This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 15 November 2014, At: 02:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Basic and Applied Social PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20

Trends in Graduate Training in Social Psychology:Training Social Psychology's TrainersMark A. Ferguson a & Christian S. Crandall aa University of KansasPublished online: 15 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Mark A. Ferguson & Christian S. Crandall (2007) Trends in Graduate Training in Social Psychology: TrainingSocial Psychology's Trainers, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29:4, 311-322, DOI: 10.1080/01973530701665025

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01973530701665025

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Trends in Graduate Training in Social Psychology:Training Social Psychology’s Trainers

Mark A. Ferguson and Christian S. Crandall

University of Kansas

We examine social psychology graduate training in the United States by analyzing thefaculty members in doctoral degree-granting programs, using archival sources. About500 full-time faculty work in the 105 social psychology doctoral programs in the UnitedStates. These faculty hold Ph.D.’s from 74 different U.S. (and 11 non-U.S.) socialpsychology programs, with a median degree receipt date of 1983. Increasing numbersof women faculty attain positions in doctoral programs in social psychology; in oursample, 48% of women received Ph.D.’s after 1990, compared to 30% for men. Weexamine 29 programs that provided 2 or more training faculty, from 1950–1990 and1991–2004. The data demonstrate both stability and change in graduate training—pro-grams that produced the majority of graduate trainers during the post-WWII periodcontinue to produce new graduate trainers (q = .40, p < :05), though the creation ofgraduate trainers currently spreads across a larger array of programs. Average GREscores of a training program’s students does not predict a given program’s likelihoodof placing students in training positions.

In a typical year in the United States, nearly 400 newstudents enter into social psychology doctoral-trainingprograms (American Psychological Association, 2003).In a typical year in the United States, about 25 assistantprofessor positions in social psychology doctoral train-ing programs are advertised. About 5 to 10% of newsocial psychology doctoral students follow their trainers’career paths (Ferguson, 2005). For any number of rea-sons—individual attributes, personal goals, professionaltraining, research foci, limited opportunity, and=ormarket forces—the vast majority of our new studentsdo not become graduate trainers. In the 1970s, socialpsychologists noted the growing numbers of studentsin contrast to stable numbers of graduate training posi-tions (Proshansky, 1972). This discrepancy is not asstrong as it once was (Fiske, 1994), but there are stillmany more applicants for graduate training jobs thanthere are positions available (Steele, 2005).

In this article we investigate the 105 social psychologydoctoral programs in the USA (where a plurality ofsocial psychologists receive their training). We deter-mine which programs are creating the next generation

of American social psychology trainers by examiningwhere and when the current group of faculty receiveda Ph.D., and the gender makeup of these graduates.We do not know if people who obtain these positionsare happier, healthier, better suited to their jobs, or bet-ter paid than their counterparts who are otherwiseemployed. We do know that they are primarily respon-sible for teaching future generations, and that they aremore productive in scientific journal publishing andreceiving grants (Toutkoushian, Porter, Danielson, &Hollis, 2003). Graduating future trainers representsone definable achievement outcome that may be of parti-cular interest. As Ilardi, Rodriguez-Hanley, Roberts,and Seigel (2000) argue, the recent Ph.D. hoping toobtain such a faculty position ‘‘will likely be successfullargely to the extent to which he or she was exceptionallywell trained during graduate school, in research design,scholarly writing, conference presentation, substantivecontent, networking, and so forth (p. 347).’’ When aprogram trains and places students in these scarce butinfluential jobs, this program is effective at training,placing, and shaping future generations of scientists.

Several decades ago, Proshansky (1972) asked ‘‘Forwhat are we training our graduate students?’’ Morerecently, Fiske (1994) asked this question and suggestedthat social psychology primarily trains students for

Correspondence should be addressed to either author, Department

of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence,

Kansas, 66045. E-mail: ferguson@ku.edu or crandall@ku.edu

BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 29(4), 311–322

Copyright # 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

positions that the majority will not obtain. So then, howwell does graduate training reflect the realities of con-temporary employment? We revisit graduate trainingand employment data, to see how the employment mar-ket and opportunities differ from when contemporarygraduate trainers obtained their positions (Morgan,Kuther, & Habben, 2005).

Even if the majority of students obtain positions out-side of doctoral training programs, many students stillaspire toward working in these positions. The availableformal information about this career track is sketchy,focusing mostly on working conditions (e.g., Morganet al., 2005; Sternberg, 1997), as well as the numbersof psychologists employed in various domains and theirsalaries (American Psychological Association, 2001,2005). There is very little data available about who getsthese jobs, how to prepare for this market (beyond theadmonition ‘‘publish!’’), etcetera; reliable informationon graduate programs is even harder to obtain.

Our research attempts to bridge the gap in social psy-chology’s knowledge about its graduate training pro-cesses and outcomes. Our approach describes thegraduate training faculty in the United States—theirnumbers, gender composition, years since receiving theirdoctorate, and the programs that trained them. Thesedata are informative of where graduate students doand do not obtain positions, and of the programs thatplace their students in doctoral training positions. Theycan be useful for setting benchmarks for defining stu-dent success, and as an empirical basis for setting train-ing priorities. They offer both a long-term and a morerecent snapshot of graduate training program effective-ness at producing doctoral training faculty.

We focus on graduate trainers because of their sub-stantial influence on the field. They help equip sub-sequent generations of teachers and researchers, andthey pack the pages of our scientific journals. Whetherpeople seek doctoral training to pursue careers in theacademy, business, government, or public policy, theyare schooled by academically trained faculty members.Despite the sway that graduate training programs exert,there is scant empirical evaluation of their training con-tributions or effectiveness. As a field, we know muchabout our history (Allport, 1954; Berscheid, 1992;Cartwright, 1979; Jones, 1985), our key contributors(Tesser & Bau, 2002; Gordon & Vicari, 1992), our graduateadmissions (Larsen & Salovey, 1996; Swim & Aspinwall,2001; Uleman & Weary, 1995), our job prospects (Fiske,1994), and even our textbooks (Christopher, Marek,Dobbins, & Jones, 2004). We know considerably lessabout processes and outcomes in graduate training.

