COGNITO

No 182, January 2019

Newsletter of the
Psychology Special Interest Group
of British Mensa Ltd

(An International SIG)

SIGSec & Editor:

Mike Griffiths:
mike_g50@hotmail.com

COPYRIGHT: Copyright of each contribution to this newsletter remains with the

acknowledged owner. Permission to reproduce content in part or as a whole must be
obtained from the acknowledged owner. Contact the SIGSec in the first instance.

DISCLAIMER: This is the newsletter of the Psychology Special Interest Group (SIG) of
British Mensa, for controlled circulation within this SIG. Additional circulation is not
authorised unless sanctioned by the SIGSec. Published, printed and distributed by
British Mensa Ltd., St John’s House, St John’s Square, Wolverhampton WV2 4AH.
Mensa as a whole has no opinions. Views expressed in this newsletter are not
necessarily those of the editor, the SIGSec, the officers or the directors of Mensa.
 RESPONSE: MYERS-BRIGGS

By Jim Emerton

It is my belief that my personality would not be known by classification within

this theoretical system. We should examine ourselves and others on an
intuitive and perceptual level, rather than a conventional system of the times.
I can read many personality types and traits from my own subjective and
personal experience. Jung helped many to introspect and consider aspects of
human personality. I know myself, deep within the inner core man, and am
certain that a shrink or psychologist would not tap my uniqueness. Yes
Myers-Briggs will not tap the intrinsicality of the depths of an inner psyche!

British Psychology and Professional Psychologists:

“Anything You Can Do, I… Can’t Do Better?”.

By Sergio A. Silverio
University College London
S.Silverio@ucl.ac.uk

Abstract
In its relatively short history, Psychology has seen an exponential growth of
application to areas beyond its initial conception. Now, between theoretically-
based researchers at one end of the ‘Psychologist’ spectrum, and applied
practitioners at the other; Psychology reaches almost all walks of human life,
whether we are aware of it or not. This (lack of) awareness, is arguably more
crucial for the public who are often the end-point of our work. It is their safety
which must be at the forefront of our occupations, our strategies, and our
policies when defining our roles as ‘Psychologists’ in the world.

Introduction
Despite UK-standardised Psychology undergraduate training in accordance
with The British Psychological Society (BPS, 2012) requirements, it is the
further specialisations which offer potential confounds for public-
understanding. Psychology is subject to strong socio-cultural ideologies
accepted and propagated (McDonald, Wantz, & Firmin, 2014), and the public
may not be aware of the variety of CPD or continuing education which
Psychologists may be required to undertake to adeptly (and even legally)
maintain their professional practice and competencies (Taylor & Neimeyer,
2015). The statutory regulation of practitioner Psychologists in the UK by the
Health and Care Professions Council [HCPC] means it is illegal for someone
to claim to be a Registered Psychologist when they are in fact, not.

In summary of the potential confusion perceived by the public about the role of
the ‘Psychologist’ and the meaning of ‘Psychology’, Cordella et al. (2016;
p.102) succinctly and eloquently open their report with:

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 2 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
 “Evidence in the literature indicates that psychology is regarded
favorably. The public, however, appears somewhat confused about the
role and functions of psychologists. This may impact upon the capacity
of professionals to assist the wider community.”

Recent years has seen calls for change in training Applied Psychologists
(Kinderman, 2002; 2005) and to review Psychology’s place through academic,
public health, and financial lenses (Rhodes, 2016). To debate the
underpinning theories used, and established practices exercised by British
Psychologists, especially at this time of economic prudence, we must
establish whether a change is required in the training and governance of
Applied Psychology or if the current system is not an institution in need of
restructuring. For British Psychology, the two most salient bodies which could
assist in this movement of public protection are The BPS and the HCPC.

Structuring a Functional Psychology

We ‘Psychologists’ are a broad and varied set of academic and practising
professionals (Corrie et al., 2014). Whilst the Royal Charter formalised “the
Society” (BPS, 2011a), it was almost half-a-century before Practitioner
Psychologists were statutorily regulated by the then Health Professions
Council (HCPC, 2012). The register legally protects the professional titles for
upwards of twenty-thousand Psychologists across seven practitioner-domains
(HCPC, 2016), but it can be argued, there is little intra-profession appreciation
of what other ‘Psychologists’ do, or how specialisms are distinctly trained.

