Prescriptive Authority for New Jersey Psychologists: A Bayesian Approach Toward Understanding The Role of Information in the Development of Attitude

As an increasing number of state legislatures consider granting prescriptive authority to qualified psychologists (RxP), it is important for the field of professional psychology to examine our own professional community's opinions and attitudes toward this policy area (McGrath, 2010). In addition to examining attitudes and beliefs about RxP, this study examines: (a) if exposure to RxP-related information influences one's opinion toward RxP; (b) how psychology graduate students and psychologists utilize information related to RxP; (c) reasons for supporting/opposing RxP; and (d) differences between students' and psychologists' beliefs about RxP. A Bayesian Informal Argumentation approach is utilized to quantitatively measure how subjects evaluate RxP-related information in terms of believability and utility. Two-hundred and seventy-one participants gathered from New Jersey psychology doctoral programs and various professional psychology listservs completed the online survey developed for this study. Findings suggest that the psychology community remains relatively divided on the issue of RxP, with most not interested in pursuing certification for RxP and most reporting that they are not knowledgeable on the topic. Despite there being significant differences between how students and psychologists evaluate RxP information, the Bayesian Informal Argumentation approach proved to not be an ideal measure for how subjects evaluate information on this topic. However, data regarding participants' evaluations of information and reasons to oppose/support RxP provide insight into the values and opinions of members of the psychology community. Implications for RxP stakeholders and limitations of the study are discussed.