Talk:Industrial and organizational psychology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Moved

I moved the following section here because it does not really belong in an encyclopedic entry on I/O psychology. Although it may be of interest to some parties, it neither contributes nor describes here in any useful way. If this were included, we might as well copy the US News and World Report or Princeton Review entries for every program in every field of study and paste them into their respective Wikipedia articles. If you believe that this belongs in the I/O article, please post your opinion here for discussion instead moving it back. richdiesal 06:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "top three programs" section because it is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. While it is true that the three programs are influential, SIOP itself has taken no official position in ranking schools. Though rankings have been published by SIOP publications, they are always tied to a particular study, and not considered official. Furthermore, the studies have not considered international programs in the Europe and beyond. Many of which have extremely strong programs that not considered in these studies.66.27.119.28 05:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Graduate Programs

In July 2004, the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (a leading U.S. organization of I/O professionals) conducted a survey on I/O graduate programs.[1] According to students in the programs, the following programs were rated favorably (NOTE: Some programs had NO student responses to this particular survey and therefore do NOT appear on this list despite the fact that many of the students are VERY SATISFIED and think very highly of their particular programs. However, the programs listed are VERY GOOD):

• Doctorate programs
  1. George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
  2. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario
  3. Florida Institute of Technology
  4. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
  5. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
  6. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois
  7. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, New York
  8. University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
  9. University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, Maryland
  10. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

• Master's programs
  1. Minnesota State University
  2. University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma
  3. Carlos Albizu University
  4. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
  5. Elmhurst College, Elmhurst, Illinois, Elmhurst
  6. University of Nebraska, Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska
  7. Xavier University
  8. East Carolina University
  9. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, New York
  10. Florida Institute of Technology

The following programs were rated favorably based on program resources:

• Doctorate programs
  1. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois
  2. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio
  3. University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
  4. Rice University, Houston, Texas
  5. University of Maryland
  6. University of Minnesota
  7. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
  8. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
  9. University of Akron, Akron, Ohio
  10. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

• Master's programs
  1. East Carolina University
  2. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
  3. Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina
  4. Xavier University
  5. Minnesota State University
  6. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Indiana
  7. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee
  8. University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma
  9. Radford University, Radford, Virginia
  10. Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri

For more information about graduate programs:

• Graduate Training Programs (Including Program Rankings) - SIOP, United States
• Top Graduate School Programs - U.S. News & Word Report Rankings, United States

I don't feel any information on graduate programs that involves 1) program ratings, 2) dated materials, and 3) subjective assessments has any place in an encyclopedic article. Providing a link to SIOP's graduate school resources is fine, but including summary results from any of the studies included there (this one or the others) is inappropriate. -- Yakaji 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)(NOTE: As with any field (e.g., Law or Medical School) there is a respected ranking of programs within the field. Despite subjectivity concerns, some programs do simply prepare students for work in I/O psychology better than others.)

I have moved these comments about F.W.Taylor as they are factually inaccurate (he was certainly NOT the founding father of I/O psychology).

For a thorough, well researched, analyzed, comparative, documented history review of American Industrial and Organizational Psychology (also known as Scientific Management) and a Biography of its great American Founding Father, an Engineer in Scientific Management, you may refer to the seven books compiled into two volumes titled Frederick W. Taylor: Father of Scientific Management authored by Frank Barkley Copley, reprint of Economic Classics, New York 1969; first edition 1923 by Harper and Brothers Publishers. It can also be found at The Library of Congress Card Catalogue Number 68-55515. And at the San Francisco Public Library, SF, CA, USA, Card Catalogue B, T2132c, copyright 1969. With this books one can abhor the idea of having to write the history already written, and as Frederick Taylor's strategic thinking would perhaps say if he was alive today, progress can be made by first researching the existing work, analyzing it, comparing it and if need be adding to it. A caveat would definitely be that the adding ought to be upward not downward as to strip it down. As it is pointed out on the first volume progress has always been made by adding to the already existing intellect. Our profession may greatly benefit by taking many of the overarching business acumen array of principles Frederick Taylor based on his hands-on work in which he would take a concept or scheme or proven paradigm and extrapolate its application to another situation, company, project or field and follow the general parameters of the original as much as plausible, making the necessary adjustments to fit it to the new project, company or career. Furthermore, this advent of Scientific Management set itself as a science apart from other forms of science by first without any abashment, even on the face of resistence to his new methods, applying the methods and then taking them to the stage of proving them as a proven principle or practice that works.

Contrary to other sciences, the author of his biography appealed to the fact that the scientific method used to establish a theory or prove a thesis was not used by Frederick Taylor. Frederick Taylor felt that he would rather set a maaagement practice in motion, analyze its results, and if it produced higher wages, lower labor cost and a higher profit, then and only then would he present it a scientific principle which more often than not was widely adopted with enormous longivity within the organizational core practices. Therefore, he did not enjoy the luxury of the safety alloted by the scientific method in a lab to contain side-effects of his practice. It was all hands-on work. Thus, the enormous resistence his new methods usually encountered which I naturally would say ought to be the the reaction of any savvy, critical, cautious business owner or corporate governing body in lieu of the potentially costly effect a practice whose statistical validity and reliability has not been proven that it's positive or negative correlation or cause-effect relationship are probably due to chance only 0.05 or less on the index of statistical significance. Said differently that the presence of any correlation or cause-effect relationships are probably not due merely to chance 95% or better yet 99% of the time; thus making it statistically significant. In spite of not having the advantage of access and the resources to, during his days (1856-1915), use these statistical research, design and analysis tests, which are part of the rational scientific method since the last several decaded, Frederick Taylor's efforts and results towards advancing effectiveness and efficiency are admirable.

The guiding method(s) he used and fine-tuned over time is objectively, clearly and comprehensively described by the author of his biography in volume one.

The above history reference three parragraphs contribution is made by Rom A. Day, B.A. 1994. Listed on 2001-2002 International WHO'S WHO Historical Society: Professional Management Division; Inducted Life Member, The National Honor Society in Psychology (PSI CHI), CSU' SFSU Chapter Since 1992. Certified Life Member, Society of San Francisco State University Golden Key National Honor Society. Industrial and Organizational Psychology with Consulting Services Marketing and Personnel Management, CSU' SFSU, SF, CA, U.S.A.

Tidy me up

I've just read this article and it seems in need of a really good tidy up. It's almost like an introduction of a psychology book copied and pasted. Not to say the content isn't good i just think it needs making more encyclopedic.

The overview also comes across as a book review rather than an overview of occupational psychology.

Personality test despite lacking sources seems a good example of an article in this area which isn't overly complicated for the non-expert reader (whom Wikipedia is aimed at) as well as succint and covering major points.

Also this doesn't seem like the right place for a load of lists such as 'Key works in industrial and organizational psychology', 'Key journals in industrial and organizational psychology', 'Organizations' and the 'see also' is manic!

Maybe some sections on basic theory, history, assessing, development, training. I'll have a look at the article myself but i'm not really sure where to start not being an expert so if anyone fancies hacking it up into something more readible then it might encourage more people to then start making the article better. Your thoughts?! extraordinary 13:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I/O psychology page

There is no mention of Lillian Gilbreth, who, although known better as an engineer, earned the first doctorate in Industrial Psychology (Brown, 1915) and published the first book (The psychology of management, 1914) in Industrial Psychology. Her book was the publication of her first dissertation, which she wrote for the University of California at Berkeley and which they rejected because she had not met the residency requirement. KPost 13:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reality check

I am not very familiar with industrial and organizational psychology, so I came to this article to learn more. I stopped reading when I noticed how terrible this article is (or has become). I will highlight a few of the most glaring problems for editors more acquainted with the subject matter to fix:

• Hideously long lists instead of concise explication
• Compulsively written out words and poor grammar: e.g., "Frederick W. Taylor’ Contributions to Personnel Management and The United States of America (U.S.A) Government"
• Overreliance on the theories of one expert: Frederick W. Taylor

I cannot describe to my fellow Wikipedians here how revolting just looking at this article is as it currently stands.