Here, the practice of Psychology is protected by “the Council”, whilst science

of Psychology is maintained by “the Society”, but what science differs
between the applied settings? Evidence is confounding, and the HCPC’s
Standards of Proficiency for Practitioner Psychologists (HCPC, 2015), makes
dividing-lines more ambiguous. The document is littered with vague additions
of theories which should be well-versed for only particular applied
practitioners, such as point 13.25: “understand different theories of lifespan
development” (p.16). This aspect of psychological science could, and
perhaps more importantly, should be relevant to the knowledge-base of all
practitioners and not only Counselling Psychologists, as the document
suggests.

Evidence against a distinction in the applied settings of psychological science

is vast from the HCPC (2015) Standards of Proficiency, exemplified by the
repetition of the statement of required knowledge: “understand psychological
models related to a range of presentations including – problems with
biological or neuropsychological aspects”, which can be found only for Clinical
Psychologists within point 13.12 (p.14); only for Counselling Psychologists
under point 13.20 (p.15); and only for Forensic Psychologists in point 13.41
(p.17).

It would appear the distinction is not clearly defined by standards set by

Applied Psychologists’ regulatory body, and yet, in the Code of Ethics and
Conduct (BPS, 2009, p.3), the term “Psychologist” can be used with reference
“to any member of the British Psychological Society including student

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 3 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
members.” therefore, suggesting the use of the term ‘Psychologist’ is
unanimously accepted for any member affiliated to The BPS – our learned
academy, whilst when prefaced with a particular applied modality of practice,
the term becomes legally enshrined and it is implied the registered
specialisation of knowledge is required in order to fulfil duties associated with
the domain title.

In terms of practise and the codes of conduct which reinforce the professional
activity of different Psychologists, the Rules of the Society and the Member
Conduct Rules (BPS, 2011b; 2015, respectively) set-out the parameters of the
various members, and the responsibility, structure, and governance of “the
Society”, itself. The latter, expressly states fitness to practise by members of
“the Society” in applied practitioner settings is not governed by them, but
rather the HCPC. Whilst not immediately remarkable, the point brings to
question the issue of Practitioner Psychologists being governed in their
professional activity by a board which regulates members working within
health care settings, and not the academy which forms the foundation of
knowledge atop of which each Psychologist is taught and/or trained in
undergraduate, post-graduate, and doctoral education. Here a discrepancy
occurs between theoretical constructs informing psychological practice, and
the governing protocols which have been established to protect their
proficiency of activity.

It can be agreed there are differences in the underpinning theories and

established practices later used by the Applied Psychologists, thus supporting
retaining the current system of training so not to force together theoretically
and practically different professionals in their educative-careers.

The Ambiguity of Ethics

Contrary to the earlier evidence favouring no distinction between Applied
Psychologies due to the basic-level psychological science informing practice
between domains being the same, this evidence suggests there is a merit-
worthy contradiction, whereby the theory and practice for the Applied
Psychologists are discordant in their underlying-principles and overarching-
governance. Simplistically, it appears since the instigation of HCPC
regulation of Applied Psychologists, the profession has inadvertently created a
divide between the mandate of the educating curricula being taught, and the
regulation of Applied Psychology being practised.

To look at the understanding, skillsets, and values of the branches of

Psychology, it is wise to look at the wider reportings of practitioner capabilities
in the mental health field settings. Starting first with: “The Capable
Practitioner” report from The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (SCMH;
2001), the emphasis is on ethical practice. It states, all mental health
practitioners share the same prescribed value of fundamental ethical
understanding and practice, further evidencing the fact that these applied
psychological settings should be one of the same at their core.

In a similar vein, a capability framework published by the National Health

Service Education for Scotland (NES; 2008), defines four areas common for

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 4 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
mental health practice, whilst the Department of Health (DoH; 2004, p.3)
checklist of: “The Ten Essential Shared Capabilities for Mental Health
Practice” takes a broader perspective than the proficiencies established by the
2009 HPC guidelines. Not only does the NES report claim these areas must
be shared for all practitioners, but should be common to all levels of
practitioner seniority; but the DoH document shows how all domains of
Applied Psychology should adopt a more ethical and humanistic approach to
psychological interventions, such as valuing “Personal Development and
Learning” ensuring practitioners, despite their specialism, are attentive to their
reflection in practice for not only improvements, but also for encountered
struggles. These recommendations mean there is no notable distinction to be
made between practitioners.

