A Tribute to Anthony J. Marsella: Honoring the Legacy of a Man Larger than Life.

By Naji Abi-Hashem, PhD

Anthony Marsella (1947–2024), endearingly called “Tony,” was a beloved friend and colleague, a deep thinker, and an activist as well as a prolific writer and a fluent speaker. He was full of life with a contagious inspiration, calling those around him to act creatively and decisively, to make broad contributions, and to move forward with a bold mission of scholarship, caring, and peace-making.

Marsella was an Emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Hawaii’s Manoa campus in Honolulu, a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, a past director of the World Health Organization Psychiatric Research Center in Honolulu, and a member of the Transcend Network for Peace Development.

Continue reading the full tribute here.

Notes from your Council Rep

By Merry Bullock, Division 52 Representative to the APA Council of Representatives

The APA Council of Representatives met February 21 and 22 in Washington DC for a packed agenda, that was preceded by a “Fly-In” Hill day were around 140 council members visited their state congressional representatives.  The following is a brief report of what we did, what council did, and what is coming down the road.

Council “Fly-In” Hill Day

The purpose of the council Hill day was to bring to legislators three “asks” from APA. The first “ask” was support for the Graduate Education Program (grants to universities/training centers to support graduate trainees during supervision). This is a $30 million program that supports trainees who are at the same time seeing patients, generally from populations with challenged access to health care. There are around 700 trainees across the country. The request was to retain 2025 funding for the rest of 2025 and for 2026.

The second “ask” was to continue NIH funding at 50.3 billion. We talked about the value of NIH research to the nation and the nation’s health and mental health, and the dire consequences of truncating ongoing programs.

The third “ask” was to continue full funding for Medicare. We also noted to legislators that behavioral health services are not “required” by Medicare (as some other health services are) so that it would be particularly vulnerable to cuts.

My own delegation was to Colorado – where we  spoke with supportive offices. But they left us with some important messages when we asked how we could help – that they highly value stories of how people’s lives are being affected – for better and for worse – and asked us to send a steady stream of these. They also valued data on the economic impact of the programs for which we were advocating (e.g. cost savings from preventative health; reduction in economic burden of disease or disability through behavior al intervensions, and the like).

Collectively the group has a good contact list of the health or education aides for most legislators – so please let me know if you would like to contact your legislators! We heard from them that our reaching out really does work!

Council Meeting

As your council rep, I (and other members of the global caucus) read all the agenda items from the perspective of global psychology – is the policy intended to be broader than US based? If so does it make appropriate reference to international documents and literature; does it adopt a broad global perspective? If it is intended to refer only to US policies or actions, does it take into account needs of international colleagues, students, as appropriate, or populations with international roots or concerns? Often when there are wording changes that would be more inclusibe globally, these can be discussed and accomplished before items come “to the floor” for a vote.
In the 2025 February meeting, Council passed the following

Policy Statements :

• APA policy statement on advancing evidence-based prevention across the lifespan
• APA Policy Statement on Agism
• APA Policy Statement on Caregiving
• Statement in Support of Equity, Fairness , and Transparency in Psychology Licensing Examination
• Statement Reaffirming APAs commitment to justice, human rights, fairness, and dignity

Guidelines

• Guidelines on Trauma Competencies for Education and Training
• Professional Practice Guidelines on Measurement Based Care
• Guidelines for Psychological Practice in Health Care Delivery Systems
• Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Adults

Resolutions:

• Resolution on the Protection of Neural and Cognitive Data
• Resolution on Protecting Psychological Test Security

Other Actions

• Change in the procedures for electing Recording Secretary and Treasurer (will be elected by the current council, not the one from the year before)
• Council Policy Manual: Revision to Policies Related to Doctoral and Masters Degrees
• Extension of the Recognition of Sports Psychology as a Proficiency in Psychology Licensure

In addition, Council engaged in “Discussion Roundtables” that were initiated by the Council Caucus Chairs and facilitated in collaboration with the Board of Directors and Council Leadership Team members. The tables were asked to discuss  three prompts: (1) perceived issues in representing a specific constituency (e.g. division or state association) versus maintaining fiduciary responsibility to APA as a whole; (2) the extent to which APA (and APASI) were meeting or not meeting the role as a member organization;  and (3) a single recommendation for what APA (APASI) could do to be more of a member based / member driven organization. I’ll report in a subsequent newsletter on what the results showed. Preliminary comments from the table I facilitated included developing resources specifically designed to assist psychologists at the individual or state level in doing their work (e.g. skill building such as that offered by the (not defunct) Disaster Response Network, or development of a database whereby state associations could share resources; or actions to train reviewers in equitable treatment of non-US base authors or reports of non-US populations.