Fix it! --NeantHumain 22:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Article rewrite

I absolutely agree with some of the previous comments. This article is akin to a bad first year undergraduate essay: full of organizational problems. But more incredibly, the writing goes from ungrammatical to terrible. DT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.16.101 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This article begins well but then becomes one of the most poorly-written articles I've seen in Wikipedia. Morality without intellect leads to Puritanism? Where did this come from, and why is it in this article? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, free of opinion and based on facts. On top of this, there are countless instances of poor sentence structure. Having a Masters doesn't mean you can write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.61.28.86 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've placed this article in the Intensive Care Unit. As next week is my finals week, I don't have time to work on it right now, but big changes are definitely needed per the numerous complaints on this talk page. ⟳ausa کui ^× 18:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bunch of cleaning, enough that someone removed the ICU tag on the article page, so I've removed the tag here on the talk page. It still definitely needs some work, but I think that it is at least readable right now, having deleted that gibberish essay!Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Could the corporate institutionalization of these principles,theories, and studies, of this largely unproven psychological field in the hiring process a potential violation...

Could the corporate institutionalization of these principles,theories, and studies, of this largely unproven and extremely unstable and controversial field of psychology in the hiring process be a potential violation of equal employment oppurtunity laws in the U.S.? I raise this question because in my understanding that a job oppurtunity is not fair and equal if it is not likely that a candidite can reasonably know the standards that he or she is being assessed for and work to raise their qualifications to meet those standards. In this case the standards are defined by a methodology designed for profit and based upon study results interpreted by the unstable and controversial science of psychology. I wonder what would happen if people were asked to submit to the classic IQ testing during job application. IQ tests have been thought to be culturally biased for a long time, and under such scrutiny it is reasonable to imagine that implementing them in employment application strategies could result in civil rights lawsuits. Rhetorically, I wonder if these psychological tests in employment hiring practice could be used to identify potentially religious people due to their emphisis on integrity.

                                                      -Mr.Carr(aikid67@yahoo.com)

There are literally years of work that go into any practicing I/O Psychologist in learning how to identify and mitigate adverse impact towards any protected class for selection processes. Your understanding of the law is inaccurate. Candidates don't have to know how they are evaluated, they just have to know that the selection method used is fair and equitable across all protected classes. 70.160.123.158 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Carr's comment is misleading. I/O psychology is not an "unproven and unstable," if those terms can even be applied to the field. Beyond that, the remained of the comments show little understanding of how the principles of psychology are applied in work settings, or the relevance of employment law to those applications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.139.71 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

I think this was a really bad article filled with too much information and details. I've just deleted about 1/3 of it, if anyone thinks that the any of the deletions should stay in then we could argue about it here. I dont think its anywhere near finished though, a lot of clean-up work is left.

-- 26/3/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.157.103 (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks from the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) have been informed of the issues with the article and are working on a comprehensive cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.77.7 (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009 Article Overhaul

As of March 2009, I have started a total overhaul of this article.

I started by moving a lot of the extraneous information out of the introduction/definition. Next I cleaned up the overview to provide a more general overview of I/O psychology, including an overview of the broad range of topics I/O psychologists work on. These topic lists were compiled from the presentation topics at the most recent meetings of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

History: I moved a bunch of the information in the overview into the history section, and tried to provide a basic overview of the research bases of both the "I" and "O" side.

Methods: I tried to provide an overview of the quantitative and qualitative methods used by I/O psychologists. The qualitative side probably needs some improvements.

Topics: Each topic in the overview is defined more specifically in the Topics section, including a definition of the topic and the I/O psychologist's typical role in working on the topic. There are many topics that still need to be addressed, but I suggest folks follow this format.

The Practitioners section still needs significant revision.

Please consider the general comments below out of date. Some specific comments may be relevant.

I started working on the cleanup. The entry needed a great deal of editing. I have edited no more than a couple of paragraphs each day I engaged with I/O psychology, sometimes reorganizing the paragraphs to make them more logical, and more readable.Iss246 (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I proceeded to clean up the sections from the beginning up until the section on graduate programs, which I would want someone else to do. I removed the clean-up banner on top but left the banner that was placed by the graduate programs section. Work needs to be done on the graduate programs section. I added some citations but others need to pitch in, and add citations (e.g., the Hunter and Schmidt publications). Others need to pitch in and help with the section on graduate programs.Iss246 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I continued my efforts to clean up the I/O entry. I added several citations today, including the Hunter-Schmidt citations mentioned above. I also cleaned up the section on graduate programs. In that section, I included a link to a SIOP web site that conveniently enumerates I/O graduate programs around the world.Iss246 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Difference between Organizational psychology & Organizational behaviour

Currently, I'm studying Business Administration and I have a strong interest in psychology. Could anybody describe the difference between organizational psychology and organizational behaviour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.209.72 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Teams

There was a huge amount of WP:UNDUE added on teams. I deleted it to keep it consistent with the goal of the section, which is to briefly present areas of I/O research. However, it appeared to have good detail and references. I recommend creating an article on the topic if there already isn't one. It deserves its own article. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the rest of the article, I think we need that for other topics too. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Key Journals list deleted

I deleted the list of Key Journals as we don't usually carry lists like this. Prompted by a Blackwell's IP adding a Wiley-Blackwell publication.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Industrial and organizational psychology page

I would like to edit the history section including additions to more recent history and a more in depth overview of the development of I-O Psych. I also would like to edit the topic Training. These edits are part of Senior Psychology Lab assignment at Clemson University. user: lmthoma

I made edits to the history section, research methods, training and training evaluation, and job outlook. In the history section, I elaborated on the information provided by discussing more of the early development and adding to the World War history and its contributions to the field. In the research methods sections, I just added a a brief example to help explain in a simpler way what the methods are. In training and evaluation, I added much information discussing the foundation and process of developing such programs. In the Job outlook, I erased old information and updated current statistics about jobs in the field of I-O psychology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmthoma (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to make a small, but informative contribution to this page. I noticed that the job description laid out in this article was exemplary but salaries of this profession were left out. I have accumulated some useful information from a credible website which details information about typical salaries for I-O psychologists vary considerably depending upon such factors as the type of degree held and type of employer according to the Society for Industrial (SIOP) and Organizational Psychology. The information that i am requesting to implement into your article is in my sand box and the link is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trinirebel/sandbox_Assign Trinirebel (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)trinirebelTrinirebel (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I/O Psychology Class Edit

I would like to make an edit to section 6.1 Graduate Programs

It is for my I/O Psychology class. This is the text I would like to add:

Schultz and Schultz states that modern I/O Psychology is a complex and intricate position. It requires intense university training, and hands on experience. Individuals who choose I/O psychology as a profession should also be aware that they will be constantly studying to learn about new developments that may emerge. The minimum requirement for working as an I/O psychologist is a Master's Degree. Normally, this degree requires 42 semester hours and takes about 2-3 years to complete. Most Master's Degree students work, either full time or part time, while studying to become an I/O psychologist. Of all the degrees granted in I/O psychology, each year approximately two thirds are at the master's level.

