Talk:Industrial and organizational psychology/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sportstir

User:Sportstire, you reversed my edits without justifying why you reversed them. Iss246 (talk) 04:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I reversed them as they hold no relevance vat all to this article specifically about IWO psychology. This is not an article about social psych or sociology or occupational health psych. It is only about IWO psych and what IWO psychologists do and what IWO psychs research. Sportstir (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I think we can compromise. Everly wrote that OHP can be traced to i/o psychology, health psychology, and occupational medicine. The health psychology entry indicates that the field traces its origins to clinical psychology and OHP can be partly traced to health psychology. I think I should mention somewhere in the i/o psychology entry that OHP has roots in i/o, health psychology, and occupational medicine for the sake of historical accuracy. Iss246 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Again I cannot see how this is possibly justified in this article on IWO psychology. Sportstir (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, entries in WK such a health psychology and clinical psychology are relevant. Health psychology explains that it was partly derived from clinical psychology. It also mentions that it is helped foster occupational health psychology. The clinical psychology entry explains that it is linked to health psychology. The i/o entry mentions its link to psychometric psychology. It is reasonable to link i/o psychology to OHP. I am writing to you here about a compromise. I want to avoid an edit war. Iss246 (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are you threatening an edit war! I think there are other ways to resolve this than you threatening to start an edit war. You say Health psychology explains that it was partly derived from clinical psychology. How is that relevant here? Sportstir (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I am not threatening an edit war. I want to avoid one. I want to work things out. It seems to me that you are engaged in an edit war by going using my examples, and proceeding to delete text from the health psychology section. Iss246 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You have not answered my question about how the Health psychology edit you also made is relevant here? Please discuss this edit of yours. Sportstir (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You continue to take a combative approach and refuse to focus on the question I asked. I do not see how on earth you can justify this edit. The article is only about IWO psych. No other field. However I'm happy to talk about it and try and resolve it with you through civil dialogue. Sportstir (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

user:Sportstir, you keep reversing my edits without discussing. You keep saying I am threatening edit warring but I am not. You use that accusation as a cudgel. I showed that other WK entries devoted to psychology disciplines explain a little about the genealogy of the discipline. Parent disciplines. Offspring disciplines. That's what I am doing. Iss246 (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is only about IWO psych. The occupational stress section explains how IWO has been involved in occupational stress since the 1960s. It has always been a major area of IWO psychology. This is not the article or the section for you to be putting some other discipline into the article. You have done it with the health psychology article too. It looks like you have been blocked for edit warring a number of times so I suggest you stop edit warring. I'm wondering if there is an area of Wikipedia which deals with psychology articles and others can have a look at why you are trying to do here. Sportstir (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I also don't know what you mean regarding genealogy. Can you please explain this more fully so we can resolve this for you? Sportstir (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I explain what I mean. Health psychology is in part an offshoot of clinical psychology. For a slightly more comprehensive entry, I show that one branch of psychology had roots in another branch. That is what I mean by genealogy. I want to work out a compromise with you recognizing that i/o psychology along with some other disciplines contributed to the emergence of occupational health psychology. Iss246 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we get some help here as we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I really disagree that this edit should be in the IWO article. Sportstir (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You still have not explained why you believe this edit is warranted User:Iss246 but continue to refuse discussing it here and instead continue to edit war. Can you explain the edit please rather than edit war again? Sportstir (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I will re-explain. In terms of historical accuracy, one discipline can be the descendant of another. For example, psychology descends from philosophy. The WP psychology entry makes that clear. The WP entry for philosophy indicates that psychology descends from philosophy. I want to make plain the connection of i/o psychology to OHP. I would like you to let me edit stand on the ground of historical accuracy. Iss246 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Iss246, I don't understand how you can justify adding the edit. Wouldn't it be better explaining that in the other article. This article is only about IWO psych. I'm okay with us getting some help here as this is not getting us anywhere. Which noticeboard should we use? Sportstir (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, so you agree that OHP has a degree of parentage in i/o psychology as well as occupational med and health psychology. Then it should be okay to mention that in the i/o article. In the same vein, the psychology entry mentions that psychology owes existence, in part, to philosophy. And the philosophy entry links philosophy to psychology. The parent offspring idea works both ways. I will bring it back to the i/o article. Iss246 (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with that logic at all. This article is about IWO psych only. I asked which noticeboard we should use to sort this out but you did not answer me and instead just want to keep edit warring again. Sportstir (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, I think we should have a WK editor help us through this. You can't keep reversing my edits. I think we should be on a psychology-related noticeboard. Iss246 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop adding this unrelated edit until we can have someone help us with it. Sportstir (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

We have a tradition of a Wikipedia:Third opinion, and Iss246 asked me to share mine.

The disputed content is this:

With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's P-E fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, relevant to research on job stress emerged; i/o psychology, health psychology, and occupational medicine contributed to the emergence of the new discipline.

Sportstir's view appears to be that, in his personal opinion, when one discipline inspires a new discipline, that new offshoot is instantly "other" and therefore irrelevant.

Iss246's view appears to be that, according to two WP:Reliable sources, OHP is relevant to IWO because IWO contributed to OHP's existence.

The sources say that there is a connection between IWO and OHP. Having a connection == relevance. Also, the view that there is a connection between the two disciplines is source-based, which is always Wikipedia's preference. I therefore think that the material should be included, unless and until an editor can produce equally good or better sources that say there is no historical or current connection between IWO and OHP (or that there is only a trivial connection).

Also (and this has already been done), the OHP should have a prominent sentence about its connection to IWO.