Graduate education is indeed difficult to quantify(Kazdin, 2000), but difficulty must not preclude empiri-cal examination. A systematic review can offer the fieldan overview of training and outcomes, highlighting

successes and challenges (Ilardi et al., 2000). With somany students and so few doctoral-level positions, thesedata can be useful for prospective students in selecting agraduate program, for graduating students in the envi-able position of choosing among possible job offers,and for the field as a whole in examining the types oftraining and guidance that will be provided to studentsas a matter of policy.

A systematic review can also yield information helpfulin countering personal opinions and mass media ‘‘suc-cess’’ rankings of social psychology programs (e.g.,Gourman, 1997; U.S. News, 2002; 2008). Individual opi-nions suffer from bias due to subjective idiosyncrasies,halo effects, visibility of particular faculty, and humanmemory (Endler, Rushton, & Roediger, 1978). Massmedia rankings are limited by the absence of reasonablysound methods, data-supported inferences, and peerreview (Selingo, 1997). Mass media rankings are readilyavailable, not only from popular media sources, but alsofrom more professional venues, such as on internet sites(e.g., www.socialpsychology.org1). Sensible empiricalanalysis can supersede testimony, historical stereotypes,and what might be biased mass media rankings.

We investigate the impact of graduate training pro-grams by examining the placement of graduates as facultymembers in U.S. social psychology doctoral training pro-grams. We use an archival approach that has some bene-fits over questionnaires (Larsen & Salovey, 1996; Swim &Aspinwall, 2001; Uleman & Weary, 1995)—the sourcedata were readily available, less subject to individualinterpretation, and did not generally suffer from missingdata (cf. Tesser & Bau, 2002). These measures help illumi-nate some historical and contemporary trends in socialpsychology, including the origins of contemporary gradu-ate trainers and the relative impact of training programson the present-day contours of social psychology.

We first identified doctoral programs in socialpsychology and their core faculty in the United States.2

We then analyzed these data to explore the impact of

1Mass media rankings were reluctantly included on www.socialpsy-

chology.org because of heavy demand for this type of information (S.

Plous, personal communication, October, 2004).2A significant number of social psychologists are trained in

Canada, Europe, Japan, the Antipodes, and throughout the world.

We focus on the U.S. because of its early prominence in the develop-

ment of social psychology, its large number of programs and faculty,

the availability of useful documentation on programs, and perhaps

some meager amount of chauvinism. However, we did briefly look

at the 12 Canadian programs listed in www.socialpsychology.org. There

were 64 total regular faculty, of which 31 had U.S. Ph.D.’s, and 33 had

non-U.S. Ph.D.’s. Canadian programs placed 7 faculty in U.S. pro-

grams, three from Waterloo, two from Toronto, and one each from

McGill and Western Ontario. From Europe, University of Stockholm,

Oxford University, University of Mannheim, Ludwig Maximilians

Universitat, Moscow State University, and University of Aberdeen

each provided one faculty member.

312 FERGUSON AND CRANDALL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

programs and historical trends of who was hired andwhere they were trained, and to compare a program’shistory of placing graduate trainers to media rankingsof program reputation. In a more focused set of analy-ses, we explore the most recent decade of awardeddegrees, comparing this information to the GraduateRecord Exam (GRE) scores for incoming graduate stu-dents, as well as estimated student enrollment.

METHOD

Developing the Full Data Set

Graduate Programs Selection

We identified 105 doctoral degree-granting socialpsychology programs in the United States using two pri-mary sources: Graduate Study in Psychology (GSP;American Psychological Association, 2003) and socialp-sychology.org (see Appendix A for a complete list). GSPis a directory of psychology graduate programs regu-larly used by graduate school applicants to identify rel-evant programs; the latter is a National ScienceFoundation-supported internet site focusing on manyaspects of social psychology. Each source provides a listof social psychology graduate programs (that over-lapped by more than 98%). We combined these lists toprovide a preliminary register of graduate programs.

Upon completion of this preliminary program list, itwas checked against departmental websites. This checkensured that the programs actually existed, as well asoffered a doctorate in social psychology, as of spring2004. Any program offering a doctoral degree in socialor applied social psychology has been included.3 Thislist does not attempt to identify all graduate trainingprograms in social psychology. Programs in sociology,graduate business schools, and programs in other coun-tries provide training in social psychology. We focusedon the manageable piece of training we could objectivelyidentify: doctoral social psychology programs in theUnited States. Our list of 105 programs seemed surpris-ingly long and looser criteria would make it longer.

Faculty Sample Identification

To be included in the data set, individuals had to belisted as a regular faculty member of a graduate trainingprogram on that program’s internet site. To determinefaculty status, those listed as core faculty members wereentered into the data set, excluding any temporary,adjunct, and emeritus professors.4 Each faculty memberwas then scrutinized for evidence of a primary commit-ment to social psychology (from their personal internetsites, PSYCInfo’s listing of publications, DissertationsAbstracts’ listing of dissertations, the APA and APSonline membership directories). A small number of fac-ulty members in social programs were trained in anothersubfield or discipline (the more common being develop-mental, clinical, organizational, and personality); thesefaculty members were not included in the sample (theywere less than 1% of the potential sample).

A number of the faculty listed in social programs hadappointments in other departments, most notably in busi-ness schools.5 We spent a considerable amount of timedetermining primary appointments, often based on inter-net site locations, research interests, location of taughtclasses, and so on. Those whose primary appointmentswere outside of psychology were not included in thesample unless the person unequivocally held a dual-appointment in social psychology, and their featured pub-lications included plainly social psychological research.

From these processes, we generated a database of 474U.S.-trained social psychologists currently teaching in adoctoral training program in social psychology in theUnited States. We determined gender based on websitephotographs, authors’ knowledge, or by press releaseson university internet sites. The sample includes 309men (65%) and 165 women (35%). Because racial andreligious categorization is more complex then gendercategorization, and because it is often not readily appar-ent from internet sites, from GSP, or any other readilyavailable source, we must set aside racial, ethnic, andreligious categories for future investigation.

