goals of 20 tenants in the Pathways to Housing program included work, education, painting, and writing poetry, whereas 19 of 20 participants in the control group, whatever their current housing, had the same goal, “to get an apartment of their own.” Again, variability, this time in goals among program participants may be a setting-level measure of practical reason (See Raudenbush and Bryk 1987 ; Shinn and Rapkin 2000 , for further discussions of variance as well as the mean as measures of ecological settings.) Barr’s work suggests another simple measure: Pathways residents were more likely to say “I” rather than “they” during interviews, reflecting a sense of agency ( Barr 2004b , p. 171).

In sum, I have suggested that promotion of capabilities for disenfranchised groups is a worthy goal for community psychology. The capabilities approach is compatible with the field’s theories and values, including empowerment and liberation, but is both broader and more specific, in ways that can guide action and research. Psychology’s understanding of human development and skills in measurement, and community psychology’s action orientation and focus on settings can contribute to both theoretical understanding of how capabilities come about and the promotion of freedoms for marginalized groups.

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant P20 MH078188 to the Center to Study Recovery in Social Contexts, Nathan Kline Institute. I thank Brian Heuser, Kim Hopper, David Krantz, Eric Mankowski, Ken Maton, Doug Perkins, and Cathy Stein for helpful conversations and/ or comments on an earlier version of this paper.

This paper is the Seymour B. Sarason Award Address, delivered at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. August 8, 2014. An earlier version was presented at the biennial conference of the Society for Community Research and Action in Montclair NJ, June 28, 2009.