If either of you are unable to accept this – Sportstir, Wikipedia editors consider it a sign of gentle(wo)manliness to WP:SELFREVERT in situations like this – then your next stop should be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where Sportstir will be expected to name at least one reliable source that claims that inspiring a new discipline is unimportant trivia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you user:WhatamIdoing for your help. Iss246 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It may have a source but it is totally irrelevant in the section it has been added and does not add to the article in any way. I am quite willing to take the matter to the appropriate noticeboard suggested so we can reach an acceptable resolution. Sportstir (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

So you say user:sportstir. You follow me around and undo my edits as if I am your target. Just stop it. Lay off. Iss246 (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No need to be so offensive. You went and changed the wording everyone settled on at occupational stress just to agitate the situation and I restored it. You are the one playing games by going and inviting a friend you know on here which is not really neutral even if WhatamIdoing is very experienced as they seem to be. I totally disagree with you plonking that bit into this article which is not appropriate despite it having a source. I'll see what I can do as far as a noticeboard then as I want to know what a truly independent editor might think and just want to get this sorted out with you. Sportstir (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You user:sportstir are one to talk about being offensive questioning the independence of the WP editor I wrote to! User:WhatamIdoing is "truly" independent. The editor has corrected some of my edits, which I accepted. What impressed my about the WP editor is the editor's knowledge and fairness. Iss246 (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Both Iss246 and Sportstir have valid points. Yes IWO more than any other field has been the foundation of OHP, and there are reliable sources that trace this history and make this point. So the point is correct. Yes, it is a minor point for an article about IWO. There is so much that can be included in this article, so why include this? I find WhatamIdoing's analysis compleling and I agree with them. Reliable sources should take priority over personal opinion. Iss246 provided reliable sources to support the statement that IWO is the foundation of OHP. It should NOT be deleted unless there are reliable sources that specifically say this statement is incorrect. Psyc12 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is so large as it is, that adding any unrelated topics seem non-sensical to me. I would oppose adding this to the article for what it's worth. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, what makes you think that a "child" discipline is unrelated to the "parent" discipline? Would you recommend, e.g., that Medicine not mention Psychology, even though psych derives partly from the medical tradition, or that Sociology not mention Gender studies, even though gender studies derives partly from soc?

In terms of relevant policies and guidelines, MOS:BUILDing links between related articles is considered a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have trimmed this a bit to come to a compromise here. I still don't see the relevance of this inclusion. However I do see the point WhatamIdoing mentions given this is a sub-discipline of IWO psych and it's brief mention is therefore acceptable. Sportstir (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir, please don't trim my edits. You follow me around taking down my edits or, now, trimming my edits. You have a single-minded aim of affecting my edits. STOP. Just work on WP entries that have nothing to do with me. Regarding user:WhatamIdoing, rather than saying you see the merit in what she wrote, I think you should apologize to her for asserting that she isn't a neutral WP editor. You wrote that WhatamIdoing is my "friend" and that she "is not really neutral." It is you, Sportstir [Mrm7171] who is not neutral.Iss246 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop focusing on me as an editor Iss246 and only look at the actual article and the proposed edit you want to make. Also please stop edit warring Iss246 as it looks like you have been blocked from editing multiple times at Wikipedia for edit warring and have still not learnt. I made a minor change as a compromise. Why won't you compromise here as well so we can reach a settlement. Instead you only want it your way. Please bend a little and compromise as I have done. Sportstir (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

New Option: It seems to me that mention of OHP is misplaced in the section on stress because it is far more than stress. I would put it at the end of the first paragraph in the Occupational Health and Well-Being section. Because it is a tangential point (I agree with Sportstir there), I would make the mention very brief--mainly to link it to the OHP article because it is good to have links to related articles. Here's the first paragraph:

IO psychologists are concerned with occupational health and well-being. Developments early in the 20th century occurred in both the UK and the U.S. During World War I Charles Myers in the U.K. studied worker fatigue and other aspects of well-being, discussed in his 1920 IO psychology textbook.[38] In the U.S. Arthur Kornhauser examined the impact on productivity of hiring mentally unstable workers.[39] Kornhauser also examined the link between industrial working conditions and mental health as well as the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job.[40][41][42]

I would add something like the following, which is based on a recent IO textbook chapter on OHP. Maybe one of the currently cited references says the same.

The I-O concern with worker health and well-being overlaps with the emerging field of occupational health psychology (OHP). [Spector, P. E. (2016) Industrial and Organizational Psychology Research and Practice 7th Ed. Hoboken, NJ

Wiley.]

I don't think issues of where it came from or what other disciplines are involved is worth putting here because it is not relevant to IWO. The link takes the reader to the OHP article where that information is provided. Psyc12 (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I note that the clinical psychology entry indicates that clinical psychologists entered the field of health psychology. And the health psychology entry indicates that health psychology developed out of clinical psychology. In the interest of accuracy, the i/o psychology entry can indicate that OHP has a relationship to i/o psychology but I don't want to see the claim that OHP solely derives from i/o psychology, which was how sportstirs modified my editd. It is more accurate to briefly note that OHP derives from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine. I would agree with Psyc12 that the sentence on OHP's origins could go in the Occupational Health and Well-Being section. Iss246 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be okay with Psyc12's option although I still do not see the need for the edit at all. Sportstir (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I just removed this controversial edit while we get this sorted. Do you want to go ahead with the new option you proposed Psyc12? Sportstir (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As per user:Psyc12's suggestion, I moved into the occupational health and well-being section the historical fact of the relationship of OHP to i/o. Iss246 (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That was not Psyc12's option. Sportstir (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Quote from psyc12, "I would put it [referring to the sentence I wrote] at the end of the first paragraph in the Occupational Health and Well-Being section." Iss246 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This was not Psyc12's new option. You just went back to the exact wording you used before Iss246. I have now put Psyc12's suggestion into the article. That's all that's needed. You are the only editor arguing against everyone else Iss246 and demanding you get your way. Please stop edit warring now as you have been blocked several times before. Sportstir (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Psyc12 also wrote "I don't think issues of where it came from or what other disciplines are involved is worth putting here because it is not relevant to IWO. The link takes the reader to the OHP article where that information is provided" and I totally agree with Psyc12 on this logic. Sportstir (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I put Psyc12's edit back in exactly as Psyc12 suggested. I agreed with their option. However I also don't believe it is needed at all. It looks like another editor Patricamoorehead agreed that it shouldn't be in there at all. Editor WhatamIdoing just said a mention is justified. So it is just you Iss246 going against the consensus here and demanding that only your wording should be included. You need to work with other editors Iss246 and stop edit warring now as you are clearly going against the consensus. Sportstir (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir. Please stop warring with me.