We also heard updates from the Treasurer, from the CEO, and participated in a question and answer chat with the APA President, Debra Kawahara and the CEO, Arthur Evans.

What is in the Offing

During the council meetings I had a number of conversations relevant to our Division’s global perspective. These included finding grounds for collaboration between the Caucus Promoting Global and Global Human Rights Perspectives (which I co-chair) and the Culture, Ethnicity and Justice Caucus on thinking of business items that might promote training or activities focused on global social justice issues, or broad cultural perspectives; collaborating with other Divisions promoting APA’s implementing its Resolution on Human Rights’ promise to develop human rights education in graduate education (for example promoting curriculum materials on the UN human rights declarations, covenants and treaties and their application to psychology).

Under revision: Last year, the Caucus on Promoting Global and Global Human Rights perspectives introduced a resolution asking APA to develop procedures for how and when to respond to global armed conflict (such as Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, etc). That resolution is under revision at the moment (to clarify that it addresses approaches APA might take and resources APA might develop to assist psychologists working with populations in the US affected by global armed conflict  elsewhere, to provide resources for those populations, and to develop guidance for psychologists more directly involved with populations in the middle of armed conflict or post-conflict.

To come: The Caucus on Promoting Global and Global Human Rights Perspectives also hopes to engage with APA offices (e.g. the Office of International Affairs), committees (e.g. the Committee on Global Psychology) and Divisions (especially Division 52) in developing actions across a broad range of APA constituencies – in education (visa issues for international psychology graduate students); in science (skill building in international collaborative research; development of open access data bases; publication guidance and skill building); in mental health (working across borders; engaging indigenous practices); and in applied areas. We welcome Division 52 input!

The next Council meeting will be in August, in the two days before the Convention begins in Denver.

* The opinions, information, opportunities, and materials expressed in this member-dedicated section are not necessarily supported by Division 52. Publication in this section does not constitute agreement or support from the Division. 

Firearm violence in a national and international context: Policies, risk factors, and protective measures – an integrative review

by: Ani Kalayjian, Ed.D., MeaningfulWorld, S. Emre Kuraner

Research indicates that firearm violence is a significant global public health crisis, with impacts that extend far beyond the immediate physical harm to individuals. The United States has the highest firearm-related mortality among industrialized nations. Statistically, the U.S. experiences firearm mortality rates that are not only higher than those in countries with comparable levels of economic and institutional development but also like rates observed in nations undergoing significant humanitarian crises. Moreover, the comparison with countries facing humanitarian crises has broader implications of firearm violence as a barrier to sustainable development and public health. The proliferation of firearms exacerbates existing social and economic challenges, leading to cycles of violence that hinder recovery and development efforts. The similarity in firearm-related mortality rates suggests that, despite the vastly different contexts, the consequences of firearm violence on public health and social cohesion are universally detrimental.

OBJECTIVE: To identify established relationships between firearm policies, their risks, and protective factors, placing the United States within a global context of firearm violence.

METHOD: Integrative review considering selected PubMed, Lilacs, and Scielo studies.
Inclusion criteria: firearm violence, articles from the past decade.
Exclusion criteria: restricted to the human species.

Procedure: Database search phases included: (a) a broad literature search regarding firearm violence using selected search terms and time frame; (b) identifying global firearm policies, risk factors, and protective factors; and (c) identifying higher levels of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) studies.

RESULTS: Thirty-four studies met the search criteria. Results indicated that within a global context, there is a disproportionately high rate of firearm violence in the United States. Several risk factors and protective factors were indicated. No empirical studies have yetestablished causation for firearm violence.

CONCLUSION: Restrictive firearm policies and other protective factors are a critical component in the reduction of firearm violence, which requires multi-pronged strategies that embrace policy, education, research, public health, cultural, and societal aspects. Further research is needed across all sectors related to firearm violence.