• Appadurai A. The capacity to aspire: Culture and terms of recognition. In: Rao V, Walton M, editors. Culture and public action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2004. pp. 59–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arusha K. Disabilities law: Accommodating tenants with disabilities. California Lawyer. 2004 http://www.callawyer.com/cleStory.cfm?eid=631028&evid=1&qVersionID=128&qTypeID=7 .
• Aubrey T, Tsemberis S, Adair C, Veldhuizen S, Steiner J, Latimer E, Goering P. Psychiatric Services in Advance. 2015. One-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of housing first with ACT in five Canadian cities. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barker R. Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barr A. Evaluation research A. A qualitative evaluation of a supported housing program for homeless persons with severe mental illness. In: Padgett DK, editor. The qualitative research experience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2004a. pp. 152–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barr A. Evaluation research B. The angels are breaking their wings. In: Padgett DK, editor. The qualitative research experience. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2004b. pp. 161–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger PL, Neuhaus RJ. To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bond MA, Keys CB. Empowerment, diversity, and collaboration: Promoting synergy on community boards. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1993;21:37–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brickman P, Coates D, Janoff-Bulman R. Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1978;36:917–927. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.36.8.917. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burt M, Aron LY, Douglas T, Valente J, Lee E, Iwen B. Homelessness: Programs and the people they serve—Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; 1999. Technical report prepared for Interagency Council on the Homeless. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantor N, Sanderson C. Life task participation and well-being: The importance of taking part in daily life. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N, editors. Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1999. pp. 230–243. [ Google Scholar ]
• Colton CW, Manderscheid RW. Congruencies in increased mortality rates, years of potential life lost, and causes of death among public mental health clients in eight states. Preventing Chronic Disease [Serial online] 2006;3(2):1–14. http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/apr/05_0180.htm . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diener R, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HE. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin. 1999;125:276–302. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eccles J, Gootman JA, editors. Community programs to promote youth development. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson JJ. Notes on affordances. In: Reed E, Jones R, editors. Reasons for realism: The selected essays of James J. Gibson. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1982. pp. 401–418. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henry DB. Changing classroom settings through attention to norms. In: Shinn M, Yoshikawa H, editors. Towards positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 40–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henwood BF, Shinn M, Tsemberis S, Padgett DK. Examining provider perspectives within housing first and traditional programs. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation. 2013;16(4):262–274. doi: 10.1080/15487768.2013.847745. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopper K. Rethinking social recovery in schizophrenia: What a capabilities approach might offer. Social Science and Medicine. 2007;65:868–879. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.012. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hwang SW, Lebow JM, Bierer MF, O’Connell JJ, Orav EJ, Brennan TA. Risk factors for death in homeless adults in Boston. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1998;158:1454–1460. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.13.1454. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Immergluck D. Foreclosed: High-risk lending, deregulation, and the undermining of America’s mortgage market. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maslow A. Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand; 1962. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maton M. Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development, community betterment, and positive social change. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2008;41:4–21. doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9148-6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maton KI, Hrabowski FA, Ozdemir M, Wimms H. Enhancing representation, retention, and achievement of minority students in higher education: A social transformation theory of change. In: Shinn M, Yoshikawa H, editors. Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 115–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maton KI, Salem DA. Organizational characteristics of empowering community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1995;23:631–656. doi: 10.1007/BF02506985. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayberry LS, Shinn M, Benton JG, Wise J. Families experiencing housing instability: The effects of housing programs on family routines and rituals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2014;84(1):95–109. doi: 10.1037/h0098946. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCord C, Freeman HP. Excess mortality in Harlem. New England Journal of Medicine. 1990;322:173–177. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199001183220306. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKernan S-M, Ratcliffe C, Steuerle E, Zhang S. Less than equal: Racial disparities in wealth accumulation. Washington DC: The Urban Institute; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moos R, Lemke S. Assessing and improving social and ecological settings. In: Seidman E, editor. Handbook of social intervention. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1983. pp. 143–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Coalition for the Homeless. Vulnerable to hate: A survey of hate crimes & violence committed against homeless people in 2013. Washington DC: Author; 2014. http://nationalhomeless.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Hate-Crimes-2013-FINAL.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Nussbaum MC. Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nussbaum MC. Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ornelas J, Duarte T, Jorge-Monteiro MF. Transformative organizational change in community mental health. In: Nelson G, Kloos B, Ornelas J, editors. Community psychology and community mental health: Towards transformative change. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 253–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ornelas J, Vargas-Moniz M, Duarte T. Community psychology and social change: A story from the field of mental health in Portugal. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice. 2010;1(1):21–31. http://www.gjcpp.org/pdfs/2009-0013%20Final%20Copy-010710.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• Otten MW, Teutsch SM, Williamson DF, Marks JS. The effect of known risk factors on the excess mortality of black adults in the United States. Journal of American Medical Association. 1990;263:845–850. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelan J, Link BG, Moore RE, Stueve A. The stigma of homelessness: The impact of the label “homeless” on attitudes toward poor persons. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1997;60(4):323–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Philippot P, Lecocq C, Sempoux F, Nachtergael H, Galand B. Psychological research on homelessness in Western Europe: A review from 1970 to 2001. Journal of Social Issues. 2007;63:483–503. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piketty T. Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rapkin B. Personal goals and response shifts: Understanding the impact of illness and events on the quality of life of people living with AIDS. In: Sprangers MAG, Schwartz CE, editors. Adaptation to changing health: Response shift in quality-of-life research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000. pp. 53–71. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rappaport J. Community psychology: Values, research, and action. New York: Hold, Rinehart, and Winston; 1977. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rappaport J. In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1981;9:1–25. doi: 10.1007/BF00896357. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Examining correlates of diversity. Journal of Educational Statistics. 1987;12:241–269. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sen AK. Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sen AK. Development as freedom. New York: Knopf; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shinn M. International homelessness: Policy, sociocultural, and individual perspectives. Journal of Social Issues. 2007;63(3):657–677. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shinn M. The capabilities approach to transformative change in mental health. In: Nelson G, Kloos B, Ornelas J, editors. Community psychology and community mental health: Towards transformative change. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. pp. 75–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shinn M, Rapkin B. Cross-level research without cross-ups in community psychology. In: Rappaport J, Seidman E, editors. Handbook of community psychology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2000. pp. 669–695. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shinn M, Yokishawa H. Introduction. In: Shinn M, Yoshikawa H, editors. Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 3–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Social Security Administration. SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013. (SSA 13-11827) Washington D.C: Author; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Speer PW. Altering patterns of relationship and participation: Youth organizing as a setting-level intervention. In: Shinn M, Yoshikawa H, editors. Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 213–228. [ Google Scholar ]
• Srebnik D, Livingston J, Gordon L, King D. Housing choice and community success for individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. Community Mental Health Journal. 1995;31:139–152. doi: 10.1007/BF02188763. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein CH, Ward M, Cislo DA. The power of place: Opening the college to classroom to people with serious mental illness. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1992;20:523–547. doi: 10.1007/BF00937757. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein CH, Wemmerus VA. Searching for a normal life: Personal accounts of adults with schizophrenia, their parents, and well-siblings. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2001;29:725–746. doi: 10.1023/A:1010465117848. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stiglitz JE. The price of inequality. New York: Norton; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Susser E, Roche B. Coercion and leverage in clinical outreach. In: Dennis DL, Monahan J, editors. Coercion and aggressive community treatment: A new frontier in mental health law. New York: Plenum Press; 1996. pp. 73–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsemberis S, Gulcur L, Nakae M. Housing first, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94(4):651–656. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.4.651. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNICEF Office of Research. Innocenti Report Card. Vol. 11. Florence; 2013. Child well–being in rich countries: A comparative overview. [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Conference of Mayors. Hunger and Homelessness Survey: A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities A 23-City Survey. Washing-ton, DC: Author; 2006. Dec, http://usmayors.org/hungersurvey/2006/report06.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Food security in the United States: Key statistics and graphics. 2013 http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#.U9-rtfldV8G .
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress: Part 2 Estimates of Homelessness in the United States. Washington, DC: Author; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weinstein RS. Schools that actualize high expectations for all youth: Theory for setting change and setting creation. In: Shinn M, Yokishawa H, editors. Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 81–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Withagen R, de Poel HJ, Araújo D, Pepping G-J. Affordances can invite behavior: Reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New Ideas in Psychology. 2012;30(2):250–258. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yanos PT, Barrow SM, Tsemberis S. Community integration in the early phase of housing among homeless persons diagnosed with severe mental illness: Successes and challenges. Community Mental Health Journal. 2004;40:133–150. doi: 10.1023/b:comh.0000022733.12858.cb. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman MA, Reischl TM, Seidman E, Rappaport J, Toro PA, Salem DA. Expansion strategies of a mutual help organization. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1991;19:251–278. doi: 10.1007/BF00937930. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (86.5 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Prof. Douglas D. Perkins, Ph.D.