It is very clear that you cannot accept the consensus just because you don't like it. I have again put Psyc12's exact option back. Anyone reading this can see that you have demanded your preferred wording and the consensus doesn't seem to matter to you or working with other editors if they disagree with you. All you do is edit war. Sportstir (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Ohpres

The history of OHP suggests that it is appropriate to mention that OHP is descended from i/o psychology TOGETHER WITH health psychology and occupational medicine. Referring to health psychology and occupational medicine renders the genealogy more accurate, which cannot be a bad thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohpres (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Psych12

There is a problem with the following sentence:

With the development of Karasek's demand-control model and the University of Michigan's person–environment fit model in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new discipline, occupational health psychology, emerged out of i/o psychology and both health psychology, and occupational medicine.[45][46]

First, it implies that Karasek and the ISR researchers at UM were I-O psychologists and they are/were not. Karasek is a sociologist, and the UM researchers had varying backgrounds, some in social psychology. For the second part of the sentence to follow the first, it would have to say that OHP emerged from sociology and social psychology. Second, these sources are about stress, so I would put the first part of the sentence in the section on stress, as this is part of the history.

As I noted earlier, it is worth mentioning the link from I-O to OHP, but I don't think it is an important point how much of it comes from I-O vs. other fields. That discussion can go in the OHP article.

In the spirit of compromise, I would move the first part of the sentence about Karasek and ISR to the stress section, and replace the second part with just a mention that I-O overlaps with OHP, or that many I-O psychologists do work that fits into OHP. Psyc12 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that sounds good as a compromise Psyc12. I agree that we don't need to go into other disciplines which influence another discipline which then is related to IWO psych. Hoping Iss246 can follow consensus based on this cooperation. Sportstir (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

User:sportstir, I would appreciate it if you would stop following me around and reverting my edits. Try to edit other WP entries to which I am not connected. It is inappropriate to concentrate on one editor. If other editors want to edit what I have contributed, let those editors work with me. You have created a hostile work environment by concentrating your fire on one editor. You have been concentrating on my edits to make it seem as if i/o psychology is the supreme branch of science devoted to occupational stress when it isn't. Yes, some i/o psychologists are interested in job stress. But others are interested in selection tests, enhancing productivity, job analysis, recruitment of capable workers, how to compensate workers, etc. Occupational stress is one province of i/o. Iss246 (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was established with Psyc12's exact new option which they offered as a compromise to you. Please stop reverting that consensus and stop falsely accusing me of following you and acting like a child by focusing on me personally instead of the content. It makes me feel verey uncomfortable and find your accusations and persistence and demands that only YOUR wording and only your wording is good enough and we all must bow to your wording and desired edits and if not be falsely accused of following you, to be very disturbing indeed! Sportstir (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Sportstir. There is only a consensus in your view. Your following me around, changing my edits, is not a consensus. Iss246 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have read this thread right through to the finish and amazed it is still going. It is obvious that we either leave this out or include something very brief as editors psyc12 and sportstir have both said. I think leaving it out is the way to go but if we must include it, then just the words offered by psyc12 is what I support doing. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not all agree, but in the spirit of compromise can we put this issue to rest and leave Patriciamoorehead's edits in place? Psyc12 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User:sportstir, user:psyc12, User:Patriciamoorehead, user:ohpres, user:whatamidoing. User:sportstir, I would agree to a compromise. I would leave Patriciamoorehead's edit in i/o psychology (as of 12:19 today, May 1, 2020) if you leave my edits alone in occupational stress (delete "particularly", leave intact ergonomics and human factors. The alternative is to go to the Noticeboard.

As you see, there are more entries I want to edit than to spend time on a seesaw going back and forth with you editing i/o psychology and occupational stress. So let's compromise. We can then free ourselves to go off to edit other entries that are projects for each of us. Hopefully those entries will be entries in which our interests do not overlap. Iss246 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC) 16:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Name

"Industrial and organizational psychology, which is also known as occupational psychology, organizational psychology, or work and organizational psychology". Hmmm. I think the field is also known as just industrial psychology as well as just organizational psychology. I suggest renaming the article to just organizational psychology which is broader than just industrial and I think most popular. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Apropos of the study by Elfering et al.