Media-Based Reputation Data

We obtained rankings from the print edition of U.S.News and World Report’s Best Graduate Schools (2002),U.S. News and World Report’s America’s Best GraduateSchools (2008), and Princeton Review’s Gourman Reportof Graduate Programs (Gourman, 1997). The U.S. News(2002) rankings were collected in 2001; they order

3We included programs that labeled themselves ‘‘social-personality,’’

but did not include programs that labeled themselves ‘‘personality’’

without including the word ‘‘social.’’4Our method depends upon websites being up-to-date. We con-

sidered programs to be experts on their own faculty. Because the Inter-

net is becoming an essential marketing tool for graduate training

programs, there is substantial pressure to be complete and timely;

errors associated with outdated websites should be evenly distributed

across the programs in this research. Where there was any substantial

question, we contacted program faculty or graduate students whose

information was decisive.

5Dozens of outstanding social psychologists are productively

housed within business schools. Since we did not have access to the list

of all business schools, and because the organization and distribution

of social psychologists in schools of business or economics is hard to

discern, we must leave analysis of this important group of social

psychologists to future researchers.

TRAINING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY’S TRAINERS 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

psychology departments in terms of ‘‘reputation’’ derivedfrom surveys of graduate program directors. These rank-ings focus on psychology departments, rather than socialpsychology programs. The U.S. News (2008) data werecollected in 2005 using the same method as the (2002)survey. They also included a newer ranking for the top11 graduate programs in social psychology. The Gourman(1997) rankings assess ‘‘prestige’’ of social psychology pro-grams. It is charitable to suggest that the Gourman Report’smethods are reliable (Selingo, 1997), and the rankingsare a decade old. Still, they are generally available, andundergraduates report using it as a source of informationregarding the reputation of graduate programs.

Developing the Recent Data Set

To examine both recent and historical trends, we createdtwo versions of the data set: Recent, focusing on themost recent complete decade (plus a few years),6 andComplete, including all faculty members. To create theRecent data set, all faculty members who received theirdegrees prior to 1991 were removed from the Completedata set. The remaining Recent data set consisted of171 social psychologists currently employed at a U.S.graduate training program with post-1990 Ph.D.’s; therewere 92 men (54%) and 79 women (46%).

Enrollment data on new graduate students are avail-able in GSP for the Recent data set (inter-raterreliability, r ¼ .88). These data allow us to look not onlyat the number of graduates from a program in placeamong social psychology doctoral faculties, but alsothe proportion of admitted students placed in these posi-tions. For instance, a program that admits four studentsper year and places two of them in doctoral positionsmight be considered more effective than one that admitsten students per year and places three. The size ofincoming classes range from 0 to as many as 11. Thesedata were collected from the relevant editions of GSPavailable during the Recent time period; we estimatedprogram size by averaging the incoming classes.7

To obtain an estimate of the selectivity of graduateprograms, the GRE scores of admitted students werecalculated from GSP. GRE reporting is sometimesincomplete (e.g., GRE-Q was reported but notGRE-V) and sometimes absent (no information what-soever). GSP publishes data on GRE-Q, GRE-V, andGRE-V and GRE-Q combined, and we took thecombined score, averaged across the eight editionsduring the 10-year window. When a combined scorewas not available, the individual GRE-V and GRE-Qwere summed and used as the combined score. Thisprovided complete information about 80% of thetime.

RESULTS

We first report results from the Complete data set andthen, those from the Recent data. Both data sets endwith the last point of data collection, spring 2004.

Description of Faculty Sample

Figure 1 represents the degree years of doctorates heldby current training faculty. The data points representthree-year moving averages (to better representtrends); the median degree year is 1983 (SD ¼12.56). Over half of all doctoral-level trainers in socialpsychology have more than 20 years experiencepost-Ph.D.; 70% of faculty members received theirdegrees between 1969 and 1998. This median year isearlier for men than for women, 1980 (SD ¼ 12.89)versus 1989 (SD ¼ 10.73) respectively (cf. Tesser &Bau, 2002).

There are fewer Ph.D.’s in the earliest and the lateryears of the sample. The decrease at the beginning

6We were interested in capturing the most recent decade of gradu-

ates in doctoral level training positions. There is a precipitous drop-off

in the presence of post-2000 Ph.D.s, due to doctoral jobs being filled by

candidates one or more years post Ph.D., post-doctoral fellowships,

visiting positions, lectureships, etc. To capture a complete decade, we

selected the range of 1991–2000, but rather than discard the infor-

mation from post-2000 Ph.D.’s, we have expanded our window to

include them as well. This combines one reliable decade with a few

years of the newest data.7We gathered data from bi-annual volumes of GSP from the 1988

to the 2002 edition, representing the best available estimate that was

simultaneously broad and up-to-date. Four programs reported so little

information (<50%) that we were forced to omit them from

enrollment-based analyses: University of Arizona, Carnegie Mellon

University, Columbia University, and Princeton University.

FIGURE 1 Distribution of Ph.D. years, 1950–2004, for total number

and women only, presented as three-year moving averages.

314 FERGUSON AND CRANDALL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

should represent the greater likelihood of older facultymembers to retire or leave the field. The decrease atthe recent end represents the newest students enteringthe field, when positions are filled by people with tem-porary or adjunct positions, post-doctoral fellowships,or other jobs outside of the sample space (e.g., inter-national schools; non-doctoral programs). Twoadditional low points appear around 1982 and 1990.These dips may be due to economic declines reducinghiring, or they may be due to economic upturnsfive or six years earlier, around the time that peoplemake the decision to enter graduate school or the jobmarket. They may also result from normal variabilityin hiring, quality of graduate school cohorts, or merechance—our sample is too small to identify non-lineartrends.

Figure 1 also shows a three-year moving average ofthe Ph.D. years of faculty women. To describe therelationship between degree year and number of facultywomen, the moving average for faculty women wasregressed on degree year. Looking at the period from1963 (the earliest female faculty member in the dataset) to 2004, the proportion of core faculty womenand the degree year are strongly related, b ¼ .50. Foreach year that passes, the population of graduate train-ing faculty adds about three more women to its ranksthan it loses. This change is consistent with trends inpsychology as a discipline and social psychology as asubfield; increasing numbers of women are awardeddoctoral degrees (Bailey, 2004) and obtaining the mostprestigious jobs.