Click here to read the full article

Unheard Voices: The Impact of Linguistic Assumptions on Global South Research in English-Language Journals

Judith L. Gibbons, Saint Louis University and Brien K. Ashdown,  Albizu University

One reason most scientific publishing utilizes a double-blind peer review process is to decrease the bias in decisions about which manuscripts to reject and which to publish. The argument is that keeping the authors’ identity anonymous from the peer reviewers allows a manuscript to be judged solely on the merits of the content rather than the authors’ identity. The anonymity of the peer reviewers also enables them to provide clear, straightforward, and honest reviews without the risk of retribution. While this process should, in theory, reduce the amount of bias involved in decisions regarding publication, there remains evidence of significant bias in the peer review process based on the perceived identities of submitting authors.

There is indeed evidence that double-blind review processes have decreased bias in particular ways. For example, double-blind peer review increased the number of female first-authored papers in some journals (Budden et al., 2008; see also Kern-Goldberger et al., 2022). However, research suggests that there remains significant bias in peer review regarding language proficiency (Ramírez-Castañeda, 2020; Man et al., 2004). Because the identity of the authors is hidden from reviewers, it is likely that reviewers are making assumptions about the authors’ native language based on the country in which the research was conducted (Link, 1998) – a fact that is not blinded in the manuscript, but clearly explained in most papers, particularly the Participants subsection of the Method section.

We believe that when manuscripts that include samples from non-English speaking countries are peer-reviewed, the reviewers are likely to assume that the authors are not native English speakers and thus presume that errors in writing mechanics, no matter how minor, are due to the (assumed) non-native English language skills of the authors. The same errors in a manuscript with participants from an English-speaking context would likely not lead to such assumptions but be pointed out as typos or met with a suggestion that the paper undergo a thorough proofread. In such cases, comments regarding the authors’ native language are not made.

Recurrent experiences of both authors inspired this article. While we were both born and raised in the United States and received our doctoral training from US universities, we have spent decades conducting research in Guatemala. Our research is usually conducted with Guatemalan co-authors and collaborators, but we tend to write most of the manuscripts because of our native fluency in English and English language-based professional training.

We both find it interesting that, multiple times, peer reviewers have provided feedback on our manuscripts about research in Guatemala, encouraging us to have the writing reviewed by “native English speakers.” Importantly, we do not receive this feedback on manuscripts we submit based on samples from English-speaking countries, such as the United States. Because those peer reviews are double-blinded, the reviewers, of course, do not have access to our names or affiliations; thus, they are making erroneous assumptions about our native language based on the country from which our participants are sampled.

Here are two examples of comments we have received from peer reviewers:

“Language should be checked by a native speaker” (Anonymous reviewer for Merrill Palmer Quarterly).

“I usually do not like to comment on writing quality as I believe training in academic writing is an inequitable privilege that not everyone has access to. I also understand that English may not be a first language for some, which poses unfair expectations and challenges when individuals cannot write in their native language. But if I may, I highly recommend the use of editorial services because the authors make some important points, but sometimes the content may be getting lost in the writing quality” (Anonymous reviewer for Violence Against Women).

As we mentioned above, double-blind peer review addresses many issues of bias (Kern-Goldberger et al., 2022); however, bias against the Global South and non-native English speakers is poorly addressed by double-blind review because the country where the research was conducted is revealed in the manuscript. While we have had personal experience with such bias, empirical research using implicit bias methods also revealed a clear bias against research from low-income countries (Harris et al., 2017).

This bias against scholarship from low-income countries and regions in the Global South is not based solely on assumptions about the authors’ native language. Sometimes, such research does not make it past a journal’s action editor to be peer-reviewed. For example, here is a quote from an editorial review from a journal that paradoxically has “International” in the journal title: “because of the specific geographic focus of the article we would not be able to consider in the light of current editorial priorities and limitations of space” (Action Editor of International Journal of Eating Disorders).

Because of our positions as relatively privileged researchers who do speak English as our native language, these experiences are frustrating (and sometimes humorous) but manageable. For scholars with fewer resources or writing in a language other than their native one, this bias can be insurmountable in finding an English language peer-reviewed outlet for their work. Knowledge emanating from the Global South is essential for expanding psychological theories and findings (e.g., Gibbons, 2024), and actions must be taken to reduce barriers and biases to the publication of this important work.

There are various steps that journals, editors, and peer reviewers can take to avoid engaging in this type of implicit bias. Reviewers should avoid making (and indeed from writing about) assumptions about the authors’ national identity and language. They should strive to recognize that their bias is likely primed when they learn a study was conducted in a non-English speaking context and that the priming leads them to make assumptions about errors in writing mechanics that they would likely not make if they had not been primed in that way. Action editors should carefully read the feedback from reviewers to manage any biased feedback, particularly related to the context in which the research was conducted. We also suggest that journals adopt policies for peer review in which reviewers are discouraged from making comments about their perceptions of the authors’ identities.