You may take a look at my sandbox, if you wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aisha_Hamid/sandbox

Thanks! (Aisha Hamid (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC))

Psychology Capstone Course Project - Industrial/Organizational Consulting

Hi all, I am adding a few new sections about I/O consulting to this page. Specifically, it is an overview of what an I/O consultant does, skills needed for an I/O consultant, and future trends for I/O consulting. It is a work in progress, and you can find my work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kyiphyunyein/sandbox#Stages_of_I.2FO_consulting. I'd appreciate any suggestions you may have. Thanks in advance! --Kyiphyunyein (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca's Review

Fot the section titles "What is an I/o consultant..." I think you could change the writing to make it a bit more concise, it feels a bit more like reading an essay than an encyclopedia, so I don;t think your definition, for example. needs to be 3 sentences. Also, I think you could break this up into subsections by type of consultant, which would be easier to read, and you could actually add more information about types of consulting without adding to a huge block of text.

For the "Competencies..." paragraph, it reads again more as an essay or personal opinion rather than straight fact, and you only have one citation. I would switch this so it it some citable facts and less of the analysis of those facts to fit with the wikipedia style.

For the last paragraph, I would also break this up into subsections of the 5 stages of consulting, which I think would be much easier and more concise to read. Also there are no citations in this paragraph, which need to be added to bac up what you are saying. I think wikipedia likes you to cite almost every sentence if you can, which is different than an APA paper. But those need to be added.

Overall, I think your information is good, i think it could be made a bit more to the point and broken up into smaller, easy to skim sections. You could add some of the inter-wiki blue links, and cite more, but overall I think the article is good. Rebeccaworrell (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Rebecca's Review

Thank you very much, Rebecca, for your insightful feedback and quick response. I agree with you that I need to break my writings into different subsections so that it is easier to read. I also added two more sections; sorry for the delay.

One thing I want to stress is that none of my writing is my personal opinion. I rather paraphrased or integrated from various sources that I cited in the reference section. For example, there is only one citation in the "Competencies of I/O consultants" section, but the entire section is based on that cited source. Just to be clear, do you want me to cite every single sentence in that section?

Another thing is that most consulting advice and guides are based on subjective experiences of consultants. There is no right or wrong ways in the consulting as long as it is ethical and reasonable for both the consultant and the client. So, I am not sure if I can call these information as "facts". Something to think about, but thank you very much, Rebecca! --Kyiphyunyein (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I/O Psychology Class Edit

I would really appreciate it if you would allow me to add an edit to this page. It is for a class I am taking titiled Industrial Organziational Psycholgy. I would like to add the following text to section Training and Training Evaluation:

Therefore with any training program it is key to establish specify training objectives. Schultz & Schultz states that need assessment is an analysis of corporate and individual goals undertaken before designing a training program. Examples of need assessment are based on organizational, task, and work analysis is conducted using job analysis critical incidents, performance appraisal, and self assessment techniques.

But with any training their are always challenges that one faces. Challenges which I-O psychologists face :

• To identify the abilities required to perform increasingly complex jobs
• To provide job opportunities for unskilled workers.
• To assist supervisors in the management of an ethnically diverse workforce.
• To retain workers displaced by changing economic, technological, and political forces.
• To help organizations remain competitive in the international marketplace
• To conduct the necessary research to determine the effectiveness of training programs.

Thank you! Hmehta0120 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I/O psy edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I am a student currently enrolled in an Industrial and Organizational Psychology course at CUNY York College and our assignment within the course involves us editing wikipedia articles relating to I/O Psychology. Here is a link to a sandbox subpage where information of of the edit can be viewed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xyzbb1253/sandbox/article1

Tell me what you think about it. I greatly appreciate feedback.

Respectfully,

Xyzbb1253 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Class Project: New Sections on I/O Consulting

Hi all,

For my class project, I added five new sections about I/O consulting (definition of I/O consultant, competencies, stages of I/O consulting, ethics, and future trend). And, here is a link to my sandbox if you want to specifically look at the five sections I added: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kyiphyunyein/sandbox

All comments, feedback, and editions are most welcomed and appreciated! --Kyiphyunyein (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is occupational health psych (OHP) a separate discipline?

What is the relationship of occupational health psychology and I/O or Work psychology?

Is occupational stress a field of I/O psychology?

Looking for a broad range of editor's opinions please? Much needed open discussion encouraged and started hereMrm7171 (talk) 04:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

OHP

If OHP is actually separate discipline, it does not need such a long description here that reads like an intro to the OHP article. Agreed?Iulus Ascanius (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Iulus Ascanius, you are right. I am going to edit the section down.Iss246 (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Why include a separate section on 'relationship to occupational health psychology' in the contents? It offers no value? Other opinions please?Mrm7171 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Is a very contentious field already. I propose this is deleted from the I/O article. It is just sitting there, completely out of place. Or alternatively adding a similar contents section titled "relationship to I/O psychology" in the occupational health psaychology article? One of two options. My opinion is to delete after a few days unless anyone objects to this poropposition? Thanks. look forward to comment.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I object to deleting this brief entry. I explain why. The OHP entry has, for a number of years, mentioned its relation to I/O psychology right in the first sentence. The first sentence of the OHP entry reads, "occupational health psychology (OHP) emerged out of two distinct applied disciplines within psychology, health psychology and industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology, as well as occupational health" It is therefore worthwhile to include a brief mention here of OHP's relation to I/O psychology. There are parallel brief mentions of OHP in the health psychology entry and the occupational safety and health entry (Everly used the term "occupational health," which is why that term is used but the link takes the reader to the entry devoted to occupational safety and health).

As one can read above, I acknowledged the rightness of Iulus Ascanius's recommendation that the mention of OHP be brief. I shortened the original mention in response. I stress that Mrm7171's comment that the mention be discarded is shortsighted. Mrm7171 needs to understand that one of the benefits of Wikipedia in comparison to old-style encyclopedias is that Wikipedia entries are larded with links in order to help readers easily move back and forth among entries that have some relation to each other. That is part of the beauty of Wikipedia.

Mrm7171 has been on a campaign to obliterate OHP from the face of Wikipedia. S/he has gone to many different entries that mention OHP in an endeavor to remove mentions of the subject matter. I fail to understand the single-mindedness of the ill will. Many of us who have contributed to Wikipedia have contributed to a variety of Wikipedia entries in order to help with editing and removing vandalism. I think it would be more constructive if Mrm7171 would concentrate on helping with, say, the removal of vandalism than directing so much energy toward attempting to blot out one subject area. That is the sum of what Mrm7171 has done since joining to Wikipedia.Iss246 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned engaging in constructive tasks for Wikipedia. Here is a constructive task for Mrm7171 to do. As of June 1, 2013, there is no Wikipedia entry for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), the professional organization for I/O psychologists in the U.S. It is an important organization around which U.S. and many non-U.S. I/O psychologists coalesce. Why not devote the energy to constructing a Wikipedia entry for SIOP? Doing that would be more constructive than tearing down OHP.Iss246 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No, Iss246, once again, instead of 'bad mouthing' me, and misrepresenting myself and many other editors I have noticed, please stick to the points I have made and questions asked. I am also not out to obliterate ohp, that is, ridiculous. My personal opinion is that OHP is a subfield of I/O psych and a lot of people agree with my opinion. But i will leave it to others? In fact, Occ health psychology is a very much growing area of I/O psych. The fact is, occupational stress for instance and organizational stress management, has always been an area of i/o psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Iss246 you seem bent on trying to separate occupational stress, health and wellbeing away from i/o psych for some unknown reason? Why?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Again, my personal opinion only, is that there is a great deal of unneccessary overap and duplication going on here. By trying to define occ health psych as a separate field it is not doing psychology any favours. Again, this is only my personal view. I am very keen for discussion on this matter. Comments from editors please?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So.... can i go ahead and add a section in the contents page of the occ health psych article, "relationship to I/O psychology" I think it is necessary. If ISS246, you have any reason why not, please describe your reasoning. I will not add it until i hear from any objections and the reasoning behind any objection please. My view is that it would be good for readers to be redirected to the I/O article and then 'make their own minds up' please about the relationship between occupational stress and occupational safety and its relationship to the broad field of I/O psych and its subfield of occ health psych. And despite you trying to tarnish my edits, again, please refrtain from disparaging remarks. I am posting in good faith here. I look forward to your response, and possible adding a needed section on the occ health psych page.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is already a link to i/o psychology in the first sentence of the OHP encyclopedia entry. Your adding to the OHP entry would not be necessary.