We examined the distribution of women between dif-ferent periods. In Figure 2, the total number of core fac-ulty is divided by gender in three different periods(1950–2004, 1950–1990, and 1991–2004). Times havechanged—the oldest 18 doctoral recipients still trainingin regular positions are men, while the Recent data setis 46% female.

Graduate Programs Data

Where did the training faculty of U.S. social psychologyobtain its degrees? Seventy-six different U.S. programshave a former student now working in a U.S. doctoralsocial program. Put another way, 73% of all doctoraltraining programs in social psychology have at leastone former student training future generations of socialpsychologists.

Table 1 represents the raw number of faculty by insti-tution, listing only those institutions that have five ormore students currently in the faculty sample. The lefthalf of the table represents the Complete data set andincludes the 29 programs that have at least five of itsstudents working in doctoral programs, five programshave more than 25 former students currently employedin doctoral training programs (Harvard, Illinois atUrbana-Champaign, Michigan, Ohio State, Stanford);these five institutions account for 32% of current doc-toral faculty members. The 29 named institutions inTable 1 have trained 81% of social psychology’spresent-day trainers.

The right side of Table 1 represents the count of fac-ulty by institution for the Recent data. Six programshave eight or more graduates employed in doctoral-training positions (Columbia, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Michigan, Ohio State, Stanford, Yale);these six institutions have trained 35% of currentdoctoral faculty.

There was moderate stability over time in place-ment statistics. Programs that produced a high num-ber of faculty for the period 1950 to 1990, tended toproduce a high number of faculty with Ph.D.s fromthe period 1991–2004, r ¼ .59, p ¼ .0007; the relativerank ordering for training programs was also some-what stable, q ¼ .40, p ¼ .035. These correlations aremoderate enough to indicate both some degree ofstability and change across the two time periods.The faculty who received a doctorate in the windowfrom 1950 to 1979 attended 53 different graduatetraining programs. But when this window is extendedfrom 1950 to 1989, 63 different programs are repre-sented; extended from 1950–2004, this numberincreases to 74 programs.

Controlling for Program Size

Social psychology programs differ substantially in thesize of incoming classes. Table 1 provides a reasonableestimate of the impact of several institutions on themakeup of the present-day class of doctoral trainers.The social networks of graduating classes and the effectof the ‘‘old school tie’’ will be greater among programswith greater numbers. Nonetheless, they are not an idealestimate of program effectiveness; large programs may

FIGURE 2 Number of current trainers in field by gender and time

period.

TRAINING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY’S TRAINERS 315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

place more students in a training position simplybecause they admit more students (see Hunt, 2002;Ilardi, & Roberts, 2002).

To account for this, we calculated an estimate ofadmissions for the Recent data set using informationfrom GSP. The information for this estimate was gath-ered from the ‘‘New Students Enrolled’’ listing overeight (1988–2002) biannual volumes. The ‘‘Enrolled’’listing corresponds to the number of students who actu-ally accepted a program’s offer of admission. For eachprogram, we estimated the total number of new studentsenrolled across the 15 years represented in GSP. Wethen calculated a ‘‘hit rate’’ statistic. This consisted ofthe total number of doctoral recipients from a given pro-gram (in the Recent sample) divided by the estimatedenrollment (multiplied by 1.071 because there are 15years of admissions data but only 14 years of doctoralrecipients). These data appear in Table 2. The most‘‘efficient’’ program in the United States placed about1 out of 5 of its admitted students into doctoral training

jobs. The overwhelming majority of U.S. social psy-chology graduate students—from every program in thecountry—do not take jobs in U.S. social psychologydoctoral training programs.

We separated each institution’s contribution to thegraduate training faculty of social psychology by gen-der. We know from Figure 2 that faculty men outnum-ber faculty women. Most programs generated more menthan women in the present sample; using the Completedata set, we found that only five programs have gener-ated more doctoral faculty women than men (Massa-chusetts, Northwestern, Purdue, UC-Berkeley, andUSC). By contrast, the Recent data set demonstratesthat the number of women in doctoral training jobshas increased. Table 3 shows the gender breakdown ofprograms in the Recent data set for institutions placing3 or more graduates. Of these, eleven programs gener-ated more women than men, four programs were gener-ally balanced in gender output, and only seven programsproduced less than one-third women.

TABLE 1

Number of Current Training Alumni by Degree Institution

Complete Data Set (1950–2004) Recent Data Set (1991–2004)

Rank Degree Institution Trainers Cum. Percent Rank Degree Institution Trainers Cum. Percent

1 Michigan-Ann Arbor 40 8.4 1.5 Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 12 7.0

2 Stanford 30 14.8 1.5 Ohio State 12 14.0

3 Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 29 20.9 3 Michigan-Ann Arbor 11 20.5

4 Harvard 26 26.4 4 Columbia 10 26.3

5 Ohio State 25 31.6 5.5 Stanford 8 31.0

6 Yale 20 35.9 5.5 Yale 8 35.7

7 UCLA 19 39.9 8 UCLA 6 39.2

8 Columbia 17 43.5 8 New York University 6 42.7

9 Northwestern 16 46.8 8 Arizona State 6 46.2

11 Minnesota-Twin Cities 14 49.8 11 Harvard 5 49.1

11 New York University 14 52.7 11 North Carolina-Chapel Hill 5 52.0

11 Princeton 14 55.7 11 Kansas 5 55.0

13.5 North Carolina-Chapel Hill 12 58.2 14 California-Berkeley 4 57.3

13.5 Texas-Austin 12 60.8 14 Cornell University 4 59.6

15 Arizona State 9 62.7 14 California-Santa Barbara 4 62.0

16 Missouri-Columbia 8 64.3 20 Minnesota-Twin Cities 3 63.7

19.5 California-Berkeley 7 65.8 20 Princeton 3 65.5

19.5 Carnegie Mellon 7 67.3 20 Texas-Austin 3 67.3

19.5 Cornell 7 68.8 20 Carnegie Mellon 3 69.0

19.5 Kansas 7 70.3 20 Indiana-Bloomington 3 70.8

19.5 Purdue 7 71.7 20 Wisconsin-Madison 3 72.5

19.5 Rochester 7 73.2 20 California-Davis 3 74.3

23.5 Indiana-Bloomington 6 74.5 20 Massachusetts-Amherst 3 76.0

23.5 Wisconsin-Madison 6 75.7 20 Southern California 3 77.8

27 California-Davis 5 76.8 26.5 Northwestern 2 78.9

27 California-Santa Barbara 5 77.8 26.5 Missouri-Columbia 2 80.1

27 Massachusetts-Amherst 5 78.9 26.5 Purdue 2 81.3

27 SUNY-Buffalo 5 80.0 26.5 Rochester 2 82.5

27 Southern California 5 81.0 44 SUNY-Buffalo 1 83.0

Note. Complete data: 75 institutions produced fewer than 5 trainers; Cum. percent refers to cumulative percentage of trainers based on 474 in the