Feedback can (and should) be objective and related to the information in the manuscript, not based on extrapolated assumptions.

Double-blind peer review has decreased bias and increased representation in scientific publishing in many ways (Budden et al., 2008; Kern-Goldberger et al., 2022). However, further attention and work are needed to decrease bias, particularly related to the linguistic context and country in which research is conducted (Salager-Meyer, 2008). Journals, editors, and peer reviewers have a duty to recognize and set aside, as much as possible, their implicit identity-based biases regarding the linguistic abilities of authors and focus instead on the purpose of conducting double-blind peer reviews based on the objective quality of the research under review.

References

Budden, A. E., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L. W., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., & Lortie, C. J. (2008). Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 4-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008

Gibbons, J. L. (2024). Enriching developmental science from the Global South: Contributions from Latin America. American Psychologist, 79(5), 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001367

Harris, M., Macinko, J., Jimenez, G., & Mullachery, P. (2017). Measuring the bias against low-income country research: an Implicit Association Test. Globalization and Health, 13, Article 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0304-y

Kern-Goldberger, A. R., James, R., Berghella, V., & Miller, E. S. (2022). The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 227(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.01.030

Link, A. M. (1998). US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA, 280(3), 246-247. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.246

Man, J. P., Weinkauf, J. G., Tsang, M., & Sin, J. H. D. D. (2004). Why do some countries publish more than others? An international comparison of research funding, English proficiency and publication output in highly ranked general medical journals. European Journal of Epidemiology, 19, 811-817. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ejep.0000036571.00320.b8

Ramírez-Castañeda, V. (2020). Disadvantages in preparing and publishing scientific papers caused by the dominance of the English language in science: The case of Colombian researchers in biological sciences. PloS ONE, 15(9), Article e0238372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238372

Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.03.009

Click here to read the full interview

Message from the Student Chairs

Dear Division 52 Students,

As my term as Student Chair comes to a close, I find myself reflecting on what an incredible journey this year has been. It has been a true honor to serve as your representative and to work alongside such passionate, dedicated, and inspiring students and professionals within our community.

Together, we accomplished so much in 2024. From fostering meaningful collaborations with other international student organizations like EFPSA to enhancing student connections within Division 52 committees, we have taken significant steps to bridge gaps, build networks, and create opportunities for all of you to thrive. I am especially proud of the progress we made in expanding mentorship initiatives, professional development opportunities, and opportunities for international collaboration—ensuring that students feel more at home in the division and encourage more engagement!

This year was about building connections, both with each other and with the broader world of international psychology. None of this would have been possible without the incredible support of our committee members, mentors, and, most importantly, all of you. Your energy, creativity, and commitment to learning and growing inspire me daily.

As I pass the torch to Olivia, the next Student Chair, I am confident that the future of Division 52’s student community is bright. I encourage each of you to continue participating, contributing, and taking full advantage of the resources and networks available to you. Together, we can continue advancing the mission of Division 52 and creating a supportive, inclusive, and impactful space for all students in international psychology.

Thank you for allowing me to serve in this role—it has truly been a privilege. I look forward to continuing to engage with this vibrant community in new ways and witnessing all that you will achieve as past chair.

Warm regards,
Neha Srinivas

Neha Srinivas, Division 52 Past Student Chair
nehasrinivas16@gmail.com

Hello All!

My name is Olivia Mounet (she/her), and I am excited to be the incoming student chair for Division 52. I am a 5^th year Clinical Psychology Doctoral Candidate at Fielding Graduate University where I completed a concentration in neuropsychology as well as social justice and diversity. My research interests include misdiagnoses among marginalized groups and neurodevelopmental assessment in youth. My goals for the year include:

1. Ensure student voices are heard at all levels of the division.
2. Facilitate the dissemination of information so that students are well-informed on division projects and objectives and are given opportunities to provide feedback and guidance.
3. Foster a relationship between the students and senior board members that is based on transparency, teamwork, and meaningful collaboration.
4. Most importantly, I hope to be a voice and advocate for you all and ensure that student input and perspective is at the forefront of discussion within Division 52.