User:Patriciamoorehead|Patriciamoorehead, Elfering, Grebner, and Semmer are identified with occupational health psychology (OHP). That they published in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology does not make them less identified with OHP. It is a common practice for researchers identified with one subfield of psychology to publish in journals associated with a related subfield. Sometimes an OHP researcher will publish in an OHP, sometimes in a health psychology journal, sometimes in an applied psychology journal, and sometimes in a general psychology journal. Iss246 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand that. However these researchers look like they hold their qualifications in industrial psychology. So what is your justification for the edit? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

My justification is that they attend OHP conferences, teach OHP courses, conduct OHP research. They are part and parcel of the subfield of psychology, OHP. That is why I would like to change the edit back. Iss246 (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said these researchers have their qualifications and training in industrial psychology and this is the industrial psychology article is it not. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Patriciamoorehead, you are someone who has fewer than 100 edits yet you like to direct your energy at undoing my edits. We've had this dance before. I think I am approaching 15,000 edits at this time. I recently completed a large set of edits of the psychology entry. I have read a great deal of psychology and consult the library often. I have explained that the top three authors are identified with OHP. A couple of them are members of OHP-related organizations. Almost everyone identified with OHP obtained his or her doctorate in another subfield of psychology (health psychology, i/o psychology, experimental psychology, etc.), a consequence of OHP being a relatively new subdiscipline. Bear in mind that many people with a psychology doctorate in one subfield migrate to another subfield. I would appreciate if you don't ignore my justification. Iss246 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Holy moly thank you for pointing out and contrasting your number of edits and the fact that I have far fewer and your need to put me down and your superiority. Please don't think I am undoing your edit personally. I just do not understand why you feel the need to put this sentence in the article period? Can you see my point. That is is the reasoning I am seeking here. I will also have a look at the psychology article you boast about editing in due course and see if I can help with that work in progress. I welcome a discussion about this entry you are requiring us to put in this article's research section please. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct. I am more steeped in the subject matter. No. You don't welcome a discussion. You just want to undo my edits. That is your MO. Iss246 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to address the question or shall we drop the edit and this discussion which is s'posed to be of a civil and courteous manner. All you're doing is being damn rude and very personal TBPH. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We should drop your edit and revert to my wording. Iss246 (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

You are just edit warring. If you don't want to provide a justification for your edit that's your prerogative. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

And you said "or shall we drop the edit." I dropped the edit. What did you do? You waited five minutes to change my restoration to the original text. Then you accuse me of edit warring and not justifying my edits. The truth is that you ignored my justification of the edit. Iss246 (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This is crazy. I don't want to edit war with you. Can you clearly explain why in this article you think an edit about another discipline should be included? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You don't want an edit war yet you keep reversing my edits. Here is my explanation.

• 1. Elfering, Grebner, and Semmer are identified with occupational heath psychology (OHP).
• 2. They have been members of OHP scientific organizations (e.g., the Society for Occupational Health Psychology).
• 3. They have attended conferences devoted to OHP research and practice. I include meetings such as the APA/NIOSH/SOHP Work, Stress, and Health biennial conference and the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology's biennial conference. The two organizations coordinate conferences to run on alternate years to allow researchers and practitioners to attend both.
• 4. EGS may have published in an ostensive I/O journal, but publishing in a journal that is in neighboring field is common throughout psychology. It is not unusual for OHP researchers to publish in health psychology, I/O, accident prevention, stress management, OB, and environmental health journals.
• 5. A study in the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology[1] identifies journals in which OHP researchers publish papers. The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology was a member of that family of those journals.
• With due respect, I think we should return to the original edit, which reads as follows: "Occupational health psychology researchers have also combined and coordinated quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study." Iss246 (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked these researchers up online. They all seem to have base qualifications in industrial psychology and work and organizational psychology in Europe. Did you know that? They are also part of work and org psychology departments in their respective universities. Just because they have other memberships does not negate their primary qualifications. They seem to have different memberships in lots of other areas. They may be part of a butterfly appreciation club too, but it means naught in this scenario. Do you know if they have given up their primary degrees. If so why are they then still teaching in work and organizational psychology departments? Sorry but I am against this edit of yours and do not want to edit war. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you take me for a fool who is making stuff up, "butterfly collection club"! What an idiotic thing to say. All your knowledge of psychology doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What is wrong with you? You ask for reasons. I give you five reasons. Then you ignore the reasons. Here are two exemplary publications bearing the researchers in question: one by Elfering and Grebner[2] and the other by Semmer[3] . I am going to change the wording. Iss246 (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

You are very abusive aren't you and miss my obvious point. I should not have to take your personal attacks. You also ignore the reality of what I've said about these researchers and your sentence. I've reverted your edit. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That's right. You ask for reasons then ignore the reasons. I documented what I wrote. I documented that OHP researchers publish in non-OHP journals like JOOP. I documented that the authors in question publish in OHP-related vehicles to show you that they involved in OHP. Go ahead with your insulting "butterfly appreciation club" remark as if that remark proves anything. Your making a wisecrack proves nothing. 05:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I have not ignored your reasons. I just disagree and have presented my reasons why. You continue to attack me which must stop right now please. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I documented what I asserted. You don't document what you write. Iss246 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Patricia Moorehead, I saw your justification regarding your undoing my edit. Your comment on 22 June, at 21:44 read "I have documented my reasons why I disagree with your edit." I however saw no documentation on the talk page. My documentation includes an article showing a study in the Newsletter of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology[4] that identifies journals in which OHP researchers publish papers. The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology was a member of that family of those journals. I also showed that the authors in question, Elfering and Grebner[5] and Semmer[6] publish in occupational health psychology vehicles. Saying that you documented your evidence and actually documenting your evidence is the difference between saying and doing. Iss246 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