sample; cumulative percentage based on listed schools; descriptive statistics: MDN ¼ 1.00, M ¼ 4.27, SD ¼ 7.18, n ¼ 105. Recent data: 75 institu-

tions produced fewer than 4 trainers; percentage of trainers based on 171 in the sample; percentage based on listed schools; descriptive statistics:

MDN ¼ 2.00, M ¼ 3.17, SD ¼ 2.89, n ¼ 105.

316 FERGUSON AND CRANDALL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Mass Media Reputation, GRE, and DoctoralFaculty Placement

In Table 4, we report the correlations between place-ment of students and mass media rankings. In general,the ranking and placement scores are correlated, sug-gesting convergent validity for both measures. However,the ‘‘prestige’’ rankings from mass media are morehighly correlated with male placement (median Male rfor Recent ¼ .47) than with female placement (medianFemale r for Recent ¼ .20), Wilcoxon signed rankT ¼ 2.35, p < .05.

GRE-VþQ scores did not correlate significantlywith total number of students placed, total number ofmen placed, total number of women placed, or percentof students placed (all ps > .25). This may be due to ceil-ing effects, the availability of excellent students, admis-sion processes that vary across programs, or therelative unimportance of GRE scores in predicting ulti-mate success as a graduate student, researcher, or gradu-ate trainer (Uleman & Weary, 1995; Sternberg &Williams, 1997; 1998). A program’s incoming GRE

scores are not related to the placement of students ingraduate training posts, but they are related to programreputation as depicted in the mass media rankings (allps < .05).

DISCUSSION

The present research illuminates trends in graduatetraining in social psychology. The results offer some per-spective on the number of faculty job openings that existrelative to the number of students in graduate programs;they also offer a synopsis of the changing face of genderin graduate training, as well as the relative effectivenessof graduate training programs in terms of their impacton the present-day contours of social psychology.

Women and Employment in Social Psychology

The most notable change in social psychology seems tobe the continuing increase in the representation ofwomen, a trend eloquently described by Berscheid(1992). The under-representation of women faculty indoctoral training programs has decreased, and manymore programs show increased numbers of women

TABLE 2

Estimated Percentage of Training Alumni Placements

by Degree Institution (1991–2004)

Rank Degree Institution %Placed

1 Yale 21.0

2 Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 18.7

3 Stanford 18.2

4 Harvard 13.2

5 Michigan-Ann Arbor 12.1

6 New York University 11.9

7 Cornell 11.8

8 Kansas 11.4

9 Ohio State 11.1

10 Indiana-Bloomington 9.4

11.5 Arizona State 8.3

11.5 California-Berkeley 8.3

13.5 California-Davis 8.2

13.5 Southern California 8.2

15.5 Northwestern 7.8

15.5 UCLA 7.8

17 Virginia 7.5

18.5 UNC-Chapel Hill 7.1

18.5 Texas-Austin 7.1

20 California-Santa Barbara 6.9

21 Wisconsin-Madison 6.6

22 Massachusetts-Amherst 6.0

23.5 California-Santa Cruz 5.7

23.5 Rochester 5.7

25 Minnesota-Twin Cities 5.4

26 Connecticut-Storrs 4.8

27 Purdue 4.2

28 Missouri-Columbia 3.9

Note. Programs with ?2 alumni trainers in the sample were

included; descriptives: MDN ¼ 8.55, M ¼ 7.45, SD ¼ 3.95. Arizona,

Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, and Princeton were omitted due to lack

of reported GSP enrollment data.

TABLE 3

Number of Current Training Alumni by Degree Institution

and Gender (1991–2004)

Rank Degree Institution # Faculty # Women %Women

1.5 Massachusetts 3 3 100

1.5 Virginia 3 3 100

3 California-Berkeley 4 3 75.0

6 Minnesota-Twin Cities 3 2 66.7

6 New York University 6 4 66.7

6 Ohio State 12 8 66.7

6 Southern California 3 2 66.7

6 Texas-Austin 3 2 66.7

6 Wisconsin-Madison 3 2 66.7

10 Stanford 8 5 62.5

11 Harvard 5 3 60.0

13 Arizona State 6 3 50.0

13 California-Santa Barbara 4 2 50.0

13 Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 12 6 50.0

15 Kansas 5 2 40.0

17 UCLA 6 2 33.3

17 Carnegie Mellon 3 1 33.3

17 Indiana-Bloomington 3 1 33.3

19 Columbia 10 3 30.0

20 Yale 8 2 25.0

21 UNC-Chapel Hill 5 1 20.0

22 Michigan-Ann Arbor 11 2 18.2

24 California-Davis 3 0 0.0

24 Cornell 4 0 0.0

24 Princeton 3 0 0.0

Note. Institutions with � 3 current training alumni included. Table

descriptives: MDN ¼ 47.05, M ¼ 50.00, SD ¼ 27.93, n ¼ 25. Listed

programs have trained 80% of current doctoral faculty in the sample.