• Publications
• Presentations
• Letters of Recommendation Policy
• Academic genealogy

AN INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY

Posted by perkindd on Monday, September 12, 2011 in News .

By Douglas D. Perkins

Founding Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Human & Organizational Development , and of PhD Program in Community Research & Action , Peabody College, Vanderbilt University

(see also: Information from the Society for Community Research & Action on:)

What Is Community Psychology?

To read any introductory text in the field of psychology, one would guess that the typical psychologist spends all of his or her time dreaming up and conducting arcane laboratory experiments, often of questionable relevance to pressing real world concerns. On the contrary, however, most psychologists work in naturally occurring situations and settings. In addition to the clinical and testing psychologists, with whom the public is most familiar, many people–at all levels of professional training–are entering a relatively new field called community psychology. Community psychology is fundamentally concerned with the relationship between social systems and individual well-being in the community context. Thus, community psychologists grapple with an array of social and mental health problems and they do so through research and interventions in both public and private community settings.

One of the most exciting aspects of community psychology is that the field is developing rapidly and is still in the process of defining itself. It is not easily reduced to the traditional. content categories in psychology for several reasons. Fist, community psychologists simultaneously emphasize both (applied) service delivery to the community and (theory-based) research on social environmental processes. Second, they focus, not just on individual psychological make-up, but on multiple levels of analysis, from individuals and groups to specific programs to organizations and, finally, to whole communities. Third, community psychology covers a broad range of settings and substantive areas. A community psychologist might find herself or himself conducting research in a mental health center on Monday, appearing as an expert witness in a courtroom on Tuesday, evaluating a hospital program on Wednesday, implementing a school-based program on Thursday, and organizing a community board meeting on Friday. For all the above reasons, there is a sense of vibrant urgency and uniqueness among community psychologists–as if they are as much a part of a social movement as of a professional or scientific discipline.

What Isn’t Community Psychology?

