{"id":314324,"date":"2026-03-30T12:00:25","date_gmt":"2026-03-30T11:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=314324"},"modified":"2026-03-25T06:25:02","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T06:25:02","slug":"the-american-psychologist-publishes-another-misleading-article-about-antisemitism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2026\/03\/the-american-psychologist-publishes-another-misleading-article-about-antisemitism\/","title":{"rendered":"The ‘American Psychologist’ Publishes Another Misleading Article about Antisemitism"},"content":{"rendered":"

12 Mar 2026 – <\/em>For reasons I don\u2019t understand, the\u00a0American Psychologist<\/em>, the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association (APA), has published another\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0that appears to misrepresent antisemitism and its prevalence within the mental health professions (this isn\u2019t the first time<\/a>). The authors who wrote \u201cIs It Really That Bad? Antisemitic Experiences Among Jewish Mental Health Professionals\u201d \u2014\u00a0Micah Brosbe, Caroline Kaufman, Elizabeth Getzoff Testa, Karen Dimentstein, Danielle Guttman-Lapin,\u00a0and Tali Rasooli \u2014\u00a0claim that\u00a0their online survey revealed widespread antisemitism in these work settings. But based on my review of the article, I don\u2019t believe their findings demonstrate anything of the sort. And I think it\u2019s important to highlight this, because there are individuals and groups that nevertheless will promote and cite this article to support their political agenda. So, let\u2019s take a closer look.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Non-Representative, Biased Sampling<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>The most fundamental reason to discount this research is that it\u2019s based only on responses from a narrowly selected group of participants.\u00a0Although the authors state that they collected data \u201cfrom a wide range of Jewish mental health professionals,\u201d that claim simply doesn\u2019t stand up to scrutiny.<\/p>\n

Most of the study participants are members of one (or more) of four groups\u00a0\u2014\u00a0the\u00a0Jewish Therapist Collective, the Association of Jewish Psychologists, the Society of Pediatric Psychology Jewish Affinity Group, and Psychologists Against Antisemitism. Leaders of these groups have placed an emphasis on defending Israel, with a focus on defining and approaching antisemitism through that specific lens (the authors do not acknowledge this in their article).\u00a0<\/strong>For example, one of these groups described APA\u2019s leadership as \u201cterribly na\u00efve\u201d for opposing the collective punishment of Palestinian civilians. Another has publicly accused the APA of \u201cvirulent\u201d and \u201csystemic\u201d antisemitism based on members\u2019 expressions of pain and outrage regarding Israel\u2019s actions and concern for Palestinian lives. Two of the groups sponsor solidarity mission trips to Israel.\u00a0To be clear, if the authors had wanted to do so, they presumably could have made a concerted effort to recruit participants from mental health organizations where Jewish members have a much wider range of perspectives on Israel and antisemitism (e.g., state psychological associations).<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Meanwhile, those participants who were not recruited through these four groups were contacted via snowball sampling. With this form of outreach, researchers encourage potential recruits to share information about the study\u00a0with their social network, to recruit them as well. The methodological problems associated with this approach are well-known.\u00a0A snowball sample is rarely\u00a0<\/em>representative of the broader population of interest. As a result, research findings based on such a sample cannot legitimately be treated as generalizable beyond the specific profile of the self-selected group of participants. Given the overall process by which participants were recruited here, no reasonable claim can be made that their views and experiences \u2014 specifically regarding what does or doesn\u2019t count as antisemitism \u2014 accurately characterize the much larger community of Jewish mental health professionals. To offer a parallel example, you can\u2019t ask those individuals who attend a midnight showing of\u00a0The Texas Chainsaw Massacre\u00a0<\/em>whether they like horror films and then conclude that their responses reflect the appeal of such films to moviegoers in general.<\/p>\n

Further evidence of the authors\u2019 highly biased sampling is available in their recruitment materials and in the introductory section of the online survey itself. The recruitment letter included this: \u201cWe are conducting a research study to understand the experiences of antisemitism among Jewish mental health professionals\u2026 We are particularly interested in any experiences of antisemitism people may have had in a professional or training context and how this has impacted career development and satisfaction.\u201d Certainly, one would expect this description to draw particular interest from individuals who see themselves as having been victimized in this way, and much less interest from those who don\u2019t.<\/p>\n

The introduction to the survey gave this explanation for why the research was being conducted:\u00a0\u201cSince October 2023, a national increase in antisemitic incidents has been documented by several organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, less is known about how antisemitism is manifesting in the mental health profession and how such manifestation may be impacting the functioning of Jewish professionals.\u201d It\u2019s hard to miss the suggestion that the \u201cantisemitism\u201d of primary interest to the researchers manifests in relation to Israel. Moreover, citing\u00a0discredited data<\/a>\u00a0from the Anti-Defamation League \u2014 an Israel advocacy organization known to explicitly\u00a0equate<\/a>\u00a0anti-Zionism with antisemitism and to count anti-genocide protests as antisemitic incidents \u2014 clearly communicates the researchers\u2019 own perspective to prospective participants.<\/p>\n