TRAINING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY’S TRAINERS 317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

TA

BLE

4

Corr

ela

tions

of

Mass

Media

Rankin

gs

and

Curr

ent

Tra

inin

gA

lum

niP

lacem

ent

by

Data

Set

Co

mp

lete

Da

taS

etR

ecen

tD

ata

Set

US

NW

R1

(D

epa

rtm

ent)

US

NW

R2

(D

epa

rtm

ent)

US

NW

R2

(P

rog

ram

)

Go

urm

an

(P

rog

ram

)

US

NW

R1

(D

epa

rtm

ent)

US

NW

R2

(D

epa

rtm

ent)

US

NW

R2

(P

rog

ram

)

Go

urm

an

(P

rog

ram

)

To

tal

pla

ced

.59�

.55�

.61�

.60�

.48�

.44�

.18

.45�

(51

)(5

1)

(11

)(3

1)

(40

)(4

0)

(11

)(2

6)

Men

pla

ced

.58�

.56�

.47

.62�

.47�

.47�

.05

.50�

(51

)(5

1)

(11

)(3

1)

(40

)(4

0)

(11

)(2

6)

Wo

men

pla

ced

.52�

.46�

.73�

.49�

.29

.19

.20

.15

(51

)(5

1)

(11

)(3

1)

(40

)(4

0)

(11

)(2

6)

Per

cen

tp

lace

d–

––

–.5

4�

.55�

.18

.54�

––

––

(27

)(2

7)

(9)

(19

)

GR

EVþ

Q–

––

–.4

4�

.53�

.16

.41

––

––

(31

)(3

1)

(11

)(2

1)

� p<

.05

,U

SN

WR

1¼

U.S

.N

ews

an

dW

orl

dR

epo

rt(2

002)

,b

ase

do

nd

epar

tmen

tal

ran

kin

gs;

US

NW

R2¼

U.S

.N

ews

an

dW

orl

dR

epo

rt(2

008)

,b

ase

do

nei

ther

dep

artm

enta

lo

rso

cial

psy

-

cho

log

yp

rog

ram

ran

kin

gs.

Sa

mp

lesi

zes

ap

pea

rin

pa

ren

thes

es.

All

corr

ela

tio

ns

rev

erse

d,

soth

at

hig

her

ran

kin

gis

ind

icat

edb

ya

hig

her

sco

re.

Per

cen

tp

lace

dre

fers

toth

en

um

ber

of

stu

den

ts

pla

ced

corr

ecte

db

ysi

zeo

fg

rad

uat

ep

rog

ram

(see

Ta

ble

2).

GR

EVþ

Qis

the

av

era

ge

GR

EV

erb

al

an

dQ

uan

tita

tiv

esc

ore

sre

po

rted

inG

SP

ov

erth

eR

ecen

td

ata

set

tim

ep

erio

d.

Per

cen

tp

lace

d

an

dG

RE

Vþ

Qco

uld

no

tb

eca

lcu

late

dfr

om

GS

Pfo

rth

eC

om

ple

teti

me

per

iod

.

318

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

alumni in training jobs. The shift in the gender compo-sition of social psychology that began in the 1960scontinues (Bailey, 2004; Kuther et al., 2005; Swim &Aspinwall, 2001; Tesser & Bau, 2002). From Table 3,we can see that 18 out of these 25 prolific programshad at least one-third of their placements as female;the majority of programs showed a fair degree of genderbalance.

The mass media rankings, however, are better predic-tors of male placement than female placement. Boththe U.S. News (2002; 2008) department and programrankings, as well as the Gourman (1997) program rank-ings, are solidly related to the placement of facultywomen in the Complete data, but not in the Recent data.Mass media rankings may fail to capture the advancesdemonstrated by faculty women in social psychology—programs with recent success in placing women indoctoral-level training positions are particularly under-represented in these rankings. Furthermore, althoughthe mass media rankings ostensibly measure distinctconstructs—both psychology department (U.S. News,2002; 2008) and program (Gourman, 1997) reputation—such measures are highly related (all rs exceed .87). Themass media rankings appear to be of modest value fordetermining which programs have been effective atschooling future graduate trainers.

The Unimportance of GRE Scores at theProgram Level

Standardized test scores, in the form of GRE-VþQscores, did not prove an important or even useful predic-tor of graduate training effectiveness. Not one measureof faculty placement was associated with the GREscores of newly admitted students. This is consistentwith Uleman and Weary (1995) and Sternberg andWilliams (1997; 1998) who suggest that GRE perform-ance is not a strong predictor of graduate school out-comes. While our data do not tell us the average GREscores of those who obtain doctoral training positionsversus those who do not, they do tell us that programswith high average GRE scores are not more effectiveat placing their students in training posts than programswith lower average GRE scores. We recommend carefulattention to other variables when it comes to graduateadmissions. This important area is under-researched.

Much Stability and Some Change inGraduate Training

The present results are marked by stability and change.The eight most prolific training institutions in Table 1’sComplete data set are still among the top 11 institutionsin the Recent data set, and the correlation for ‘‘totalnumber placed’’ for the 29 most productive programs

was r ¼ .59. At the same time, programs can and dochange dramatically in a short time—for example, vir-tually every faculty member that served as the chair ofthe dissertation for the eight Recent Yale UniversityPh.D.’s retired, changed institutions, or moved intoadministration. During this time, Yale has also had ahandful of very high profile hires. There is no substitutefor up-to-date data on training programs, and facultyadvisors as well as job seekers should expose themselvesto the most current information available.

One of the more noteworthy changes was that thetotal number of doctoral-level training programs con-tributing to American social psychology’s doctoral fac-ulty is increasing—from 53 programs before 1980, to63 programs before 1990, to 74 programs by 2004. Thisspreading out of alternatives might represent diversityand widespread opportunity—students might enter oneof many different programs, meet role models, and per-ceive an opportunity to become doctoral faculty them-selves. On the other hand, very bright and promisingundergraduates might spread themselves across a widenumber of programs, diluting the lively, critical, andcrucial interaction among fellow students that sharpenstheir skills and fosters a motivation for excellence.