Finally, a multi-disciplinary survey of Applied Psychologists in health and

social care, and in probation and prison service settings (BPS, 2005) speaks
of how Applied Psychologies can disseminate pure and applied psychological
knowledge through high-standards of education and professional practice.
The evidence here only mounts in favour of the applied settings sharing more
than just a set of core principles, but actually a more holistic sharing of
theoretical understandings, skillsets, and prescribed values, and are perhaps
not notably distinct.

Conclusion
Due to the complexity and scope of the terms ‘Psychology’ and ‘Psychologist’,
this debate is unmistakeably difficult to resolve. However, it is perchance
better to first consider the sensibility and necessity of undertaking the
proposed changes.

The necessity is conceivably easier to reconcile given the current economic

hardship in public funding of mental health services and practitioners. A
recent correspondence suggests anticipated funding-cuts would render high-
standards of practitioner training open to a decline in quality (Minchin et al.,
2016). Like most institutions ‘Psychology’ will have to move with the times
and adapt in the face of adversity, but how we go about this is a challenging
endeavour and requires sensitivity. If not only for the professionals within “the
Society”, but for the public with whom the end-point of so much of our work
rests.

Sensibility is more difficult to draw conclusions on, due to evidence for a

reassessment of training structure is present in approximately the same level
as evidence which suggests the current system is still the better option.
‘Psychology’ in the UK and “the Society” itself have greater challenges, some
of which are new and some of which are ongoing and thus far unresolved. In
his first document since assuming Presidency of The BPS, Kinderman (2016;
p.408) argued: “…[The BPS] seems to be weirdly reluctant to campaign on
issues of importance to members, let alone members of the public.” Public
protection is of paramount importance when altering the system which it
supports.

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 5 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
Just as it is argued “the Society” has some identity issues of its own to
resolve, there are other factors such as issues around the gender, disability,
and ethnic diversity of our programmes (BPS, 2004); the intrinsic problem of
accessibility of Psychology-based careers for women in Britain (Valentine,
2008); the inherent issue of the “dearth of women leaders” within British
Psychology (Atewologun & Doldor, 2013; p.223); and furthermore how the
provision of psychological support services has been affected for the next
generation of Psychology professionals due the recent University budgetary
changes and the removal of caps on student numbers (Silverio, 2016).

British Psychology is far from broken, but is demonstrably seen as a ‘problem

child’ for all those involved, including not only those who govern it, but those
who are part of the academic and practitioner settings. There are more deep-
rooted, wide-spread, and more pertinent concerns which plague the (now
wounded) integrity of “the Society” as a core for our profession, whether
applied or academic. From an estimation of this debate, simply changing the
way we train our future psychological workforce, will act as a masquerade for
these larger disputes, and therefore before the training of Applied
Psychologists is altered, it is probably a better suggestion to re-balance and
re-affirm the purpose, meaning, and underlying ethos which is necessary to
define both British ‘Psychologists’ and British ‘Psychology’.

References
Atewologun, D., & Doldor, E. (2013). Women at the top. Where now, what
next? Reflections on the British Psychological Society's Division of
Occupational Psychology 2012 conference. Equality, Diversity &
Inclusion, 32(2), 223-229. doi:10.1108/02610151311324442.
Cordella, B., Greco, F., Di Trani, M., Renzi, A., La Corte, C., & Solano, L.
(2016). The impact of joint consultation with family physicians on
perception of psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 47(2), 102-109. doi:10.1037/pro0000064.
Corrie, S., Breslin, G., Woods, D., Kremer, J., Cooke, Y., & Clarke, A. (2014).
Worlds Apart or Worlds United? A roundtable discussion at the
Northern Ireland Branch of the British Psychological Society's Annual
Conference: A brief report. Coaching Psychologist, 10(2), 75-77.
Department of Health [DoH]. (2004). The ten essential shared capabilities: A
framework for the whole of the mental health workforce. London,
United Kingdom: National Institute for Mental Health England, The
Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health Joint Workforce Support Unit &
National Health Service University.
Health & Care Professions Council [HCPC]. (2012, August 1). We have
changed our name. Health & Care Professions Council. Retrieved
from http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutus/namechange/.
Health & Care Professions Council [HCPC]. (2015). Standards of proficiency:
Practitioner psychologists - Revised. London, United Kingdom: Health
and Care Professions Council.
Health & Care Professions Council [HCPC]. (2016, April 1). Professions:
Practitioner psychologists. Health & Care Professions Council.
Retrieved from