Warm Regards,

Olivia Mounet, Division 52 Student Chair 
omounet@fielding.edu

Acknowledging Our Outgoing and Incoming Early Career Representatives to the Division 52 Board

Division 52 expresses its deep appreciation to our outgoing Early Career Representative to the Board, Rawan Atari-Khan, PhD. During Dr. Atari-Khan’s tenure, the ECP Trio and Student Trio collaborated to update and streamline these representative roles. As of January 2025, Division 52 will discontinue the trio structure in favor of a single, elected ECP Representative who will serve a three-year term, mirroring the other Member-at-Large positions. The Student Representative will now serve a two-year term, with both positions set to enter another election cycle in 2027. These changes also include an increase in the travel stipend for board meetings—from $500 to $750 per occurrence—to help defray expenses for both the annual meeting held during the APA conference in August and the mid-winter board meeting held historically in February.

We are pleased to welcome our incoming ECP Representative to the Board, Erinn C. Cameron, PhD. Dr. Cameron brings considerable experience to this position, having served on the Student Trio (2020–2023) and as Student Editor, Associate Editor, and Editor of the Division 52 Bulletin (IPB) from 2019–2022. She is also a founding member of Division 52’s International Environmental Justice Committee. Dr. Cameron earned her doctorate in clinical psychology at Fielding Graduate University in 2023, focusing on women’s health and neuropsychology, and completed her doctoral residency in Integrated Behavioral Health at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. Currently, she is a Clinical Research Fellow in Global Mental Health at Boston Medical Center and the Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine’s Department of Psychiatry. Prior to her current appointment, Dr. Cameron was an HBNU Fogarty Global Health Fellow in South Africa.

Dr. Cameron’s research explores the impact of water insecurity on the mental health and healthcare engagement of pregnant women and new mothers living with HIV in Cape Town, South Africa. She is also conducting an epidemiological survey in Peru examining climate change effects on maternal morbidity and mortality, birth and breastfeeding outcomes, and the role that mental health plays in these outcomes. Alongside her research, Dr. Cameron resides in Ann Arbor, Michigan, with her family, where she is engaged in private practice as a clinical psychologist focused on women’s mental health, ADHD, and autism. She also teaches undergraduate and graduate Health Psychology at the University of Michigan–Dearborn. Outside of professional activities, Dr. Cameron enjoys cooking, yoga, and traveling.

Opportunities for ECPs to Get Involved

If you would like more information about how you can get involved as an early career professional in Division 52, please reach out to Dr. Cameron: erinncameronphd@gmail.com

International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice and Consultation

Ines Meyer, School of Management Studies, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Mendiola (Joy)Teng-Calleja, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines

Current Issue:

Volume 13, Issue 4: 2024: https://econtent.hogrefe.com/toc/ipp/13/4?ai=2cq8&ui=76v8&af

IPP Featured Articles

The International Perspectives in Psychology Journal is excited to share this month’s featured articles with all of you!

Cultural Encounters: Examining Acculturation and Intercultural Contact between Africans and Chinese in Hong Kong

Raymond Agyenim Boateng*, Vivian Miu Chi Lun, and David Lackland Sam

*raagyen@cpce-polyu.edu.hk

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between acculturation orientations, positive and negative contact experiences, and perception of threat among Africans (N = 215) and Hong Kong Chinese (N = 467). Path analysis revealed that while African minorities who integrate into the local culture experience positive interactions, those who separate or assimilate often face negative experiences. For the Hong Kong Chinese majorities, exclusion was related to negative contact and perceived threat. Assimilation was related to perceived threat. Individualism was related to positive contact and negatively related to perceived threat. The results reveal asymmetrical acculturation preferences and distinct intergroup contact experiences among Africans and Hong Kong Chinese. Moreover, the findings underscore how varying acculturation strategies influence interactions between minorities and majorities. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings within the sociocultural context of Hong Kong are discussed.

Implication for Impact:

This study highlights how different cultural adaptation strategies affect interactions between minorities and majorities. It found that while minorities who integrate into the local culture experience positive interactions, those who separate or assimilate often face negative experiences. For majority groups, exclusion and assimilation can induce feelings of threat. These findings are crucial for fostering understanding and cooperation among diverse communities, aligning with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in reducing inequalities by encouraging collaboration between different cultural groups and fostering inclusive societies.

---

Contributed by:

Raymond Agyenim Boateng is a lecturer at the College of Professional and Continuing Education at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research centers on intergroup relations, prejudice, and cultural integration in diverse societies. Raymond is committed to advancing psychological theories and practices while actively addressing pressing social issues.