The Job Market: Larger Than American SocialPh.D. Programs

Our findings also offer a modest view on the job marketin social psychology. Using the Complete data, only onedegree year (2000) has more than 20 Ph.D.’s placed; andif 25 positions advertised each year is typical (Ferguson,2005), then a minimum of five positions go unfilledevery year, or are filled by people who already have adoctoral training position and are switching jobs (e.g.,see ‘‘Comings and goings,’’ 2004). Over twenty-fiveyears ago, Levy (1979) estimated that social psychologygraduate programs in the U.S. granted an average of187 doctoral degrees each year. This figure has lessenedin recent times (Fiske, 1994), but the number of freshdoctorates still exceeds the number of what many pro-gram faculty consider the most desirable job openings.Our data suggests that we need a creative and diversebody of doctoral graduates to be successful in the jobmarket. This diversity could be theoretical, methodolo-gical, or in desired job setting (e.g., Edwards &Holmgren, 1979; Morgan et al., 2005).

Numerous social psychology doctoral recipients areemployed in non-academic positions (Proshansky,1972; Tryon, 1963; cf. Kyllonen, 2004). Programs suchas Loyola University of Chicago, the University ofUtah, Claremont Graduate University, and manyothers, emphasize training in an applied setting (Carroll,Werner, & Ashmore, 1982). Evaluating these programsby our placement metric would be inappropriate. In a

TRAINING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY’S TRAINERS 319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

recent APA Doctorate Employment Survey (APA,1999), 93 new social psychology Ph.D.’s were asked ifand where they were working; the largest group workedin university settings: 45%. In addition, 15% worked infour-year colleges, 7% worked in other academic posi-tions, and 26% worked in business or government.Given the reported 96.8% employment rate, most socialpsychology Ph.D.’s are employed, in a variety of differ-ent settings.

Although our metric should not be the singular eva-luative scale for evaluating program training effective-ness, it can be a useful tool in the context of a morecomprehensive assessment (Endler et al., 1978; Kazdin,2000). We encourage programs that succeed along otherdimensions to carry out empirical evaluations of theirprograms, and to make the results available in media,academic, and Internet resources. This will be parti-cularly meaningful for programs that train a largenumber of international students who return to Europeor Asia, programs that train faculty for business,medical or education schools, the computing industry,and so on.

We have likely missed other important variablesinfluencing student placement. As Ilardi et al. (2000)underscored, each graduate training program and theirstudents have strengths and weaknesses that affect thegraduate training process. Uleman and Weary (1995)addressed a number of factors associated with place-ment success, such as admissions standards, new studentfunding, and program size that could well be accountedfor in a comprehensive assessment. Our inclination is toadd other variables, such as faculty publications counts,citation rates and h-index scores (Endler et al., 1978),university orientation (e.g., research, teaching, com-munity service), specific program concerns (e.g., policyor applied work, business or organizational interests),receipt of grant monies, and so on. It is important torecognize that the dimensions of evaluation we reporthere paint only part of the picture on graduate trainingeffectiveness.

Our data cannot distinguish a causal link betweenprogram characteristics and student outcomes. Becauseof the correlational nature of our data, we cannot ruleout the possibility that the most promising studentsare simply biased toward choosing those programs thathave placed students well. This argument is diminishedby the finding that average program GRE’s are not cor-related with the effectiveness of a program’s placementof students into doctoral training programs, but thereader must take care in interpreting the correlationbetween programs and their placement histories.

We expect these data will be useful for many pur-poses: from students thinking about obtaining a doc-toral degree in social psychology, to the fortunateapplicant comparing job offers, to the faculty member

curious about how their program is doing, to anyoneinterested in gender equity issues in science. What isstriking about these data is that only a tiny, tiny fractionof incoming graduate students end up as doctoraltrainers. Even the most effective program of the last dec-ade had only 21% of entering graduate students holdregular positions on doctoral training social psychologyfaculties. In many programs, the structure of graduatetraining is explicitly or implicitly aimed at this goal,and students are implicitly or explicitly directed towardthis goal. Most programs create very few such students,and most students in every year and at every programdo not take these jobs.

The training that leads to doctoral faculty positions iswidely distributed across numerous programs. Becausethis kind of success can be obtained at dozens of differ-ent programs, students seeking graduate training mightprofitably consider a wide number of institutions. Itmay be that funding agencies will seek to spread theirfunds around to more programs. Currently very littletraining grant money is available, and those dollars thatare available go to a very small number of programs.These programs are certainly successful, but so aremany, many others, and these are also worth of insti-tutional scientific support.

It may well be that graduate training designed withgraduate training positions in mind may be the bestoverall training for students headed toward liberal artscolleges, master’s level training programs, internationalpositions, business school faculties, and consulting andprivate industry. We feel that it is somewhat more likelythat individualized training—with a clear-eyed evalu-ation of the contemporary job market—will make pro-grams most efficient and effective at offering trainingand employment opportunities that meet the needsand aspirations of students.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1954). The historical background of social psychology.

In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp.

3–55). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

American Psychological Association (2003). Graduate study in psy-

chology (2004 ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

American Psychological Association (2004). 2001 doctorate employ-

ment survey. Retrieved April 12, 2005, from http://research.a-

pa.org/des01.html

American Psychological Association (2005). 2004–2005 faculty salaries

in graduate departments of psychology. Retrieved April 12, 2005,

from http://research.apa.org/facsal20042005.pdf

Bailey, D. (2004). Number of psychology PhDs declining. APA Moni-

tor, 35, 18–19.

Berscheid, E. (1992). A glance back at a quarter century of social

psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,

525–533.

320 FERGUSON AND CRANDALL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Carroll, J. S., Werner, C. M., & Ashmore, R. D. (1982). Internships

and practica in social psychology graduate training programs.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 348–356.

Cartwright, D. (1979). Contemporary social psychology in historical

perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 82–93.

Christopher, A. N., Marek, P., Dobbins, E. M., & Jones, J. R. (2004).

Three decades of social psychology: A longitudinal analysis of

Baron and Byrne’s textbook. Teaching of Psychology, 31, 31–36.

Comings and goings. (2004). Dialogue, 19(2), 12–13.

Edwards, J. D., & Holmgren, R. L. (1979). Some prerequisites for

becoming a ‘‘really’’ applied, non-academic social psychologist. Per-

sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 516–523.

Endler, N. S., Rushton, J. P., & Roediger, H. L. (1978). Productivity

and scholarly impact (citations) of British, Canadian, and U.S.

departments of psychology (1975). American Psychologist, 33,

1064–1082.