You just ignore my reason that I'm against your edit. These researchers all seem to hold primary qualifications in industrial psychology. Your edit also goes against due weight. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, your own writing reveals your prejudice. I will demonstrate that point in two ways. First, you write, "These researchers all seem (emphasis mine) to hold primary qualifications in industrial psychology." You take this facile route. "Seems" is okay. "Seems" is not enough. Because they published in JOOP does not remove their identification with the field of occupational health psychology. Second, I supplied documentation that you can reference. I doubt you even visited the websites I placed on this talk page to buttress what I am asserting. Where is your documentation? Please change the edit back to my original wording. Then let's make peace and end the argument. Iss246 (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you both okay with us creating a similar section dedicated to industrial psychology in the occupational health psychology article? We need consistency. What do you think? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, I think you should restore my original edit because I demonstrated that the authors involved are identified with OHP. OHP derives from three disciplines, health psychology, i/o psychology, and occupational medicine. Naturally, a number of individuals who began their careers in those disciplines came to identify themselves with OHP. Importantly, I have yet to see you document with sources external to WP your contention. All you do is repeat what you wrote on this talk page again and again but don't supply sources external to WP regarding your contention. Iss246 (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

All you do is ignore my reasons to oppose your desired edit. You didn't answer my question for consistency between articles either. Are you okay with us creating a similar section dedicated to industrial psychology in the occupational health psychology article? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You are not my inquisitor. You ignored my documentation since you did not comment on it nor did you supply your own documentation from outside WP.

I also observe just about the only thing you do on WP is attack my edits, either by reversing my edits on the main i/o page or on the talk page. Iss246 (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No you seem to have had conflict with every single person who has disagreed with your edits at this article over a long time period and you have been blocked multiple times for edit warring. I don't know how to deal with you either. You have reverted over 11 times in a few days and just won't discuss with me why you are so intent on including this other field in this article. Why won't you answer whether we can include other similar sections in the occupational health psychology article on industrial organizational psychology for consistency then? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, I anticipated that you would write something like that. You already made the Madam Butterfly crack. I don't put it past you. What do you have? 100 edits? I have almost 15,000 edits.

One is bound to have disagreements when one does a good deal of editing. Much of your editing involves going after me. Disagreements are bound to happen to a person who edits a lot. There are a lot of reasons for disagreements in which another editor consistently undoes my edits or any other person's edits. An undoer (is that a word?) may think that he or she has so much more knowledge--highly specific knowledge of one particular subject--than the next person. I have a certain amount of expertise in psychology. I completed a great deal of editing of the psychology entry. Now I only edit the psychology entry sporadically. I haven't seen single-minded reversals of my edits of the psychology entry. Not the way you have gone after my edits with regard to Elfering, Grebner, and Semmer.

Moreover, I don't feel threatened by your insinuations about past disagreements. It just shows me that you would rather accuse me of some nefarious thing like being the target of a single-minded editor whom I think is wrong than produce the documentation indicating that Elfering, Grebner, and Semmer are not identified with occupational health psychology. Iss246 (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There you go again. On the attack. I just disagree with your edit. You also have a habit it seems from your 4 blocks that you like to edit war. Again here you have reverted 11 times in only a few days. I have asked you why on earth are you trying to put this edit into the article? Also if we put such a section about occupational health psychology's research methods into this article, we will obviously need to include separate sections in the occupational health psychology article dedicated to industrial organizational psychology's research methods too. Seems a bit absurd to me, but for consistency it would be needed if this edit you want to put in the current article is included. Would you be okay with that? Can you actually answer that question please. I've asked three times now? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, here you go again. That is your perspective. From my perspective you reverted my edits approximately 11 times. If I am in an edit war, it is you who initiated it with your reverting my edits. You never justified your reversions. Iss246 (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

You added a bold edit. I reverted your bold edit as I disagree with it. And we are now here now trying to discuss your desire to have this in the industrial organizational psychology article. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle We can resolve this now if you agree to put similar sections into the occupational health psychology article about research methods that industrial organizational psychologists use just like you are trying to do in this article. Can we resolve it by doing that? For consistency and common sense. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, I am going to work on a compromise solution. I don't want to continue with this ping pong game we are playing. I have a few meetings to attend and some professional writing to complete. I will work something out for us. Iss246 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Iss246 you have still not given me an answer on the compromise I suggested above. Why not? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, I am going to explain three things. First, it is unproductive to give another editor an ultimatum about changing this or that. I tried to lay out my reasons with you. It is unwise to respond with an ultimatum. This is not Austria-Hungary versus Serbia. We don't take that road.

Second, almost everyone in OHP trained in a different area of psychology and came to OHP from some other area. Often they came to OHP because the area they were attached to did not concern itself sufficiently with the impact of work on health. A researcher could come from health psychology and identify with OHP because health psychologists, while doing fine work, mainly don't deal with the impact of work on health. Similarly, with few exceptions (e.g., Arthur Kornhauser), i/o psychology did not deal sufficiently with the impact of work on health, as a leading i/o psychologist Paul Spector reports[7]. These psychologists then came to identify with OHP. There are experimental psychologists (e.g., Joseph Hurrell) who came to OHP, as well, because of a concern about the impact of work on health.

Finally, the emergence of OHP as a subdiscipline within psychology has changed psychology and attracted many who trained in other fields. Elfering, Grebner, and Semmer, the authors in question have a long publication list that is identified with OHP.

I gave in and compromised with you. How about accepting the compromise. Otherwise, we keep going back and forth, on and on. Let's move on to edit other Wikipedia entries. Iss246 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I asked if you would accept my compromise, not an ultimatum, my own compromise. But you have avoided it so here it is again. If we include a section on occupational health psychology research methods in this article, like you are trying to do, then we should obviously include a separate section in that article on research methods used by industrial organizational psychologists. Is that acceptable and if not, why not please? It would be great to resolve this with you Iss246. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Norbert Semmer and colleagues are important figures of I/O psychology. Semmer is part of the Institute of Work and Organizational Psychology of the University of Bern. Same thing for Elfering. These authors can be mentioned here. Occupational health psychology has an important place in terms of both research and teaching in departments of I/O psychology. This "edit war" thus makes no sense. Mentioning these authors here is fully justified.Ohpres (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes mentioned as i-o psychologists. And i-o psychologists around the world not aligned with OHP also use these research methods. And this is the i-o psychology article. Stop edit warring and resolve this. My compromise remains. We can just put the same section about what research methods i-o psychologists use into the occupational health psychology article for consistency between related articles. Is this an okay solution? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, the OHP site already spells out in the first par. that the origins of OHP lie in health psychology and i/o psychology as well as some non-psychology disciplines such as occupational medicine.