The bottom line is that the findings from this sample are\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0generalizable to the much broader and more diverse community of Jewish mental health professionals. In my opinion, the authors fail to adequately explain this crucial concern to readers.<\/p>\n

Problematic Data Analyses<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>But beyond these very serious sampling problems, there\u2019s also much about the study\u2019s data analyses that call its value into question, and this too is worthy of attention. Here I\u2019ll only focus on the two survey items that are the basis for the article\u2019s highlighted figures and for the authors\u2019 claims that antisemitism is widespread in mental health professionals\u2019 work settings. The first of these two items looks approximately like this:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Respondents were asked to \u201cPlease indicate any experiences with antisemitism in a professional context\u201d by checking a box if they\u2019ve ever had that experience in eight different contexts (I\u2019ve shown only the first three here). Three columns were provided: \u201cNegative comments or statements about Jews\/Judaism,\u201d \u201cNegative comments or statements about Israel\/Zionism,\u201d and \u201cHave been harassed for being Jewish and\/or views on Israel.\u201d This framing and format are very problematic.<\/p>\n

To begin with, the researchers explicitly presented negative comments about Israel or Zionism as a\u00a0form of antisemitism\u00a0<\/em>(see the second column), and they made\u00a0no distinction<\/em>\u00a0between\u00a0<\/em>\u201cbeing Jewish\u201d and \u201cviews on Israel\u201d as the basis for \u201charassment,\u201d a term that was never defined (see the third column). Obviously, the researchers\u2019 framing of this item in regard to Israel reflects a view of antisemitism that is highly contentious, yet they take their own perspective as definitive. If they simply assumed that their participants would be comfortable with this framing, then that\u2019s further evidence of the significant bias in their selection process.\u00a0And if there were respondents who did\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0consider criticism of Israel to be antisemitic, these individuals may well have discontinued their participation when they learned that this was the researchers\u2019 basic premise.\u00a0Adding to the methodological confusion, in the article the authors acknowledge that\u00a0many of their participants in fact didn\u2019t tend to separate criticism of Israel or Zionism from hostility toward Jews. But what this seemingly means is that these respondents were likely to check boxes in two or even three columns at the same time for a single negative comment they heard about Israel.<\/p>\n

This item suffers from other serious inadequacies as well. More specifically, the researchers made no attempt to assess the\u00a0frequency<\/em>\u00a0with which participants were exposed to comments they deemed antisemitic, nor did they provide any\u00a0timeframe<\/em>\u00a0to guide the respondents in their answers. So, for example, if a participant heard\u00a0one\u00a0<\/em>colleague make\u00a0one\u00a0<\/em>negative comment about Israel at any point \u2014 even if it was\u00a0several months or years earlier<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 they were expected to check the box indicating that they had experienced antisemitism (actually, they could check all three columns if they felt that single comment was also hostile toward Jews and constituted \u201charassment\u201d). The potential distortions here should be clear. Even more extreme cases are also plausible. For instance, if a several dozen\u00a0participants all read the same negative comment on a professional listserv, that one post would apparently be counted as an antisemitic experience for all of them simultaneously.\u00a0<\/strong>In short, how useful could data like this possibly be for measuring the actual\u00a0prevalence<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0severity<\/em>\u00a0of antisemitism in the work environment?<\/p>\n

Beyond these significant issues, it\u2019s worth highlighting that the researchers apparently gave no consideration to the legitimacy or appropriateness of any comment. Imagine a colleague saying, \u201cIt\u2019s really upsetting to see that Israel is restricting the entry of humanitarian supplies into Gaza. I don\u2019t understand why they\u2019re doing that \u2014 it just seems terribly wrong to me.\u201d Because that statement is certainly a \u201cnegative comment\u201d about Israel, by the standards the authors established, hearing this would seemingly count as a harmful antisemitic experience. But how could such a comment, expressing concern and confusion, reasonably merit being categorized as antisemitic? And yet in this study it presumably would have been, at the researchers\u2019 direction.<\/p>\n

The second key survey question (the basis for Figure 2 in the article) asked, \u201cIn what ways, if any, has antisemitism appeared to impact career development or satisfaction?\u201d Participants were asked to consider a range of categories and to check a box for each if, in their view, that experience with antisemitism applied to them. Recall that, at this point, the survey\u2019s item wording had already communicated to the participants that criticism of Israel should be counted as antisemitic. The two categories with the highest endorsement rates were \u201cHave triggered moments of heightened anxiety in professional settings\u201d and \u201cHave harmed personal and professional relationships with colleagues.\u201d<\/p>\n