It may be useful to describe community psychology by distinguishing it from other disciplines with which it is closely allied. Community psychology is like clinical psychology and community mental health in its action orientation. That is, community psychology aims to promote human welfare. But community psychology arose largely out of dissatisfaction with the clinician’s tendency to locate mental health problems within the individual. Community psychologists are more likely to see threats to mental health in the social environment, or in lack of fit between individuals and their environment. They typically advocate social rather than individual change. They focus on health rather than on illness, and on enhancing individual and community competencies.

Community psychology is like public health in adopting a preventive orientation. That is, community psychologists try to prevent problems before they start, rather than waiting for them to become serious and debilitating. But community psychology differs from public health in its concern with mental health, social institutions, and the quality of life in general. In many ways, community psychology is like social work , except that it has a strong research orientation. While academic social work has become more research-based, even applied, practicing community psychologists are committed to the notion that nothing is more practical than rigorous, well-conceived research directed at social problems.

Community psychology is like social psychology and sociology in taking a group or systems approach to human behavior, but it is more applied than these disciplines and more concerned with using psychological knowledge to resolve social problems. It borrows many techniques from industrial and organizational psychology , but tends to deal with community organizations, human service delivery systems, and support networks. Plus, it focuses simultaneously on the problems of clients and workers as opposed to solely the goals and values of management. It is concerned with issues of social regulation and control, and with enhancing the positive characteristics and coping abilities of relatively powerless social groups such as minorities, children, and the elderly.

What Community Psychologists Do

The new and disparate areas of community psychology are thus bound together by a singular vision: that of helping the relatively powerless, in and out of institutions, take control over their environment and their lives. This should, in turn, foster in all of us a greater “psychological sense of community.” Community psychologists must, however, “Wear many hats” in working toward the creation of social systems which: (1) promote individual growth and prevent social and mental health problems before they start; (2) provide immediate and appropriate forms of intervention when and where they are most needed; and (3) enable those who have been labelled as “deviant” to live as dignified and self-controlled a life as possible, preferably as a contributing member of the community.

For example, a community psychologist might (1) create and evaluate an array of programs and policies which help people control the stressful aspects of community and organizational environments; (2) assess the needs of a community and teach its members how to recognize an incipient problem and deal with it before it becomes intractable; or (3) study and implement more humane and effective ways for formerly institutionalized populations to live productively in society’s mainstream.

Community psychology is not only a professional and scientific discipline. It is also an intellectual/ value orientation that is applicable to virtually any field or profession. The community perspective challenges traditional modes of thought. It looks at whole ecological systems, including political, cultural, and environmental influences, as well as focusing on institutional and organizational factors. It realizes that the “interaction” between a person and the environment may have as important an effect on his or her behavior as the effect each factor has separately. The community approach also emphasizes the effects of stress and social support, and the practicality of prevention and self-help. Furthermore, it recognizes the demand for local empowerment and bureaucratic decentralization (and anti-professionalism) and the importance of cultural relativity and diversity. The community perspective simultaneously stresses the utility of research, not only for theory development, but for program evaluation and policy analysis–and the omni presence of values (implicitly or explicitly) throughout society and even science. An important aspect of the community orientation is its appreciation of the authority of historical and structural contexts. And, finally, it emphasizes community and personal strengths and competency, as opposed to weaknesses and pathology.

Professional and Non-professional Opportunities in Community Psychology

Any brief introduction to a field as broad and varied as community psychology can give only a superficial flavor of all that it is, and can be, about. For those who want a more in-depth look at all that community psychology has to offer, I recommend an introductory course and/or the book list, below. Many, if not most, undergraduate institutions across the country now offer a course in community psychology, prevention, or “community” courses in social work or sociology.

The Society for Community Research & Action (SCRA; Division 27 of the American Psychological Association) is the official organization of community psychology (website: Home – Society for Community Research and Action – SCRA or http://www.scra27.org . There are reduced-cost student memberships. SCRA sponsors excellent regional and national conferences on Community Research and Action. It publishes The Community Psychologist newsletter and The American Journal of Community Psychology . Other academic journals related to community psychology include J. of Community Psychology, Psychosocial Intervention/Intervención Psicosocial , J. of Prevention & Intervention in the Community (formerly Prevention in Human Services), J. of Community & Applied Social Psychology, Community, Work & Family, J. of Rural Community Psychology, Community Development J., J. of the Community Development Society, Environment & Behavior, J. of Environmental Psychology, J. of Primary Prevention, Prevention Science, J. of Social Issues, J. of Applied Behavioral Sci., J. of Applied Behavioral Analysis and many others.