You have already have put ohp in the article under occupational health it looks like so why do you need to mention ohp again in the i-o article. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Patriciamoorehead, I will explain why. The type of research paper the team published is an OHP paper. It is a continuation of their companion study, Grebner, S., Elfering, A., Semmer, N., Kaiser-Probst, C., & Schlapbach, M.L. (2004). Stressful situations at work and in private life among young workers: An event sampling approach. Social Indicators Research, 67, 11–49. The companion study was an OHP study that was published in a completely different type of journal, not an i/o journal, but a sociology-demography journal. That does not make the study team non-OHP researchers. As I said in an earlier comment on this page, OHP researchers and many other types of researchers publish papers in a wide variety of journals.

I think you should accept my compromise. Let's move on to editing other Wikipedia entries. Iss246 (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you should give other editors ultimatums. You wrote I/o psychologists who have been aligned with the emergent field of occupational health psychology have combined and coordinated quantitative and qualitative methods within a single study. Are you really trying to say that other i-o psychologists not aligned with ohp don't use the same methods. Can you see what I'm saying? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You are copying my words. I used the word "ultimatum," so you copied it. I asked you to accept a compromise. That isn't an ultimatum. Iss246 (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

How about we add a section under research methods in the occupational health psychology article which details the research methods used by industrial organisational psychologists. This is exactly what you are trying to do in this article by putting in a section about ohp is it not. So it would be for consistency between related articles we would do this. Would this compromise appease you Iss246? Patriciamoorehead (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The consistency is already there. The OHP entry already indicates in the first paragraph that its origins lie in health psychology and i/o psychology. I have already written that psychologists like Elfering and Semmer identify with OHP but come from i/o. They publish in OHP journals. That psychologists who identify with OHP, like psychologists in other subdisciplines, publish in a variety of journals, including journals allied to other subdisciplines. Iss246 (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes yes I see that but again, you side skirt the obvious basis for the question I am asking. We are talking about you wanting this edit about ohp in the research methods section which describe which methods i-o psychologists use. So why on earth would you not want to also include in the occupational health psychology article's research method section which methods i-o psychologists use. Can you see my point. It is exactly the same! Patriciamoorehead (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You have added a bold edit. I reverted it and now we are supposed to discuss it, without you pushing your preferred version into the article. You have in fact reverted the same edit a total of 18 times since June 15 2021 even though it looks like you have been blocked many times for edit warring Iss246. Patriciamoorehead (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

How about patriciamoorehead, how many times did you revert my edit? Iss246 (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained editing on occupational stress and health and wellbeing sections of the article

I reverted some major changes made without any explanation or discussion on the talk page. Sportstir (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

My explanations were made in the comments for each edit. Please restore what I did unless you have a good explanation of why what I did is not correct.Psyc12 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I-O psychology was ranked the fastest growing occupation over the next decade according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics's Occupational Outlook Handbook in 2014. This statement looks to be accurate and is valid until 2024. How do you justify deleting this please? I will add USA. Sportstir (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Every year BLS projects job openings for the coming 10 years in the U.S. According to BLS IO is no longer one of the fastest growing occupations, as demand has declined since 2014. To claim IO is fastest growing is misleading because it no longer is, so the statement should be deleted.Psyc12 (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The latest from Bureau of Labor Statistics says that IO psychology job growth is slower than average.Psyc12 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Work-nonwork interface

I would like to add the work-nonwork interface as a topic, such as initial career transitioning in and transitioning out of careers during retirement as well as the work-family balance. These are significant topics in the field and should be represented in the article. Sportstir (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Occupational health

According to Zickar, Kornhauser, a 20th century pioneer in research on the impact of job stress on health was relatively lonely. According to Zickar, i/o psychology was more aligned with with management than with workers. I indicate that in the text of the article. There was a burgeoning of interest in i/o psychology in the worker health in the 21st century although there were stirrings in the 1990s. Spector described some of the resistance in i/o psychology to studying worker health. I have documented these facts in the sources I included in the section.

I add that it is important not to inflate the role of i/o psychology in occupational health research. I/o psychology has had a role but the role should not be inflated. I/o psychology does not supplant epidemiology, occupational medicine, and occupational health psychology as the central discipline in research on the occupational impact of job stressors on health. I/o psychology, which already has an enormous wing span with performance and performance appraisal, job analysis, job design, recruitment and testing, compensation, climate and culture, teamwork, leadership, goal setting, and more, cannot be the leader in research in job stress/work-health interface. It has too many other subject areas to research. Of course, i/o makes a contribution to this line of research. But it is a relatively small part of i/o's portfolio. I/o's interest in the impact of job stressors on worker health has mainly come about in the 21st century. I cited Vinchur and Koppes in the section. I/o psychologists' brethren in occupational health psychology have had a salutary effect on i/o psychology.

Because i/o psychology has a relationship to organizational behavior, there is a brief section on that relationship. (I edited that brief section for clarity but it could use some beefing up by an expert in OB.) By the same token, i/o psychology has a relationship to occupational health psychology. I wrote a paragraph on that relationship, an apt parallel with the section on i/o's relation to OB.