Ferguson, M. A. (2005). Graduate training in social psychology:

Employment opportunities, degree institution, and outcomes. Dia-

logue, 19(1), 21.

Fiske, S. T. (1994). Worst job market ever? Maybe not. Dialogue, 9(1),

4–5.

Gordon, R., & Vicari, P. J. (1992). Eminence in social psychology: A

comparison of textbook citation, Social Sciences Citation Index,

and research productivity ranking. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 18, 26–38.

Gourman, J. (1997). The Gourman report: A rating of graduate and

professional programs in American and international universities

(8th Ed.). New York: Princeton Review.

Hunt, M. (2002). On the origins of clinical psychology faculty: Who is

training the trainers?: Comment. Clinical Psychology: Science and

Practice, 9, 107–108.

Ilardi, S. S., & Roberts, M. C. (2002). Program proficiency in training

graduate students for clinical faculty careers: Does program size

matter? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 108–111.

Ilardi, S. S., Rodriguez-Hanley, A., Roberts, M. C., & Seigel, J. (2000).

On the origins of clinical psychology faculty: Who is training the

trainers? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7, 346–354.

Jones, E. E. (1985). Major developments in five decades of social

psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of

social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 47–107). New York: Random

House.

Kazdin, A. E. (2000). Evaluating the impact of clinical psychology

training programs: Process and outcome issues. Clinical Psychology:

Science and Practice, 7, 357–360.

Kyllonen, P. C. (2004). Broadening the job search: Jobs outside of

academia. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Darley (Eds.), The compleat

academic: A career guide (2nd ed., pp. 57–76). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Larsen, R., & Salovey, P. (1996). Survey of Doctoral Programs in Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 1996. Unpublished raw data. (Avail-

able from Society of Personality and Social Psychology).

Levy, S. G. (1979). Graduate training and prospects in social psy-

chology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 504–506.

Morgan, R. D., Kuther, T. L., & Habben, C. J. (Eds.), Life after gradu-

ate school in psychology: Insider’s advice from new psychologists.

New York: Psychology Press.

Proshansky, H. M. (1972). For what are we training our graduate

students? American Psychologist, 27, 205–212.

Selingo, J. (1997). A self-publishing college guide goes big-time,

and educators cry foul. Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(11),

A45–A46.

Steele, J. L. (2005). Quantitative analysis: Life as a quant jock with a

Ph.D. in social psychology. In R. D. Morgan, T. L. Kuther, & C. J.

Habben (Eds.), Life after graduate school in psychology: Insider’s

advice from new psychologists (pp. 187–209). New York: Psychology

Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Career paths in psychology: Where your degree

can take you. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1997). Does the graduate record

examination predict meaningful success in the graduate training of

psychology? A case study. American Psychologist, 52, 630–641.

Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (1998). You proved our point bet-

ter than we did: A reply to our critics. American Psychologist, 53,

576–577.

Swim, J. K., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2001). Trends in graduate admissions

and support in personality and social psychology Ph.D. programs in

North America, 2000–01. Dialogue, 16(2), 8–9.

Tesser, A., & Bau, J. J. (2002). Social psychology: Who we are and

what we do. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 72–85.

Toutkoushian, R. K., Porter, S. R., Danielson, C., & Hollis, P. R.

(2003). Using publication counts to measure an institution’s research

productivity. Research in Higher Education, 44, 121–148.

Tryon, R. C. (1963). Psychology in flux: The academic-professional

bipolarity. American Psychologist, 18, 134–143.

Uleman, J. S., & Weary, G. (1995). Survey of doctoral programs in

personality and social psychology, 1992. Personality & Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 21, 245–255.

U.S. News and World Report’s Best Graduate Schools. (2002).

Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. News and World Report’s America’s Best Graduate Schools.

(2008). Washington, DC: Author.

TRAINING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY’S TRAINERS 321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14

APPENDIX

U.S. Doctoral Training Programs in Social Psychology

Arizona State University Hawaii, University of Oregon, University of

Arizona, University of Houston, University of Pennsylvania State Univ.

Arkansas, University of Howard University Pennsylvania, Univ. of

Boston College Illinois, U.-Chicago Pittsburgh, University of

Brandeis University Illinois, U.-Urbana-Ch. Portland State University

Brown University Indiana University Princeton University

Calif., U.-Berkeley Iowa State University Purdue University

Calif., U.-Davis Iowa, University of Rhode Island, Univ. of

Calif., U.-Irvine Kansas State University Rochester, University of

Calif., U.-Los Angeles Kansas, University of Rutgers, State Univ. of NJ

Calif., U.-Riverside Kent State University Saint Louis University

Calif., U.-San Diego Kentucky, University of Southern California, U. of

Calif., U.-Santa Barbara Lehigh University Stanford University

Calif., U.-Santa Cruz Loyola Univ. of Chicago SUNY-Albany

Carnegie Mellon Univ. Maryland, University of SUNY-Buffalo

Chicago, University of Massachusetts, Univ. of SUNY-Stony Brook

Claremont University Miami University Syracuse University

Clark University Michigan State University Temple University

Colorado State University Michigan, University of Tennessee, University of

Colorado, University of Minnesota, University of Texas A&M University

Columbia University Missouri, University of Texas Christian University

Connecticut, University of Nebraska, University of Texas Tech University

Cornell University Nevada, Univ. of, Reno Texas, Univ. of, Austin

CUNY-Graduate Center New Hampshire, Univ. of Tulane University

Dartmouth College New Mexico State Univ. Utah, University of

Delaware, University of New York University Vanderbilt University

Denver, University of N. Caro., U.-Chapel Hill VA Commonwealth U.

Duke University N. Caro., U.-Greensboro VA, University of

Florida Atlantic University North Dakota State Univ. Washington State Univ.

Florida State University Northeastern University Washington University

Florida, University of Northern Illinois Univ. Washington, University of

George Washington Univ. Northwestern University Wayne State University

Georgia State University Ohio State University Wisconsin, University of

Georgia, University of Ohio University Wyoming, University of

Harvard University Oklahoma, University of Yale University

Note. n ¼ 105.

322 FERGUSON AND CRANDALL

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 0

2:30

15

Nov

embe

r 20

14