The employment prospects for professional community psychologists remain favorable. Part of the reason may be that, as so many social and mental health problems worsen, service administrators are beginning to appreciate the value of people trained to investigate and solve problems at the organizational, as opposed to the individual, level. The demand for community psychologists may also be due to their versatile ability to address problems in virtually any public (and even private) sector setting. What sets community psychologists apart, in this regard, is the emphasis of their training on a set of generic, applied field research methodologies, rather than on a single, substantive content area of empirical “facts.” A more mundane, yet still noteworthy, explanation of our relatively high employment rate is that it may reflect a large number of clinical, social, and organizational psychologists who identify themselves as “community-oriented” psychologists. Such affiliations have no doubt proved useful since community-related concerns became a “priority” area for programmatic and research development. This should not bother “full-fledged” community psychologists as long as the others are serious about their community interests and identity.

The reader should note that formal training is not a prerequisite to practicing community psychology. Earlier in this introduction, I mentioned the ways in which the “community perspective” can enlighten anyone’s approach to solving psychologically-related problems at work and in their community. Furthermore, the reader is encouraged to participate in self-help groups, service programs, and community action committees. If these organizations do not exist in your neighborhood or area of concern, then organize one yourself. After all, necessity is the “mother”–not only of invention–but of community psychology as well.

Graduate Programs in Community Psychology and related fields (see www.scra27.org/resources/educationc/academicpr ): For those who might be interested in graduate training in community psychology, there are many different types of academic programs from Master degrees in program evaluation and administration to doctoral programs in community research. Many of these also offer clinical training.

From an old SCRA homepage:

Welcome! The Society for Communty Research and Action (SCRA), Division 27 of the American Psychological Association, serves many different disciplines that focus on community research and action. Our members have found that, regardless of the professional work they do, the knowledge and professional relationships they gain in the SCRA have been invaluable and invigorating. Membership provides new ideas and strategies for research and action that benefit people and improve institutions and communities. The Society for Community Research and Action was founded on the idea that social systems and environmental influences are important foci for enhancing wellness via preventive research and interventions.

The SCRA Mission: The Society is devoted to advancing theory, research and social action to promote positive well‑being, increase empowerment, and prevent the development of problems of communities, groups and individuals. The action and research agenda of the field is guided by three broad principles. Community research and action is an active collaboration between researchers, practitioners and community members and utilizes multiple methodologies. Human competencies and problems are best understood by viewing people within their social, cultural and historical context. Change strategies are needed at both the individual and systems levels for effective competence promotion and problem prevention.

SCRA Goals:

*         To promote the use of social and behavioral sciences for the well‑being of people and their communities;

*         To promote theory development and research that increase our understanding of human behavior in its social context;

*         To encourage the exchange of knowledge and skills in community research and action.

SCRA INTERNET LISTSERVS: The SCRA Listserv enables SCRA members and others to send and receive information and comment about various topics of interest such as job postings, grant opportunities, and upcoming SCRA events. In addition, there have been separate listservs for students, students of color, for women’s issues and for Community Psychology, Spirituality, and Religion.

Sampling of books related to Community Psychology

Albee, G.W., & Joffe, J.M., & Dusenbury, L.A. (Eds.)(1988). Prevention, powerlessness and politics: Readings on social change. Sage. HM291.P715

Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals . New York: Random House.

Anderson, L. S., et al. (1966). Community psychology: A report of the Boston Conference on the Education of Psychologists for Community Mental Health . Boston University & Quincy Mass. South Shore Mental Health Center.

Barker, R.G. (1964). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Barker, R. G., & Schoggen, P. (1973). Qualities of community life (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bindman, A. J., & Spiegel, A. D. (Eds.). (1969). Perspectives in community mental health . Chicago: Aldine.

Bloom, B. (1984). Community mental health: A general introduction . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health . Behavioral Publications.

Carr, S. C., & Sloan, T. S. (Eds.). (2003). Poverty and psychology: From global perspective to local practice . New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum.