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 6 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
 http://www.hcpcuk.org/aboutregistration/professions/index.asp?id=14
#profDetails.
Health Professions Council [HPC]. (2009). Standards of proficiency:
Practitioner psychologists. London, United Kingdom: Health
Professions Council.
Kinderman, P. (2002). The future of clinical psychology training. Clinical
Psychology Forum, 8, 6-10.
Kinderman, P. (2005). The applied psychology revolution. The Psychologist,
18(12), 744-746.
Kinderman, P. (2016). One on one: ‘How to fight against creation’. The
Psychologist, 29(5), 408.
McDonald, D., Wantz, R., & Firmin, M. (2014). Sources informing
undergraduate college student perceptions of psychologists.
Psychological Record, 64(3), 537-542. doi:10.1007/s40732-014-0054-
7.
Minchin, S., Neech, S., Scott, J., Nutt, K., & Asquith, I. (2016). A survey of UK
clinical psychology doctoral training on specialty issues. Clinical
Psychology Forum, 279, 6-12.
National Health Service Education for Scotland [NES]. (2008). A capability
framework for working in acute mental health care. The values, skills,
and knowledge needed to deliver high quality care in a full range of
acute settings. Edinburgh, United Kingdom: National Health Service
Education for Scotland [NES] Project Working Groups.
Rhodes, E. (2016). Are we punching our weight? The Psychologist, 29(5),
350.
Silverio, S.A. (2016). Penny for your thoughts? The real cost to psychological
support in British Universities since the increase in tuition fees. Psych-
Talk, (84), 20-22.
Taylor, J., & Neimeyer, G. (2015). Public perceptions of psychologists'
professional development activities: The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46(2), 140-146.
doi:10.1037/pro0000013.
The British Psychological Society [BPS]. (2004). Widening access within
undergraduate psychology education and its implications for
professional psychology: Gender, disability and ethnic diversity.
Leicester, United Kingdom: Turpin, G., & Fensom, P.
The British Psychological Society [BPS]. (2005). English survey of applied
psychologists in health & social care and in the probation & prison
service. Leicester, United Kingdom: Lavender, T., Gray, I., &
Richardson, A.
The British Psychological Society [BPS]. (2009). Code of ethics and conduct.
Leicester, United Kingdom: Ethics Committee of The British
Psychological Society.
The British Psychological Society [BPS]. (2011a). Royal charter and statuses.
Leicester, United Kingdom: The Society.
The British Psychological Society [BPS]. (2011b). The rules of the society.
Leicester, United Kingdom: The Society.
The British Psychological Society [BPS]. (2012). Accreditation through
partnership handbook: Guidance for undergraduate and conversion
psychology programmes: September 2012. Leicester, United

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 7 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
 Kingdom: The British Psychological Society Partnership and
Accreditation Team.
The British Psychological Society [BPS]. (2015). Member conduct rules.
Leicester, United Kingdom: Allan, C. A.
The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health [SCMH]. (2001). The capable
practitioner: A framework and list of the practitioner capabilities
required to implement the national service framework for mental
health. London, United Kingdom: The Training & Practice
Development Section of The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.
Valentine, E. R. (2008). To Care or to Understand? Women Members of the
British Psychological Society 1901-1918. History & Philosophy of
Psychology, 10(1), 54-65.

FACE VALUE
A report on a talk given at the Royal Institution
by Alexander Todorov

Reviewed by Ros Groves

We have all come out with it at times, haven’t we?

“I took an instant dislike to her.”

“I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him”
“He or she has a kind, generous sort of face.”

Yes: Welcome to the art of the snap judgement! The human face speaks a
thousand words, but not necessarily accurately. Sometimes when walking in
a crowded street, I occasionally indulge in a little game of “guess the
personality” to pass the time away. My thoughts might go along the lines of:

Definitely an extrovert / Permanently screwed up / Having a bad time /

Friendly / Helpful.

No doubt people will make similar mental judgements about me based on

appearance and if it’s not what I’d like to hear, as long as they keep it to
themselves, that’s fine by me!

So it goes without saying that this evening’s talk proved to be a big hit among
the R.I. punters, with most of the seats filled.

Alexander Todorov is a Bulgarian professor of psychology at Princeton

University.

***

Physiogmony or the study of facial characteristics and how they are

perceived, is not a recent invention. Unbelievably, Darwin was nearly barred
by the captain of the ‘Beagle’ ship (on which he was about to sail on his

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 8 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
famous voyage to study specimens of rocks, animals, plants and fossils)-
merely because of his big nose!