I wrote the following elsewhere but it bears repeating. A comment on OHP from a distinguished academic colleague. He said it very well. I quote this colleague who is a leader in I/O psychology and a professor at a leading I/O program. He wrote that "there are lots of people in [OHP] who are not from I/O backgrounds, and many of the papers in OHP journals are not by people in I/O, and often they aren't even psychologists [e.g., epidemiologists, medical doctors, sociologists]. To be an I/O psychologist, you have to be an I/O psychologist, or retool to get I/O expertise, which means you become an I/O. To be an OH psychologist, you can be almost any kind of psychologist. You don't have to be an I/O at all." Because people doing work in OHP come from many areas of psychology outside of I/O, myself included, I believe it is important to leave the sidebar in tact. OHP is not a subfield of I/O psychology.

Hi iss246, thank you for your opinions and comments relating to my suggestion and intent. With all due respect though, I totally disagree, and I will explain why. I believe readers of Wikipedia definitely need a reference to I/O Psychology, placed as a separate section in the contents page of the occ health entry. Readers of Wikipedia can then be re-directied back to the I/O psychology article from the occ health entry. I do not believe a sentence you wrote iss246:.... "Occupational health psychology (OHP) emerged out of two distinct applied disciplines within psychology, health psychology and industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology, as well as occupational health [1] does this job of explaining, in brief, (and then more detail if the reader desires to click through), the relationship I/O has to occupational health and safety and indeed occupational stress.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that I/O psychology has a huge stake in the growing field of occupational health and the full range of skills and training a professional I/O psychologist brings to this important area is immense, and valuable to both organisations and individuals in their working life. So, rather than discuss the psychology of occupational health, in isolation, and on a separate Wikipedia article only, readers in my opinion deserve to read what I/O is about and its true relationship to occupational health. This is also the nature of this great community shared resource called Wikipedia. I have thought a lot about this and from the 'readers perspective,' and readers gaining something from Wikipedia on these important topics. If not, it gives readers an inaccurate and improper idea and knowledge base of the psychology of occ health, and does an injustice the broader field of I/O psych, both science and practice.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So, (and please excuse my repetition here), I believe that there needs to be a similarly brief section explaining this iimportant relationship and a similar section which stands out in the contents section placed, so that readers can clearly identify it and be re-directed accordingly to the I/O article. So, if there is no further discussion here, or objection from others based on solid reasoning to the contrary, I will go ahead with that entry in the near future. Please discuss on this page further my current comments.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact is, the psychological aspects of occupational health and indeed safety at work, are also very much domains of I/O psychology and form the basis of the excellent work of many professional I/O psychologists, and increasingly so. Trying to argue against these facts is questionable at best, and goes against international understanding and consensus on these fundamental points. Further, occupational or work stress has 'always' been a large domain within I/O psychology as well as some other professions to a lesser degree. And occupational health psychology is largely concerned with occupational stress. Pleaae add comments to these statements on this talk page.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I question your goal for the OHP entry. Your view that OHP is a subdiscipline of i/o questionable. Yes, OHP has a debt of i/o, health psychology, and occupational health. That is said in the first sentence of the OHP entry. Note that OHP research is conducted by psychologists from a variety of disciplines. Again, I quote my colleague, a leader in I/O psychology and a professor at a leading I/O program. He wrote that "there are lots of people in OHP who are not from I/O backgrounds, and many of the papers in OHP journals are not by people in I/O, and often they aren't even psychologists [e.g., epidemiologists, medical doctors, sociologists]. To be an I/O psychologist, you have to be an I/O psychologist, or retool to get I/O expertise, which means you become an I/O. To be an OH psychologist, you can be almost any kind of psychologist. You don't have to be an I/O at all."

Mrm7171, you have done nothing on Wikipedia except to campaign against OHP. Wikipedia is a vast encyclopedia that benefits from the help of editors. You present yourself as a person who has assigned himself/herself the disinterested task of removing redundancy, yet you have done nothing about redundancy in other Wikipedia entries. Your single-minded engagement in Wikipedia is to take down OHP.Iss246 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

After re-reading this paragraph iss246 and after just adding my most recent comments below, I feel I must respond to your attacks of bad faith. Despite me gradually learning how Wikipedia works, I am now enjoying the experience and taking time from my own day/evening as other editors do, to try and make Wikipidia even better. Please be civil toward me as I am being toward you and other community members. Please also try not to destroy my positive experience on Wikipedia by ignoring my valid questions, suggestions and opinions raised. I am attempting to make the entry on occupational health psych and I/O psych better, not worse. They are very much related as I have discussed. So, please just read my comments and suggestions and let's now work in cooperation here instead.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be constructive to add an entry representing SIOP. In fact, I asked you to do it because of your interest in i/o psychology and because I thought it would be a positive.Iss246 (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC). Please feel free to do this iss246. It sounds like a good idea. However there are other large groups around the world representing I/O psych, not just SIOP. So any future article would need to involve them as well I guess. In my opinion at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, again I ask you please, to refrain from accusing or attacking any editors, including myself, who have attempted to discuss with you much needed refinements, additions and possible deletions to the occupational health psych entry. I also note those editors before me, who have strongly opposed you going against group consensus. My suggestions and comments made in this section I believe at least, are valid, and I spent time writing them in a manner which was not in any way offensive, and clarified my perspective. As I have clearly written above, the psychology of occupational health and safety is an important area within I/O psychology, as is occupational or work stress generally, which has always been a significant field of endeavour for I/O or work psychologists. And I/O psychology as a discipline has a lot to offer organisations and individual workers in this regard. Please re-read my comments above iss246, and respond accordingly. Again, as you did not respond I fear I am now boring any other editors and readers who may happen to be reading this, so I won't repeat what I have said directly above.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering though what you have against I/O psychology? Importantly, you have not replied to my detailed comments above with any reasoning or constructive argument as to why I should not include, a brief section in the occ health entry. If I don't receive this I will go ahead and make this much needed entry.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171, I never denied that a number of i/o psychologists have taken an interest in health and safety. Health and safety is a relatively small part of i/o psychology. The interests of i/o psychologists cover a vast area and include task analysis, performance appraisal, the assessment of job skills and job knowledge, recruitment, selection, the culture of organizations, work performance, motivating the work force. Leadership is an important topic. All of what I mentioned are important subjects. The impact of psychosocial conditions on health has a shared provenance. Yes. Some OHP researchers come from i/o. Researchers in OHP also come from medicine (e.g., Bengt Arnetz, Peter Schnall) and nursing. They come from epidemiology. Robert Karasek, who won an award from the Society for Occupational Health Psychology for his theory and research, is a sociologist by training. Mark Taussig and Rudy Fenwick who also won awards at APA-NIOSH-SOHP meetings also come from sociology. Karasek, Taussig, and Fenwick attend the APA-NIOSH-SOHP meetings. I mention the sociologists to underline a point. Everything about work and health isn't i/o psychology although i/o is a worthy discipline. It's epidemiologists. It's physicians. Steve Sauter and Joe Hurrell, who helped found JOHP and SOHP, were trained in experimental psychology.