For both categories, the researchers again failed to ask the respondents to identify the\u00a0frequency\u00a0<\/em>or the\u00a0timeframe\u00a0<\/em>associated with their adverse experiences. So, if a participant recalled a\u00a0single day<\/em>, perhaps\u00a0months or years earlier<\/em>, when they felt anxious following a colleague\u2019s negative comment about Israel, that isolated event would still merit checking the box indicating that antisemitism had adversely affected the respondent\u2019s professional life. Likewise, if that same single comment also diminished the respondent\u2019s positive feelings toward this particular colleague, that too would count as a separate and additional affirmative case of having been harmed by antisemitism. Again, with this kind of coding, how could these items meaningfully illuminate the question of how serious a problem antisemitism is?<\/p>\n

Other categories for this item represent different but similarly substantial interpretive problems. For example, consider these three separate categories: \u201cHave been intentionally excluded from professional meetings\/conferences or organizational activities,\u201d \u201cHave been unintentionally excluded from professional meetings\/conferences or organizational activities,\u201d and \u201cHave been blocked or excluded from professional listservs or social media pages.\u201d In each instance, an obvious question arises: how did the respondents know that antisemitism was the basis for these adverse experiences? But that question wasn\u2019t asked. In some cases, participants may have received feedback that was clearly antisemitic in nature. Yet it seems unlikely that this was the norm. Conference proposal rejections, for instance, don\u2019t routinely specify a reason. Moreover, whether right or wrong, if a participant was excluded based on their advocacy in support of Israel\u2019s actions, that\u2019s still not the same thing as being excluded for being Jewish \u2014 and only the latter is an unmistakable case of antisemitism. In short, lacking documentation, it\u2019s quite a stretch for the authors to count all of these negative experiences as clear evidence of antisemitism. If the researchers instead recognize that these particular data merely reflect the participants\u00a0perceptions\u00a0<\/em>of antisemitism, then that\u2019s obviously\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>an adequate way to measure antisemitism\u2019s actual prevalence.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll dispense with other concerning aspects of the data analysis. Hopefully I\u2019ve made my point.\u00a0But I want to note that a much fuller explanation is needed for why the authors decided that\u00a0\u201cOut of concern for the sensitive nature of the data and participant confidentiality, raw data are not publicly available for this study.\u201d In this regard, the survey protocol specifically stated that, through their participation, the respondents were agreeing to the sharing of their data. In fact, the online form emphasized that sharing data \u201cis part of research and may increase what we can learn from this study\u201d and that it \u201cis needed to allow other researchers to validate study findings and to come up with new ideas.\u201d Why then are the de-identified raw data being withheld? Without further clarity about this, from the perspective of pursuing science to advance our collective knowledge, I find this lack of transparency peculiar and inexplicable, and therefore quite troubling.<\/p>\n

Concluding Observations<\/strong><\/p>\n

Given the skewed sample and how the authors chose to collect and analyze the survey data, their prediction that \u201cthere would be high levels of antisemitism reported by participants\u201d is hardly surprising. And, of course, they treat their findings as confirming that prediction. But what did their results actually show? It seems to me that this is all the research demonstrated: if you cast your net very carefully, you can find\u00a0some\u00a0<\/em>Jewish mental health professionals who\u00a0at least once\u00a0<\/em>have felt\u00a0somewhat\u00a0<\/em>uncomfortable in their work settings for reasons that\u00a0they and the authors\u00a0<\/em>consider to be antisemitism. This is hardly noteworthy, regardless of the spin that may be applied by those who want to portray the mental health professions as overrun with antisemites.<\/p>\n

To be clear, none of my commentary is meant to deny the discomfort and adversity reported by some participants in this study, or the fact that there\u2019s complexity surrounding issues of antisemitism. Without question, there are very real instances of antisemitism in the mental health field \u2014 situations where someone is treated inappropriately\u00a0because<\/em>\u00a0they\u2019re Jewish. Some of the anecdotal accounts provided by participants clearly document this unfortunate reality. Such mistreatment is simply unacceptable, and it shouldn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n

But to state the obvious,\u00a0occupation<\/a>,\u00a0apartheid<\/a>,\u00a0war crimes<\/a>, and\u00a0genocide<\/a>\u00a0shouldn\u2019t happen either, and criticizing Israel for these grave offenses shouldn\u2019t be condemned as antisemitic. The Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, were indisputably horrific and traumatizing. Yet certainly the same must be acknowledged about the 70,000 Palestinians killed by the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza (over twice that number have been injured) and the 2,000,000 permanently displaced from homes that were turned into rubble. (The word \u201cGaza\u201d appears only twice in the article, and only in the context of the Israeli hostages.)<\/p>\n