Todorov asks: “Why hasn’t physiogmony disappeared? He cites the following

reasons:

a) Faces are a special feature of the living world, particularly in human

communication. In fact, the UK probably has the highest number of
face psychologists. It is also a well-documented fact that newborns
prefer to look at faces rather than objects, no matter how complex the
objects might be. A simple experiment showed that newborns looked
for longer at this particular arrangement...

...rather than this arrangement.

b) Primate brains contain neurons that respond selectively to faces. The

fact that various regions of the brain are activated specifically for
looking at faces was discovered at Princeton University in the 1980s.

c)We-the human race- are face ‘experts,’ showing great sensitivity to

minor differences in human faces – a skill which we find virtually
impossible when comparing e.g. chimps’ faces. This even extends to
difficulties in perceiving differences between faces of a race different to
our own.1

1 One of my favourite anecdotes along these lines concerned a Chinese friend who reported that when
she first came to England at the age of sixteen, she experienced great problems in telling English
people apart. Similarly, although I knew her well enough as to not mistake her for anyone else, I did
claim to have spotted her brother (who I had met only once) around a dozen times in the last couple of
days! – RG

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 9 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
The most important reason for physiognomy’s endurance is that we simply
cannot help but form impressions from faces; the impression being immediate
and compelling. We are indeed, all physiognomists.

Experiments have shown that in exposing subjects to a face for a brief time, it
takes a mere 50 milliseconds for an initial impression to form, lengthening to
160 milliseconds as the peak time for overall impression formation. This is
very significant for life outside the laboratory as well, as the result of a job
application can rest entirely on this initial facial impression. A study in
Switzerland asked participants aged between 5-13 years of age to make a
choice of who they considered to be the most competent captain of a ship,
from facial images presented to them. The youngsters always chose the face
which they perceived to have ‘winning’ and/or ‘successful facial expressions
as being the best-suited person for the job.

In countries where the death sentence is still operative, prisoners convicted

for murder and who also have the misfortune of an ‘untrustworthy’ face, tend
to be more likely to receive the death penalty rather than a life sentence.

Todorov asks: “How does all this work?”

Decisions necessarily have to rely on shortcuts, hunches, gut responses and

stereotypes. The easiest and most accessible shortcut is therefore the first
impression.

The audience was then asked to look at a face which was deemed to be a
model face for trustworthiness. Particular features of this type of face
included smiling, with attributes associated with femininity. On the other hand,
a stereotypical ‘dominant’ face was seen have stern features with more
masculine features, suggesting an association of greater physical strength.

Trustworthiness and dominance appear to be the two key issues on which we

tend to evaluate personalities from faces. We look for:

a) Emotional signals such as the facial portrayal of good versus bad

intentions

and

b) Does the face portray the ability to act on those intentions? In other
words, does it demonstrate physical strength and resources?

The Eye of the Beholder

We connect the face with its degree of resemblance to other faces familiar to
us. How much does a particular face look like someone we like or who we
dislike? We tend to like people who resemble us more than those who bear
little resemblance, these idiosyncrasies all contributing to the ‘first impression.’
Impressions from faces are also constructed from socially significant cues

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 10 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
(e.g. is the face male or female; young or old?), together with the emotional
expressions portrayed.

But are these impressions accurate?

Problem 1: A biased sample of individuals will lead to biased inferences so

that as one of the first things noticed is expression, a group of smiling guys
combined with the wearing of suits, will trigger more positive feelings by
mutual association of these two aspects. The professional world is clearly
depicted as a happy place to be!

Problem 2: A biased sample of images of the same person who is known to

the participants, will result in biased inferences. If the person is known, then
he or she will be judged through what is known about them, rather than
through their facial characteristics, thus adapting opinion.

Conclusion

First impressions are therefore largely inaccurate as they bring with them a
greater chance of a misguided reason for the judgement. Someone who is
merely tired for example, might be wrongly judged as “depressed.” How old a
person looks relative to their biological age is often determined by genetics
and/or lifestyle, yet the person will often be judged according to their
perceived visual age.

Physiognomy will never disappear as we instinctively imbue faces with

meaning, attempting to infer the intentions of others in the immediate context
of the situation.

First impressions act to give us the illusion of reducing the uncertainty of living
and dealing with strangers. As it is impossible to know all strangers, we tend
to rely of short cuts based on similarities with people we know; often drawing
inaccurate conclusions!

***

Questions from the audience.