I ask you to give OHP space. OHP has professional/scientific organizations in North America (SOHP) and Europe (EA-OHP). It has a worldwide organization in ICOH-WOPS. There are OHP journals. OHP has participants who come from parts of psychology that are not i/o (I identify with OHP while having done doctoral work in developmental psychology and post-doctoral work in epidemiology). Give OHP space. Suspend the campaign against OHP.

Instead, let's cooperate. Today I began a new Wikipedia entry, one devoted to SIOP. I saw that the link to SIOP in the i/o encyclopedia entry was red, which meant that there was no SIOP entry. I started the SIOP entry. I hope other Wikipedians who take an interest in i/o psychology, Wikipedians like yourself, will build on that start and elaborate the SIOP entry. I think a good way to cooperate is to engage in constructive work in other worthwhile parts of Wikipedia, such as the SIOP Wikipedia entry.Iss246 (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Iss246, I have still (after patiently asking you for days now) not seen any solid reasons, not to include, a brief section in occ health psychology linking back to I/O psychology article as I/O psychologists have, as I already discussed in detail above, a huge influence on occ health and occupational or work stress research and practice over decades.

I also see a big difference between what you seem to be referring to as 'OHP' and in complete contrast, the general broad areas of occupational health psychology and occupational stress. They are not the same. This valid point of distinction, should not be confused, and no-one should try and confuse it, and readers should be clearly aware of the difference here.

Firstly, the term 'OHP' has been branded by a group of individuals, mostly with I/O psychology training, and has a couple of societies you keep quoting, these being "the Society for Occupational Health Psychology (SOHP) & the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology (EA-OHP). These groups have rules, regulations, membership dues, an executive, meetings etc etc. Secondly, there is the growing area of occupational health psychology itself, and occupational pr work stress, both of which no-one owns. They are broad areas, or domains, just like occupational health or health and safety are broad areas or domains. Please add comments to this, if any editors disagree and let's discuss it.Mrm7171 (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly think the Wikipedia, occupational health psychology article, definitely needs to reflect this important difference between the two and NOT treat 'OHP' as an invented brand, synonymously with occupational health psychology, as it appears the couple of OHP groups do not own the field of psychology as it relates to occupational health or occupational stress. Similarly, neither does I/O psychology. So, yes, many researchers and practitioners from different fields can, and do, contribute to these broad domains. I have never stated otherwise.

My point is that I/O or work psychology, as a distinct field in psychology, needs to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article titled occupational health psychology. However, if the article was titled 'OHP' or 'society of OHP' or whatever, then no, I/O would not need to be mentioned. So, again please iss246, with all due respect as a fellow Wikipedia editor, comment here specifically on this open point. Otherwise I have a right for the good of Wikipedia, and based on these points above in this entire section here on the talk page, add in good faith, this section in the contents page of the occ health article.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For 3 days now, i having been asking for a dialogue, so someone doesn't just delete my entry once i do it. If needed I will then show these actions i have taken to discuss it with anyone who wishes to and reach a possible consensus.

So I will place it firstly in the contents page and then within the occ health article itself, explaining this significant and important relationship I/O psych has woth occupational health and occupational stress, and an invite similar to "For more detail on I/O psychology, see the section I/O psychology so that readers can clearly identify it and be re-directed accordingly. I will do this today as it seems there are no reasonable objections. If there are please read my full section here oin the talk page and respond the number of points and logical reasoning i have put forwardMrm7171 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Mrm7171's comment of 4 June 2013

Mrm7171 brought up branding. However, before I turn to that subject I want to say that I reject Mrm7171's accusation that I am hostile toward i/o psychology. My work on starting the SIOP encyclopedia entry speaks for itself. Let's turn to the accusation of branding. One could interpret the activities of the individuals involved in incorporating SIOP as being engaged in branding. In 1997, Milton Hakel, a leader in i/o psychology, wrote that "Incorporation as The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology was proposed to provide Division 14 with an independent and secure base, to sharpen our public identity, to increase member identification with our organization" My guess that in Mrm7171's language that would be branding. Any time one wants to put a pejorative slant on the activities of others one does not like, one reduce those activities branding.

Talk about branding is baloney. Just as the work of of i/o psychologists to form SIOP has been worthwhile, the work involved in the development of OHP and the work involved in creating OHP-related institutions (e.g., ICOH-WOPS, EA-OHP, SOHP) represent the hard work of many people who conduct research, teach, form organizations, organize conferences, and so on. That Mrm7171 reduces all of that to branding, as if they are marketing a new color lipstick, is a disservice.Iss246 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Iss246 comments

Again, rather than attack me personally iss246, let's work on how to make this article better. Also forget the issues of branding, please iss246. You have misunderstood my points. I was talking about tyhe term 'OHP' being branded. We should refer to the psychology of occupational health or occupational health psychology as exactly that. Similar to job design or recruitment or occupational health or oh&s or ...However it is irrelevant here and against the principles of Wikipedia by going on about it. It was just a point.

If you wish to work on developing a page for the SIOP, (which is the US society for I/O psych) thats fine. However the point i made elsewhere was, SIOP is only one of the international, albeit the largest, societies/groups, representing the fioeld of work psychology. There are other groups in other countries also. But if you do start an article for SIOP do it for the right reasons. Your comments about starting a SIOP page as 'proof you are not anti I/O psychology are questionable.'Mrm7171 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Also please don't personally accuse me of focussing only on the I/O psychology and occupational health psych articles. I am tiring of you personally attacking me. I am taking time from my own working/personal life to improve Wikipedia and doing it in good faith! I have stated this before and refrained from any attacks on you.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have only recently joined the Wikipedia community. I think it is great. And while it took a bit of time to learn the rules, I believe i am now adding value to the community, in areas I have a fair degree of experience. I would not edit others work in articles/areas I personally know nothing about.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is, no-one, no society, no profession, owns the psychology of occupational health, or occupational stress. Further it is not a separate field to the broad area of work psychgology. It is just a 'domain' of the psychology profession/discipline, involved in the workplace, just as job design, performance management etc etc are. I have no idea why anyone would say it was separate to work psychology? That goes against logic and does the psychology profession an injusticeMrm7171 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact is, you cannot research or just as importantly apply, interventions properly, without a knowledge also of other aspects of work psychology. They are all interrelated. That is, the psychological health of workers relates strongly to stress which relates to job design, which relates to recruitment and so on....The area of psychology most trained/experienced to all of these interrelated issues in the workplace, including occ health and safety is work psychology. I think this is a fact. However please discuss, if anyone disagrees.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My point has simply been, the field of psychology most suited to these workplace issues and the health and wellbeing of humans at work is work psychology. That does not say other interested researchers or professions separate to psychology, cannot contribute to the field of occupational health psychology. Mrm7171 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

However iss246, and on a practical note please, and how we can work together here as i am trying to do, to make these articles better for the community, you continue to avoid a number of clear points i have continued to raise. Please respond as sooin as possible to these points as I am going to attempt to make some much needed edits and trust when i do you don't just delete them. The fact is, to date, you have simply not shown why I should otherwise.

I also think if edits are to be made to 'any' specific Wikipedia article, they should be done by editors with experience and knowledge of the article they are editing? Again, that's just my opinion. Iss246, you have openly admitted your background is in educational/child psychology and epidemiology? Please correct me if wrong. I am not saying you cannot edit or do not have the knowledge to edit. I am encouraging it. But please don't think you can avoid a proper discussion here with me on the valid points raised, and then go ahead and delete any article edits/additions I do make in the near future.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

So moving foward, and keeping things impersonal please, the clear areas I have raised with you in the proper manner, that is through open discussion and consensus are again as follows:

1/ You have not shown where consensus was gained, regarding your inclusion of occupational health psychology in the applied psychology sidebar, between 2008 and the present. My detailed reading of previous editors discussions with you shows consensus against putting occ health psychology in the applied psych sidebar.