Dohrenwend, B.S., & Dohrenwend, B.P. (Eds.)(1974). Stressful life events: Their nature and effects . NY: Wiley.

Dokecki, P. R. (1996). The tragi-comic professional: Basic considerations for ethical reflective-generative practice . Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Duffy, K.G., & Wong, F.Y. (1996). Community psychology . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Fairweather, G.W., & Davidson, W.S. (1986). An introduction to community experimentation: Theory, methods and practice . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Felner, R.D.,et al. (Eds.)(1983). Preventive psychology: Theory, research, and practice . Pergammon.

Fetterman, D.M., Kaftarian, S., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.)(1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self assessment and accountability . Beverly Hills: Sage.

Fox, D., Prilleltensky, I., & Austin, S. (Eds.). (2009). Critical psychology: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Francescato, D. (1977). Psicologia di comunitáa (1. ed.). Milano: Feltrinelli.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

Gibbs, M.S., Lachenmeyer, J.R., & Sigal, J. (Eds.)(1980). Community psychology: Theoretical and empirical approaches . New York: Gardner.

Glenwick, D., & Jason, L. (Eds.)(1980). Behavioral community psychology: Progress and prospects . NY: Praeger.

Golann, S. E., & Baker, J. (1975). Current and future trends in community psychology . New York,: Human Sciences Press.

Heller, K., Price, R., Reinharz, S., Riger, S., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Psychology and community change: Challenges of the future , 2nd Ed. Dorsey Press.

Hollingshead, A., & Redlich, F. (1958). Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley.

Hornstein, H.A., et al. (Eds.) (1971). Social Intervention: A behavioral science approach . Free Press.

Iscoe, I., & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.). (1970). Community psychology: perspectives in training and research . New York,: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health . NY: Basic.

Jason, L.A., Felner, R.D., Hess, R.E., & Moritsugu, J.N. (Eds.)(1987). Communities: Contributions from allied disciplines. New York: Haworth.

Jason, L.A., Hess, R.E., Felner, R.D., & Moritsugu, J.N. (Eds.)(1987). Prevention: Toward a multidisciplinary approach. New York: Hawthorne.

Kanter, R.M. (1972). Commitment and community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Kelly, J. G. (2006). Becoming ecological: An expedition into community psychology . New York: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, J. G., & Song, A. V. (2007). Community psychology in practice: An oral history through the stories of five community psychologists. New York: Haworth Press.

Kettner, P., Daley, J.M., & Nichols, A.W. (1985). Initiating chang in organizations and communities: A macro process model . Brooks-Cole.

Klein, D.C., & Susskind, E.C. (Eds.)(1985). Knowledge building in community psychology . Praeger.

Kloos, B., Hill, J., Thomas, E., Wandersman, A., Elias, M. J., & Dalton, J. H. (2012). Community Psychology: Linking Individuals and Communities (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Lavanco, G. (2001). Oltre la politica: Psicologia di comunitáa, giovani e partecipazione [Beyond politics: Community psychology, youth, and participation] . Milano, Italy: FrancoAngeli.

Levine, M. (1981). The history and politics of community mental health . NY: Behavioral Publications.

Levine, M., & Levine, A. (1970). A social history of the helping services: Clinic, court, school and community . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Levine, M., Perkins, D. D., & Perkins, D. V. (2005). Principles of community psychology: Perspectives and applications (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.

Mann, P. A. (1978). Community psychology: Concepts and applications . New York: Free Press.

Maton, K. I., Schellenbach, C. J., Leadbeater, B. J., & Solarz, A. L. (Eds.). (2004). Investing in children, youth, families, and communities: Strengths-based research and policy . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Moos, R.H., & Insel, P.M. (Eds.) (1974). Issues in social ecology: Human milieus . Palo Alto: National Press Books.

Munoz, R.F., et al. (1979). Social and psychological research in community settings . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murrell, S.A. (1973). Community psychology and social systems . New York: Behavioral Publications.

Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). (2010). Community Psychology: In Pursuit of Liberation and Well-Being . Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Orford, J. (1992). Community psychology: Theory and practice . Chichester, England; New York: Wiley.