Q: “We have learned how long it takes for a first impression to form. How
long does it take for a second impression to form?!”
A: Pretty quickly: it is relatively easy to change one’s mind about someone!

Q: “Are some people really face-blind?”

A: Yes – this condition certainly exists. Known as prosopagnosia, this
condition could possibly affect around 2 - 2.5% of the population. Acquired
prosopagnosia can result from damage to the fusiform face area or the
occipital face area of the brain, through trauma or stroke. Congenital
prosopagnosia also exists: indeed there are people who have never been
able to recognise faces yet who ironically, have no problems in identifying
cars or other objects. Conversely, there are people who are known as “super-

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 11 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
recognisers.” Often employed in criminal investigations, they have the ability
to never forget a face!

Q: “Are there any ways in which a job interview panel can give a prospective
employee a fair hearing?”
A: Usually this is quite difficult as face-to-face interviews are a necessity for
the vast majority of jobs. However, in the case of auditions for professional
orchestras, some audition panels invite the candidate to play behind a screen.

***

Comment

Some food for thought! One of my most enduring memories of starting

University was the striking resemblance that many of the new students bore to
people I had known from early childhood up until the age of eighteen in my
home city, through school and various other organisations. What was really
disconcerting was the inner expectation that they would come in a package
deal with a personality similar to their lookalike – and then having to come to
terms with an extrovert “Jane,” a shy and retiring “Alison,” a teetotal “Paul” or
a God-fearing “Mark.” (Names changed to protect the innocent!).

Oddly enough, I rarely experienced this sensation (or at least not to anywhere
near the same extent) when I subsequently moved in different circles of
employment and living areas after having left University. It was as if those
early personal encounters had really left their mark in a way that more recent
acquaintances have not.

Similarly, names of children I knew at a very young age bore comparable

associations, to the extent that there were certain names I simply refused to
call my children merely because of unfortunate connotations with children of
the same name, usually dating as far back as Infant school days: that is to
say my very first encounter with a person of that name. Those names, linked
with their young personalities, left an indelible impression on me so that they
would always be associated with such behaviours as acquiring a permanent
seat on the naughty step; bullying or constantly whinging. On the other hand
certain names became associated with studiousness, politeness, friendliness
and cheerfulness (to name but a few personality traits) and therefore for me,
bore more positive associations.

As association forms such a major part of learning – especially early learning

– it is hardly surprising that we carry around with us this baggage of prejudice,
often without realising it.

Have any other Cognito readers been in a similar situation of being wrong-
footed by first impressions only to be subsequently pleasantly (or even
unpleasantly) surprised and were you able to trace back the source of
prejudice?

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 12 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
 COURSES

Jennifer Watson points out the following free course which may be of interest
to members, being offered by FutureLearn:

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/psychology-
personality?utm_campaign=fl_december_2018&utm_medium=futurelearn_org
anic_email&utm_source=newsletter_broadcast&utm_term=NL_MAPP_GENE
RAL_101218_A

It is part of the Introduction to Psychology course by Monash University,

Australia, which can lead on to the option to start a Graduate Diploma in
Psychology – although if you want to do that you will have to pay a fee.

PSYCHOLOGY IN THE NEWS

Police kick back about their role in mental health

A report commissioned by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (for England and
Wales) confirms that “police officers are increasingly being used as the
service of default in responding to people with mental health problems”,
according to the Inspectorate’s chief, Zoë Billingham. “Police officers naturally
want to respond and do their best to support vulnerable people when they ask
for help…. But we cannot expect the police to pick up the pieces of a broken
mental health system.”

According to the survey, just 2% of the public thought that it was the police’s
job to respond to mental health calls. Yet in London alone, the police send an
officer to respond to such a call every 12 minutes. The police “should be the
last resort [in such cases], not the first port of call,” Ms Billingham said. She
called for “fundamental change”.
Press Release and link to full report:
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/news/news-feed/police-
cannot-fix-a-broken-mental-health-system/

EVENTS

If you know of any forthcoming events to feature here, please pass the details
to the Editor. And we love to receive reviews of events that readers have
been to!

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 13 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!
 SOMETHING TO SAY FOR THE NEXT ISSUE?
Introduce yourself and tell us about your interest in psychology.

Comment on something that was said? Or even several comments!

Your own article?

A question?

A contribution for Psychology in the News, or an event of interest?

Cognito comes out monthly, so it is always the right time to send it in.

See front cover for contact details.

Cognito 182, January 2019 Page 14 of 14

Do you have a comment for the next issue? Send it in now!