2/ You have not addressed the fact that, apart from one program in applied psychology, all other doctorate and masters programs, listed at the bottom of this occupational health psych article, are in fact, subjects/units in the I/O doctorate and masters programs where students receive a qualification in I/O psychology. The article needs to reflect this by giving the title of each program from each univeristy/institution listed.

3/ There needs to be a link in this occ health psych article back to the I/O psychology article, discussing the significant relationship between I/O psychology and occupational health. They are very much related.

Let's work together here iss246 and any other editors, to make these articles more accurate, current and of real value to readers who may not have the knowledge of work psychology and in this article the psychological aspects of occupational health.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Open discussion - occupational health psychology

I never claimed that one field has a monopoly on research on job stress. Not i/o, not epidemiology, not sociology, not OHP. I have responded to your queries with answers about the programs at Portland State, Colorado State, the U of Houston. I showed that OHP is a subject that emerged out of the confluence of other disciplines the way i/o psychology and health psychology have done previously. But that wasn't enough for you.

To paraphrase the words of Wayne Morse when he was attacked by a political rival, I respond that we've talked about me. Now lets' talk about you. You came onto Wikipedia like an ingenue, asking fellow Wikipedians to forgive your artlessness. But you knew exactly what you were doing. You came on strong with a campaign against OHP. You had one goal: to knock down OHP. You haven't done anything else on Wikipedia. You haven't contributed to any other encyclopedia entry except to detract from OHP. You haven't started a new entry. When I asked for help with the SIOP entry, you the big defender of i/o psychology, did nothing. You made some kind of "defensive" comment about SIOP (to bat around a word you like to use). You wrote on the i/o talk page in response to my request for help on the SIOP entry, "However there are other large groups around the world representing I/O psych, not just SIOP. So any future article would need to involve them as well I guess. In my opinion at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)" Why don't you write about those large groups, and give them encyclopedia entries? But doing that would remove you from your campaign against OHP.Iss246 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Iss246, again...can we keep focused on articles here please and focused on editing and improving these articles. Also, I'm not an academic or your political rival. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia. Instead of encouraging new editors (albeit those with a different point of view) you attack me. You are classically deflecting here iss246. I just want to focus on edits and making these I/O psychology and occupational health psychology articles accurate, current, free from any political dogma and of real benefit to readers. There is still a lot of work to be done on these articles instead of jumping to other articles 'ad hoc.' That's my point of view at least.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

All editors are equal. We all need to work 'together' as equals, regardless of how much time one editor decides voluntarily to have contributed to articles. And respect each other's opinions and suggestions and additions. And if we disagree not to just delete them.

And we don't need to tell other editors what articles they should be working on? That's not right either. Or judge, or put down other editor's valid contributions. I think editors also should, if, they want to that is, work on articles in which they have a degree of knbowledge and at 'their own pace.' And above all, work within the guideliness of Wikipedia and the community spirit of consensus.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep referring to 'OHP?' What is OHP? Is OHP different to the psychology of occupational health? What exactly is this 'OHP' you keep referring to? I just pasted your above statement iss246, you said..."I showed that OHP is a subject that emerged out of the confluence of other disciplines the way i/o psychology and health psychology have done previously." With all due respect, this does not make much sense? Very confusing? What are you trying to do to the discipline and profession iss246? Please discuss.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I do though, recognise the important domains/areas of the psychology of occupational health and occupational stress. Again, these are just domains/areas, not disciplines. Not disciplines within psychology that is. And that is what we are discussing here. And they are valid areas to study and then to also 'apply' research findings in the workplace. Let's discuss this, if you disagree, I am genuinely interested in discussion here, not personal attacks, nor discussing me, or you, iss246, or anyone other individual editor on Wikipedia, for that matter.(talk) 01:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I/O has always studied occupational or work stress and its relationship to productivity, health, performance, safety etc etc. Occupational stress has always been a huge part of I/O psychologists and researchers work. Given that we are talking about here. Psychology is an international discipline, an international profession.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) My only point has been I/O psychology has a lot to offer to understanding the psychology of occupational health and improving the performance and productivity of organizations, AND importantly the health, safety and wellbeing of the people within thise organizations.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What about my point of not being able to study the psychology of occupational health and safety or occupational stress without considerations of other I/O areas? like proper recruitment and selection, training and development, job design, performance management... They are all interrelated. They all affect health and wellbeing. You cannot effectively study or apply interventions in one area like occupational stress, without considering other areas. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it.(talk) 01:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Mrm7171 on safety assessments

Mrm7171 wrote today "I/O psychologists are increasingly using psychometric safety assessments to help recruit best suited employees to high risk positions and this is gaining rapid acceptance within industry." This may be true. But the statement requires a source.Iss246 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. Will find the best source to add. I am going to be devoting some time to this article to work with other editors in the community over coming weeks and months. There is still a lot of work to do. I/O psychology is, as you aware Iss246, a very old and very broad field within the psychology profession. So will ensure to add the best sources, as I go. Leave it with me. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You are going to love doing the research work for Wikipedia. It is a great experience.Iss246 (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ketchup Drop

What is going on with this ketchup drop section? (PhilipDSullivan (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Stretching out all of this information

I am working on making Work Motivation a separate Wikipedia page because it takes up a lot of space. If anyone wants to offer suggestions, go to my talk page and I will do my best to edit. Jastha08 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving Work Motivation

I am working on this page for an I/O Class so I am deleting Work Motivation but it can be found here Work Motivation Jastha08 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to edit

I am requesting to make an edit to your page under the "job outlook" section. I will be adding a few of the pros and cons of a career in i-o psychology. The edit can be viewed just as i intend to place it on your page in my sand box and the citation is there also. This is the link to my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trinirebel/sandbox_Assign Trinirebel (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. Would need to reflect international issues though. Work & organizational psychology training is different in different countries.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Occupational stress section