Orford, J. (2008). Community psychology: Challenges, controversies and emerging consensus . Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Price, R.H., et al. (1980). Prevention in mental health: Research, policy and practitice . Sage.

Price, R.H., et al. (1988). Fourteen ounces of prevention: A casebook for practitioners . DC: Am. Psych. Assoc..

Price, R.H., & Politser (Eds.)(1980). Evaluation and action in the social environment . New York: Academic Press.

Prilleltensky, I., & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing psychology critically: Making a difference in diverse settings . Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research & action . NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

Rappaport, J., & Seidman, E. (Eds.)(2000). Handbook of community psychology . Plenum Press.

Rappaport, J., Swift, C., & Hess, R. (Eds.)(1984). Studies in empowerment: Steps toward understanding and action (Prevention in Human Services, 3 (2/3)) Haworth. HM271.S878

Reich, S. M., Riemer, M., Prilleltensky, I., & Montero, M. (Eds.). (2007). International community psychology: History and theories . Springer.

Revenson, T. A., et al. (Eds.). (2002). A quarter century of community psychology: Readings from the American Journal of Community Psychology . Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Revenson, T. A., et al. (Eds.). (2002). Ecological research to promote social change: Methodological advances from community psychology . New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation : a systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1992). Community organizing and development New York: Macmillan.

Rudkin, J. K. (2003). Community psychology: Guiding principles and orienting concepts . Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim . New York: Vintage.

Sarason, S.B. (1972). The creation of settings and the future societies . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sarason, S.B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology . Jossey-Bass.

Santinello, M., & Vieno, A. (Eds.)(2012). “Non è giusto:” Psicologia dell’ingiustizia sociale/“It’s not fair:” The psychology of social injustice . Naples, Italy: Liguori Editore.

Schoggen, P., & Barker, R. G. (1989). Behavior settings: A revision and extension of Roger G. Barker’s Ecological psychology . Stanford University Press.

Scileppi, J. A., Torres, R. D., & Teed, E. L. (2000). Community psychology : a common sense approach to mental health . Prentice Hall.

Seedat, M. (Ed.)(2001). Community psychology: Theory, method and practice . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seidman, E. (Ed.)(1983). Handbook of social intervention . Beverly Hills: Sage.

Seidman, E., & Rappaport. J. (Eds.), Redefining social problems. New York: Plenum.

Shinn, M., & Yoshikawa, H. (Eds.). (2008). Toward Positive Youth Development: Transforming Schools and Community Programs . New York: Oxford University Press.

Srole, L., Langner, T.S. Michael, S.T., Opler, M.K., & Rennie, T.A. (1962). Mental health in the metropolis: The midtown Manhattan study . NY: McGraw-Hill.

Susskind, E.C., & Klein, D.C. (1985) Community research: Methods, paradigms, and applications . NY: Praeger.

Taylor, R.B. (Ed.) (1986) Urban neighborhoods: Research and policy. New York: Praeger.

Tolan, P., et al. (Eds.) (1990). Researching community psychology: Issues of theory and methods . DC: APA.

Unger, D.G., & Sussman, M.B. (Eds.)(1990). Families in community settings: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Haworth.

Wandersman, A., & Hess, R. (Eds.) (1985). Beyond the individual: Environmental approaches and prevention. New York: Haworth.

Warren, D.I., & Warren, R.B. (1977). The neighborhood organizer’s handbook . University of Notre Dame Press.

Zald, M.N., & McCarty, J.D. (Eds.)(1977). The dynamics of social movements: Resource mobilization, social control, and tactics . Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.

Zander, A. (1990). Effective social action by community groups . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zigler, E., & Muenchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The inside story of America’s most successful educational experiment. New York: Basic.

Comments are closed.

Back Home   

• Department of Human & Organizational Development
• My Faculty Page on Peabody Website
• Peabody College
• Video: "Community psychology & BioCultures: Points of intersection"-8/17/2013

Recent News

• AN INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY  » 9.12.11

Your Vanderbilt

• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff
• International Students
• Parents & Family
• Prospective Students
• Researchers
• Sports Fans
• Visitors & Neighbors

Connect with Vanderbilt

© 2024 Vanderbilt University · Site Development: University Web Communications