By an overwhelming margin just last month, the APA\u2019s governing Council of Representatives adopted a new and clarifying\u00a0resolution<\/a>\u00a0on antisemitism that\u2019s relevant here. In particular, it highlights this point: \u201cMultiple contemporary definitions of antisemitism all share the recognition that antisemitism involves hostility, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, hatred, or violence\u00a0against Jews\u00a0as Jews<\/em>\u201d (emphasis added). The resolution also notes that\u00a0\u201cthe weaponization of antisemitism \u2014 the manipulative or bad faith invocation of accusations to silence legitimate criticism, scholarship, or activism \u2014 creates significant adverse consequences for Jews and non-Jews who oppose the state of Israel\u2019s actions and support Palestinian rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

The authors conclude their article with three assertions that I consider both revealing and disturbing. First, they insist that \u201cnon-Jewish voices\u201d should be given lesser status in any discussions about what does and doesn\u2019t constitute antisemitism \u2014 this would presumably include discussions about criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights. Second, without evidence, they appear to claim that Jews who are not strong advocates for Israel \u2014 and do not see criticism of Israel as antisemitic \u2014 should be understood to hold \u201cminority Jewish perspectives.\u201d And third, they recommend that the Association of Jewish Psychologists \u2014 the organization mentioned earlier that criticized the APA\u2019s opposition to the collective punishment of Palestinian civilians \u2014 should be awarded a seat on APA\u2019s Council as an ethnic psychological association.<\/p>\n

These convictions \u2014 especially given the article\u2019s methodologically fragile findings \u2014suggest to me the possibility that the broader research agenda of the authors (or at least some of them) is to advance a particular political framing of antisemitism, one that\u2019s aimed above all else at protecting Israel from legitimate criticism.\u00a0I believe such a project harms Jews and non-Jews alike, in our own professional circles and well beyond. Because while antisemitism is certainly a growing threat that deserves urgent attention from us all, protesting genocide and supporting Palestinian rights are\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>antisemitic. Antisemitism\u2019s most powerful engines are very different: the ideologies of\u00a0Christian nationalists<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0white supremacists<\/a>, the\u00a0Trump Administration<\/a>, and\u00a0Israeli leaders<\/a>\u00a0who falsely claim that Israel acts on behalf of\u00a0all Jews<\/em>\u00a0worldwide.<\/p>\n

To summarize my perspective, I think\u00a0it\u2019s deceptive and dangerous for the authors to claim that their results\u00a0\u201cindicate that antisemitism and the status of Jews and Jewishness within mental health fields are clearly widespread issues.\u201d From the outset, their non-representative sample couldn\u2019t possibly support such broad conclusions. And at this fraught moment, I believe we must not lose sight of the fact that sweeping and unwarranted claims of antisemitism have been used repeatedly to justify punitive governmental and institutional crackdowns on free speech and other democratic values.<\/p>\n

I honestly cannot fathom why the editors and peer reviewers at the\u00a0American Psychologist\u00a0<\/em>decided to publish this article given the shortcomings I\u2019ve described. Regardless, my intention here has been to respectfully raise these significant red flags, and I hope I\u2019ve accomplished that.<\/p>\n

_______________________________________________<\/p>\n

Note:\u00a0This opinion piece reflects my personal views and not those of any group with which I am affiliated. A PDF version is available\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> Roy Eidelson is a member of the <\/em>TRANSCEND Network<\/em><\/a> and was a member of the American Psychological Association for over 25 years, prior to his resignation. He is a clinical psychologist and the president of <\/em>Eidelson Consulting<\/em><\/a>, where he studies, writes about, and consults on the role of psychological issues in political, organizational, and group conflict settings. He is a past president of <\/em>Psychologists for Social Responsibility<\/em><\/a>, former executive director of the University of Pennsylvania\u2019s Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, and a member of the <\/em>Coalition for an Ethical Psychology<\/em><\/a>. Roy is the author of <\/em>Political Mind Games: How the 1% Manipulate Our Understanding of What\u2019s Happening, What\u2019s Right, and What\u2019s Possible<\/a> and can be reached at <\/em>reidelson@eidelsonconsulting.com<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

12 Mar 2026 – For reasons I don\u2019t understand, the\u00a0American Psychologist, the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association, has published another\u00a0article\u00a0that appears to misrepresent antisemitism and its prevalence within the mental health professions (this isn\u2019t the first time).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":243442,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[2755,1668,88,2552,2075,70,886],"class_list":["post-314324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-transcend-members","tag-american-psychological-association-apa","tag-antisemitism","tag-israel","tag-jews","tag-judaism","tag-usa","tag-zionism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=314324"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":314326,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/314324\/revisions\/314326"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/243442"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=314324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=314324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=314324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}