I reworked the occupational stress section. It had a good start, but it needed to focus more on what occupational stress is. To do that I added two sentences at the beginning. The original first sentence I thought was a bit vague, and I don't know that it completely captured what Hart & Cooper were talking about, so I rewrote it. I removed the sentence that claimed stress had always been part of the I/O field, because it has not been. In his book Stress and Job Performance, Jex (1998), notes that stress had not been a major topic in the field until after Beehr and Newman's 1978 Personnel Psychology review. The lag was actually about a decade. I recently did a PsycInfo search on occupational stress to see how much work was done over the years. There were over 2100 total hits, with all but 38 occurring after 1989. Prior to 1970 there were only 3, and by the end of 1979 it was only up to 9. I removed the last sentence about the Yerkes-Dodson Law because it seems to come from nowhere. The third sentence already makes the link between stress and performance, so to repeat it later only to link it to Y-D seems redundant. It also is not clear why Y-D is important. I feel it isn't important enough to integrate into the paragraph, so I just deleted it. Psyc12 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I just checked Jex (1998) to see what he had to say about Y-D. He noted that there has been only one field study test, which was consistent with the law. Sulsky & Smith's (2005, Work Stress) book says results across studies are mixed, but that there have been only weak tests, so we can't draw much conclusion. Psyc12 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with removal of the Y-D law reference, originally included by another editor. However I think there should be an inclusion about the major contribution made to the area of occupational stress made by i/o psychology. Far too many i/o researchers and psychologists to not include. Comments regarding always been a significant area of i/o psychology should be included in the context of when research into occupational stress began and i/o psychology contributing heavily from that point. When are you saying occupational stress research began? I believe research since the 1970s has seen a rapid increase. Not much before that, for any researchers, relatively speaking, so explaining the relatively small number of studies shown. Also what other area of psyuchology contributed more then, from the beginnning if not i/o psychology. Sure other contributors but my source comment in the first line of the article now is accurate and should remain in this i/o Wikipedia article. Relatively, I/O has been a major contributor since the beginning and a statement should be included in the article.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick thanks to other editor psy12's contribution and mutual cooperation on this section. I think it is now a very well sourced, well written entry and valuable encyclopedic addition, of benefit to Wikipedia.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the opening sentence after reviewing the citation by Cooper and Marshall (1976). I don't know the work of co-author Judi Marshall but I admire Cary Cooper. I deleted the sentence because the article is largely based on papers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Psychosomatic Medicine, the Journal of Chronic Disease (which was later renamed the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology), Circulation, Industrial Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, the American Journal of Cardiology, and Social Science & Medicine as well as Meyer Friedman's Pathogenesis of Coronary Artery Disease. These are not i/o publications although the article summarizing the research is. Iss246 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I also note that on page 25 of the article, Cooper and Marshall wrote "If we can get organizations, social scientists and doctors to work together on these sorts of problems (in the field), we may be able to make important contributions." Clearly the authors underline that research on the relation of occupational stress to heart disease, other physical disorders, and mental disorders is cross-disciplinary, and not the sole purview of i/o psychology. In fact, Psyc12 pointed out that such research is a small part of i/o psychology. Some of that interest on the part of the i/o community was motivated by the emergence of occupational health psychology.Iss246 (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That section of the article, on occupational stress, was established through civil consensus building, with several editors, in July 2013 as shown above. It has also been altered significantly, with these reliable sources deleted, not just the opening sentence you are objecting to? Can you restore the original consensus established, long term section to the article please. Then we can discuss any issues you raised.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Occupational stress and the Cooper & Marshall (1976) paper. I know Cary is a great researcher. The paper that he and Marshall wrote mainly covers biomedical research that bears on work stress and disease. Cooper and Marshall call for working across disciplinary lines. It is not a narrowly i/o paper although published in an i/o journal. Iss246 (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You are only discussing the opening sentence. I am talking about the whole section, established through reliably sourced, consensus building back in July 2013. Can you restore please.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Added one reliable source to this section, which had been in article for 5 months. Also as a compromise, I left the first sentence out entirely rather than debate its inclusion.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Occupational stress, part 2

I am interested in more than the opening sentence and the Cooper-and-Marshall article. First, occupational stress can have an effect on productivity, absenteeism, lateness, counterproductive work behavior, etc. without occupational stress leading to illness. Occupational stress can after all harm morale. I think the paragraph in question should state as much.

Second, the relation of occupational stress to health is a small piece of i/o psychology, which is a large discipline that embraces many valuable topics, e.g., job analysis, personnel recruitment, assessment, employee compensation, worker motivation, etc. The readers of this talk page likely agree that I/o embraces a good number of worthwhile topics. My concern is that Mrm continues to make the work-illness relation a special province of i/o psychology. The article by Cooper and Marshall, which was published in an i/o journal and is a fine article, covered a good deal of biomedical research bearing on the relation of working characteristics to illness. That is no accident. Biomedical research has a lot more to say about working conditions and illness than does i/o psychology. One does not have to gild the lily, adding health to the i/o portfolio when the i/o portfolio is already quite large, and the work-illness relation is not a major part of that portfolio. I am not sure what my next edit of the i/o entry is going to be. However, what I want to avoid is edits that give the impression that i/o psychology has become a center of research on work and health. Iss246 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an international article on I/O psychology only, and the topics within the field. There are hundreds of Doctorate & Masters programs in I/O psychology around the world with subjects in occupational health. Occupational stress is just one topic within the profession and correctly included within this international Wikipedia article. Reliable sources used support this.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen a count yet. I think it would be helpful to document that there are hundreds of health-related doctoral dissertations and masters' theses in i/o psychology. Iss246 (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is getting off topic but to answer your question, in the US alone, there are well over 200 Masters and Doctoral degrees in work psychology and growing every year. See here: http://www.siop.org/gtp/gtplookup.asp for verification. Then you have every country in Europe as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, Russia India, South Africa, in fact worldwide, all providing graduate programs in work psychology. Many of these graduate programs offer subjects in work stress, occupational health and workplace safety. These topic areas are becoming increasingly popular with both current grad students, (in their dissertations/theses), and as specializations chosen by qualified industrial/work/organizational (IWO) psychologists around the world.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Some quick examples. Out of the 250 I/O psychology programs just in the USA alone, I just checked these universities and within their Doctoral programs in I/O psychology, they offer their I/O psychology students subjects in occupational health. See Bowling Green State University, Clemson University, Colorado State University, University of Connecticut, University of South Florida.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, I did not see at the SIOP web site an enumeration of doctoral dissertations and masters' theses pertaining to health. Please be more specific.

The SIOP web site to which Mrm directed me reads, "Industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology is the scientific study of the workplace. Rigor and methods of psychology are applied to issues of critical relevance to business, including talent management, coaching, assessment, selection, training, organizational development, performance, and work-life balance." I did not see health. It may be there somewhere else on the web site. Clearly, the web site enunciates some of the important topics I enumerated above when describing the components of the i/o portfolio. Iss246 (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This is off topic now. If interested iss246, or others, please refer to the hundreds of individual graduate programs themselves, and the subjects they currently offer, search here http://www.siop.org/gtp/gtplookup.asp under all programs in the united states, as well as the graduate programs in work psychology in every country in Europe as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, Russia India, South Africa, in fact worldwide. Point is, and back on topic, occupational stress, occupational health as well as safety are topics in work psychology. And are appropriate for this article on work psychology.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, you raised the subject of there being hundreds of i/o doctoral dissertations and masters' theses that concern health. I am following up on your comment. I am not changing the subject. I am following up. You cannot say that I am changing the subject if what I find is inconvenient to your point of view. I also thought the quotation from the SIOP web site is relevant.

You have to stop the assault on occupational health psychology. Your edits here, at the Work & Stress entry, and elsewhere belie that assault. You were suspended three times in the context of these efforts. You have to stop. It is enough. If you want to be a constructive editor, then there is a clear route. The incessant sniping at OHP, either by making it a subdiscipline of i/o, or a subdiscipline of health psychology, or a subdiscipline of organizational psychology or by making Work & Stress a different kind of journal than it is has to stop. I close by altering a line from Browning's A Toccata of Galuppi's, the sniping has to stop. Iss246 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not once mentioned OHP, and am confused why you continue to, or accuse me of "sniping" or whatever? My objective edits have been constructive and on topic, based on Wikipedia guidelines. So has my own conduct for that matter. If you have a further content related issue in the article you would like to discuss please outline that here.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Using words such as "objective" and "reliable" does not make an edit objective and reliable. You don't have to mention OHP to understand the source of your effort to expand the i/o portfolio into health as reflected in your assertion that there are hundreds of i/o dissertations and masters' theses devoted to health or your negative reaction when I quoted the SIOP web site, to which you directed me. Iss246 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, I am unclear what it is you want to put into the article. If it was a statement saying that I/O has been a major part of the study of occupational stress, I think it is repetitive. Just putting this section in the article acknowledges stress is an important topic within the field of I/O. So there's no need to explicitly say that the topic is important--if it wasn't important, this section wouldn't be here. Psyc12 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you re-read this section, you'll see I compromised earlier, and deleted the first sentence to help achieve consensus, even though Cary Cooper is an organizational psych and his 1976 review on occupational stress was in an organizational psych journal. Let's move on.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just restored the sentence which had just been strangely deleted from this article and then transferred to another Wikipedia article by iss246 for some reason? Not sure what iss246 is trying to do here on this article page devoted only to organizational psychology. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessaryMrm7171 (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The sentence was not "strangely" deleted. It was deleted. It belongs in the occupational stress article. It is more appropriate in the occupational stress article because it covers the topic, and the occupational stress section in the i/o entry made it seem like health was the mediator of CWBs and absences. The paragraph made it seem that health played a larger role in the i/o portfolio than it does. Iss246 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for now talking about your sentence 'deletion' and transfer to another article iss246, but the sentence is well sourced and should remain in article. It was also very well written by another editor and added to this article through consensus building. We can't just randomly delete a section from one article and then transfer it to another article? Please also discuss here first.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As a general principle, just because a sentence is sourced doesn't mean it belongs in an article. Psyc12 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Occupational Safety and Health section