Call for IPP Editor

The International Perspective in Psychology Journal is looking for a new editor! The term will begin in January 2026. The deadline for applications is May 31, 2025. Visit here to know more about the call.

Society for Global Psychology 2025 Awards

It’s nomination time!! Apply or nominate someone to our Society awards. Visit https://div52.net/awards/ to learn more about the requirements and deadlines.

Eastern Psychological Association Annual Meeting

On March 6-8, 2025, the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association in New York City will again include over 30 international presentations.  Thanks to Program Chair Jennifer Thompson, all five EPA international symposia are scheduled for one day—Saturday, March 8–in the Broadhurst Room of the majestic NYC Marriott Marquis Hotel. These include over 20 speakers from the Psychology Coalition at the United Nations (PCUN) and other international groups.  The complete EPA program is now available online: www.easternpsychological.org/

Conference of the Interamerican Psychological Society

Click here to see the read the call in spanish 

Click here to see the read the call in english

Wisdom

Robert F. Morgan

“The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.”

Socrates knew it was a very different story if everybody else was also aware that you know nothing. This spectator wisdom is most essential in today’s politics. Some cultures know.

American Indian psychologist Arthur McDonald: “We believe that wisdom only comes with age. Wisdom is not likely before 60. When somebody who has not yet lived past their 20s says something that sounds like wisdom, we consider it coincidence.”

Art, we’re in our 80s now. Did I miss it?

Looking back on my time with the International Psychology Bulletin (IPB), I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve on the editorial team since 2019.  It has been a privilege to help shape a publication that brings together the knowledge and diverse perspectives of our global and multicultural membership.  Over the past 5 years, I truly enjoyed receiving and reviewing submissions that highlight the impactful work of our contextually-minded scholars, practitioners, and advocates.

I am excited to welcome Gabriel L. Medianero Araúz and Juan Antonio Valdivia Vázquez as the new Editors of IPB. Their leadership comes at a pivotal time as we transition to our new identity as the Society for Global Psychology. With their expertise and vision, IPB is well-positioned to continue connecting voices across cultures, disciplines, and career stages of psychology, fostering collaboration and insight within our global membership. Please join me in welcoming our dynamic duo as they lead IPB into this exciting new chapter!

Warmly,
Joyce Yip Green
Outgoing Editor, International Psychology Bulletin

Dear Colleagues,

With great enthusiasm and a deep sense of responsibility, we address you as the new editors of the International Psychology Bulletin of the Society for Global Psychology. It is an honor for us, as bilingual Latin American professionals and native Spanish speakers, to take on this role in a Division that increasingly values cultural diversity and global dialogue, allowing professionals from diverse backgrounds to assume leadership positions in psychology.

This period of change is particularly significant, not only because we are beginning a new cycle as editors, but also because the name of our division has changed from International Psychology to Society for Global Psychology, reflecting the scope of our mission and a more inclusive, integrative, and globally connected approach. Additionally, the establishment of our Division as a Society implies a joint and collaborative effort toward a shared goal, promoting cooperation, exchange, and learning. In this way, we move closer each day to fostering greater global awareness, inclusion, and respect through the tools our profession provides.

As editors, we hope to offer a renewed and unique perspective. Coming from different countries and stages of professional development, we aim to foster cultural and linguistic enrichment as well as diverse participation, bringing innovation while maintaining the excellence and quality that define this bulletin. We are committed to promoting contributions that encourage the exchange of ideas and experiences that allow us to transform our perspectives on a variety of topics that impact us commonly. Our goal is for this bulletin to be a space that inspires students, researchers, and professionals from all regions to actively engage in building a truly global psychology.

It is important to mention that, while we are assuming this new editorial role, Dr. Joyce Yip Green remains an active part of this issue, as her leadership continues to guide our work. As this is her final issue as editor, we want to express our deepest gratitude for her dedication, which has been instrumental in the growth and consolidation of this bulletin. Her work has left a lasting legacy that we hope to continue and expand.

With the spirit of collaboration and the values that unite us as a community, we sincerely thank you for your continued support and participation. We look forward to your contributions, as each member´s voice and stories are essential, and we are here to amplify them.

Best,

Gabriel L. Medianero Araúz & Juan Antonio Valdivia Vázquez
Editors, International Psychology Bulletin

Please email questions, comments, or suggestions to ipbdiv52@gmail.com. The deadline for submissions for the Spring Issue is  May 1st, 2025.  The link to the submission guidelines can be found here.