I renamed the occupational safety and health section to Occupational Accidents and Injuries, and focused on that topic. The OSH term is not used in I/O psychology, but is a term used in Public Health and in the Safety fields like Occupational Safety and Industrial Hygiene. The health aspects of work are covered later in a section on health and well-being and it would be redundant to cover them in both places. I deleted the sentence on stress management, but that would go better in the section on stress if it is important to include. Psyc12 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly occupational health and safety (OHS) or occupational safety and health (OSH) are the same thing. Different names. See discussions from other editors over the years confirming this in the occupational safety and health article 'talk'. OHS or OSH is definitely an IWO psychology topic and as such is very appropriate to include within the I/O psychology article? Not at all sure why this was deleted? Anyway plenty of reliable sources from journals and secondary work psychology texts. I/O psychologistys throughout Europe and Australia for instance are heavily involved in OHS both research and importantly practice. Many of the most respected tools designed to measure psychosocial hazards for OHS purposes have been designed by I/O psychologists. Particularly I/O psychology relates to the psychological hazards in the workplace rather than the physical or environmental hazards like air quality. However contemporary OHS legislation in many OECD countries considers psychological hazards and risk management as equal to the health & safety obligations employers have to control the physical hazards. 'Physical hazards' which also relate to OSH or OHS, are I think what you may be referring to psyc12, with the industrial hygienist example you provided above? Regardless IWO psychology definitely is concerned with occupational health & safety for all of these reasons and many more.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It is redundant to have one section on occupational health and safety, one on occupational stress, and one on health and well-being. If there is a section on safety and health that includes stress, we do not need the other two sections. I changed the focus of the OSH section to only accidents to eliminate redundancy. I suggest either focusing this section on only accidents, or combining the three together in this section that deals with accidents, health, and stress.

This article has become way too bloated. There is too much redundancy, and way too much detail that can be found in other articles. The beginning has a long list of topics, and then most of these topics later have their own subsection. Psyc12 (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Occupational stress, part 3

The section on occupational stress is misleading. It can mislead the regular encyclopedia reader who is not a specialist in psychology to think i/o psychology has been a leader in research bearing on workplace stress and, say, coronary disease. I previously deleted a sentence that included the fine 1976 article by Cooper and Marshall, which was published in an i/o journal, because the way the article was used in the occupational stress section of the i/o entry gave the impression the i/o psychology was a leader in research on the relation of workplace stress to health. The Cooper-Marshall article was largely about biomedical research.

In fact, i/o came late to the study of work and health. I/o psychologist Dan Ilgen observed as much in a 1990 paper: "To date, industrial/organizational psychologists have tended to sit on the sidelines when it comes to attacking issues of health at work" [Ilgen, D. R. (1990). Health issues at work: Opportunities for industrial/organizational psychology. American Psychologist, 45(2), 273-283. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.273].

Don't get me wrong. I am not knocking i/o psychology. It is a great field with a large portfolio. I/o psychologists have played an important role in research on the relation of occupational stress to counterproductive workplace behaviors, morale, etc. Their interest on the relation of occupational stress to health has not been as robust as the paragraph suggests. Researchers in other fields have taken more of a leading role in studying the relation of occupational stress to health. The paragraph needs to be judiciously edited. The Wikipedia entry on occupational stress can carry more of the load. Iss246 (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

This section seems to me like too much promotion of I/O psychology, saying "look how much the field has done in the area of occupational stress" As I noted below, we don't need 3 sections in this article dealing with the topic of employee health. They should be integrated. The purpose here should be to list the various topics within the field to give the reader a picture of what the field entails. For each area where there is a separate article, there is no need for details, to trace history, or to make claims about how important I/O is.

I agree that what is written here now gives a false impression about what I/O psychologists have done in this area. For example, I just did a check using ISI Thomson's Web of Science of the disciplines where papers on occupational stress appeared in 2012 (most recent complete year). Of 168 articles, only 15 appeared in the category of applied psychology, and of those only 6 were in I/O journals. The biggest categories were environmental and occupational health (78) and nursing (36). Even psychiatry has more (16). This is not to say that I/O doesn't contribute, but it is a relatively minor player if you look at the entire field of occupational health. Psyc12 (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Integrating 3 overlapping sections

I combined Occupational Health and Safety, Occupational Stress, and Occupational Health & Wellbeing sections because they are very overlapping and redundant. In doing so I realized that they read in parts like promotional materials more appropriate for SIOP or another society site whose purpose is promotion. Thus I deleted statements (including my own earlier contribution) about I/Os contribution, and what I/O psychologists do. It is unnecessary to remind the reader repeatedly that these topics are relevant to the field because they would not be here if they were not. I agree with Mrm7171 that this section might work better to be broader than just accidents/injuries, so I've just taken the next step. By the way, the stress paragraph was lifted in it's entirety from the stress section. The OH&WB was condensed where there was redundancy or seemed promotional. Psyc12 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You say "seemed promotional?" Can you please be specific, and provide exactly what part of these sections was "promotional" to justify that accusation? and I can see where you mean?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Number of American I/O Programs

The statement that there are over 250 US I/O programs needs a source. I/O textbooks generally list the programs, and there are typically about half that number listed. Psyc12 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The citation provided is incorrect. There are not 250 US programs listed on the SIOP website. If you do a search by criteria, and limit to US only, there are more like 135. The main list referenced includes programs outside of the U.S., as well as business programs that are related, but are not I/O, e.g., leadership development. Furthermore, isn't citing a database that one computes a total from a form of primary research, which is disallowed by Wiki? A reliable source would be an article or book that notes how many programs there are. Levy's text Industrial/Organizational Psychology 2nd ed. notes there are about 65 North American PhD programs. He doesn't say how many MA programs there are. So I would either find a secondary source, cite Levy on the 65 PhD programs, or leave out the number entirely. Psyc12 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on the source provided, there are over 250 programs in work psychology http://www.siop.org/gtp/gtplookup.asp please use search all programs. I would like to add graduate programs in other countries around the world also to reflect the worldwide nature of Wikipedia and avoid bias in this article. However I am willing to discuss this so we can get the figures accurate. Also could editors please discuss here before deleting reliable sources from this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I already discussed above. Please find a reliable secondary source or delete the statement. Your count and my count are different because this is primary sourcing (our own research) and our analysis differs. The only secondary source I know of is Levy, as noted above, and his count is 65. I think the 250 is incorrect, but what I think doesn't matter, only the secondary source matters. So be sure whatever number you use has a secondary source to support it. That's my only point. Psyc12 (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)