I don't want editors to come in an tear down my edits in a wholesale fashion. If modifications are needed, we should discuss potential modifications here. In fact, as I am writing this Sportstir is going about his/her destruction of my edits. Iss246 (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You and Psyc12 are the ones who came to the article page yesterday and started ripping it apart and removing other well sourced and long standing text for some reason. While we are discussing it here you should respect the process and not force your version into the article. Sportstir (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I am open to changes but let's do it here on the talk page. Sportstir (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like my edits of the i/o psychology section restored. I want to avoid giving the reader the impression that i/o psychology is the leader in investigating the impact of job stress on the health of workers when it isn't. Other fields such as epidemiology, occupational medicine, and occupational health psychology doing more in that regard. The current edit inflates i/o's contribution but the contribution has grown in the 21st century. Just as the page has a section on the relationship of i/o to organizational behavior, it is fitting to include a section on the relationship of i/o to occupational health psychology. My edits have balance without inflating or detracting from i/o's work on job stress and health. Iss246 (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edits are new Iss246 and I am not advocating for anything but keeping the current version which you are wanting to completely change for reasons which are not clear. I just restored the version in the article that had been there for ages and seems fine to me. I am not sure why you are so concerned and are trying to diminish the fact that occupational health and wellbeing are actually core topics in IWO graduate programs throughout the world. So I am really not sure why you are trying to hide that fact or are not aware of it. You also need to be careful to consider the IWO field from an international focus. I am noticing you refer only to North America which is misleading to readers and really understates the historical and current scope of the broad field of IWO psychology throughout Europe and elsewhere. I don't agree with you trying to downplay and diminish these facts. Sportstir (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edit inflates the role of i/o psychology in research on the impact of job stressors on health. Much of the early work on fatigue was motivated by getting munitions workers to work more efficiently. Efficiency was the key in I/O psychology1. Then there was a lull. Zickar observed that Kornhauser was pretty much alone, given his interest in worker health. Historically I/O was on the side of management, not workers. Yes, Kornhauser was an admirable person. But there needs to be added to the sentence on Kornhauser, a sentence on the context in which he worked. His concern for workers made him largely an outlier in the I/O context. I add that there is a section on the OB-I/O relation. There needs to be a parallel section on the OHP-I/O connection. My edits put I/O's work on occupational health in context and better drew the OHP-I/O connection. I would like to see my text restored. Iss246 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You did not address any of my points I've made particularly the fact that IWO has always been an international not just North American field and profession as you keep pushing for. The article needs to reflect that scope. Not dismiss that fact like you seem to be doing for reasons unknown. Sportstir (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Outside the U.S., the interest in worker health, which had mostly amounted to interest in fatigue in line with i/o's alliance with management and its demand for efficiency, faded.

I add this Sportstir, you did not acknowledge my note that having a subsection devoted to the i/o-ohp connection is consistent with ob-i/o section later in the article. Iss246 (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

SIOP

user:Orangesnlemons, thank you for restoring the text about SIOP. It was needed because SIOP is the organization that represents I-O psychologicsts in the U.S. Iss246 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Definition of IO field

@OrangesnLemons We should discuss the definition of IO here as we obviously disagree. I have never seen a source describe IO as the science of the work-life interface, and you provide no reliable source that says it is. If you can add such a source, I would be happy to leave it as it is, but if you cannot, then the definition needs to be changed. Per wiki rules, content must be based on reliable sources. SIOP is one, but I am open to using another.Psyc12 (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes work-life issues are a growing but still smaller topic area of the field and therefore I do see your point. I also do not want to limit the article as it should be representing a modern world-wide perspective. It looks like we do not necessarily need to include a quotation but I am open to that option if we can find one. Orangesnlemons (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

User:OrangesnLemons, you probably know that I agree with most of your edits. I am sympathetic with your interest in work-life balance, indeed, an important topic. I would argue that you should stick with the definition of I-O psychology that comes from SIOP. It is the most important I-O organization the world. SIOP's definition has implications for all you have said. Because this is an encyclopedia, we should go with an authoritative source, SIOP: I-O psychology "tries to understand and measure human behavior to improve employees' satisfaction in their work, employers' ability to select and promote the best people, and to generally make the workplace better for the men and women who work there." Work-life balance comes into play in I-O psychology because it follows from the goal of improving employees' satisfaction with their jobs. I respectfully recommend that we stick with SIOP's definition.

I recommend starting from the general. In the text of the article, we get down to the specifics. What is missing from the text of the article is a paragraph on work-life balance. Such a paragraph may fit in well with the section on occupational stress. You may want to write such a paragraph in that locaton. Iss246 (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I will do that. Also I included Rogelberg's 2007 encyclopedia as a reference and thought his definition was good at covering the breadth of the field. "Industrial/organizational (I/O) psychologists focus the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I/O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations" Orangesnlemons (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I like Rogelberg too. I sometimes read the journal he edits, the Journal of Business and Psychology.Iss246 (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Orangesnlemons I like this Rogelberg definition and I agree that a section of the article on work-nonwork would be an important addition.Psyc12 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Great. Let's go with that definition then to replace the first sentence. The way we could do it I thought was to change it to "Industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I/O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations" and obviously add Rogelberg as the reference for the quote. Orangesnlemons (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Hard to find a better source than Rogelberg.Psyc12 (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR

Explanation of maintenance templates. I noticed considerable amount of contents without foot notes. Just a reminder that everything presented must be directly supported by the provided citations and synthesis and original research are prohibited. Something encountered in other psychology/I-O articles was editors inserting things they "know" is correct and other personal knowledge based contents. The FAQs in reliable sources page is informative. Graywalls (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Where is the original research. It would help if you actually specfied what you are referring to. Orangesnlemons (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Read through the article. There are a lot of unsourced contents, as well as seemingly analytical/interpretive statements tacked onto the tail of sourced contents that appeared to be an interpretation/personal knowledge by the editors who put them in rather than directly supported by the cited references. There are too numerous to specifically point out each instance. Graywalls (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I asked that you specify what sentence you are talking about with your original research label. Orangesnlemons (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Even a single example of original research would really be good. Can you provide one specific sentence where you believe original research has been applied. Orangesnlemons (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

As I have already said, there are too numerous, but to give you one example Contingencies affecting teams include constraints arising from conditions in which organizational resources are not exclusively earmarked for certain teams. When resources are scarce, they must be shared by multiple teams.

would be one of it. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, but a useful source for references. So, if someone comes across that on Wikipedia, there needs to a cited reference to which the reader can refer to that source to verify and cite as needed for what they're doing. In the 21st century, more I-O psychologists joined with their OHP colleagues from other disciplines in researching work and health. here's another. Graywalls (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree on these two @Graywalls. I put a cite for the first one. The second I would delete because as written it doesn't make a lot of sense. What would be helpful is if you would put a 'citation needed' superscript on statements as you find them. Thanks.Psyc12 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

This is an issue I raised with regard to the psychological testing entry. Rather than delete a sentence or an entire section (e.g., the entire interest inventory section of that entry was deleted) in which the writing is cogent but a citation is missing, it is important that an editor insert the "citation needed" alert. In that way other, knowledgeable editors can note what is needed and supply missing citations. My concern is that if cogent text is deleted and a certain amount of time has passed, the problem of the missing citation won't be addressed and users of the encyclopedia will miss out. Iss246 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

One way to avoid it from becoming an issue is to remove freshly inserted uncited contents that are not self-explanatory to any reasonable reader (for example, "sky is blue"). It is not ok write out what you want to write and expect others to fetch sources. It's rather common on Wikipedia for people to contribute their first hand knowledge from what they have seen, what they have heard, self-proclaimed expertise from academics and other appeal to trust contents. In this edit, you left this summary in response to removal of contents you introduced without citation. Graywalls, you could have looked it up on page 44 of Anastasi and Urbina; Your destructive self looks to follow me around and make trouble.. It's not on others to disprove sources do not exist. If it's questioned, it's on those seeking to include it to find sources and even then, sourced is not a guarantee of inclusion. What would be helpful is if you do not continue to introduce uncited contents into the article space. Graywalls (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls, as much as I want to cooperate with you, this is my problem with some (not all) of your activities on WP. In order to make me look bad, you omitted what else I wrote on the talk page. I also wrote that if you can't find the appropriate source, you could put the citation needed tag on a sentence or paragraph that you think needs a citation as opposed to deleting a reasonably well written sentence or paragraph. In that way, another editor won't miss the opportunity to add what presumably is missing. Don't give the sad sack "It's not on others to disprove sources" BS. I reacted to your deleting the entire reasonably well written section on interest inventories from the psychological testing entry.Iss246 (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please stop talking to others here like you're superior to them, as shown by the language you use towards others, or comments directed at editors in edit summary. You not liking the processes doesn't make it BS. Don't put it on others to find sources. Wikipedia is not academia and the academician types accustomed to doing their own research and own thought processes to draw conclusion might find it hard to swallow, but everything included has to be directed supported by source. "I know it's right" doesn't cut it. If something is removed and you don't like the removal, it's pretty simple. As the person restoring the contents, go find the sources yourself. As long as the contents being inserted/removed isn't contentious, this works out fine. Is a source reliable? That's not decided by editor's proclaiming knowledge of the field, their own academic credentials and such as WP:USEBYOTHERS in relevant discipline. For example, Paul Spector can be considered as such, because his work has been cited by numerous other journals, so his cited work can be considered reliable. On the other hand, assertion Steven Eric Spector is a "computer expert" as having been elsewhere is not supportable, because there is nothing published by him, or credible sources naming him of expertise in that field, or anything at all. Graywalls (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've gone through the article, and it is very uneven. Most of it is well sourced, but there are sections that are not, e.g., the leadership section. I agree that there are paragraphs where the first sentence is cited, but the rest of it seems to be editorializing by the editor with material that is unsourced and in some cases appears to be wrong.Psyc12 (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It would of benefit if any original research or synthesis is clearly identified and it can then be addressed rather than saying original research or synthesis exists but with no specificity. Orangesnlemons (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

In our guidelines WP:V, WP:BURDEN, those wanting to include contents need to cite them. The template says "possibly contains original research". I am not going to spoon feed every example, but "Remuneration and compensation", the entire thing is unsourced. It's not up to me to determine whether it's just forgotten sourcing or something written off the personal knowledge of a self professed subject area expert. It could be either, so "possibly contains" OR is perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, it appears that prohibited original research or reflective writing by self asserting experts have been happening too often in psychology articles. Anything that comes from the knowledge of editors should be fully dismissed unless it's directly supported with reliable sources. The destination main article is a disaster too. Graywalls (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Valid point @Graywalls. The issue moving forward is how aggressive we (or others) should be in removing such content versus finding a cite. It gets difficult and in some cases as I've had to totally rewrite some text so it fits the cite I was able to find that comes close to what was written.Psyc12 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we delete the "Remuneration/Compensation" section. There are no references and it is unclear how this is relevant to IO. It is more human resource management.Psyc12 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that finding references for any sentence or section will be hard. There is an immense amount of references published around the world available to use on any topic within the field big or small. I am not in support of any aggressive approach and prefer to see us work together to improve the article. We could suggest sections or sentences for each of us to consider and find references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangesnlemons (talk • contribs) 13:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Orangesnlemons for your insight. It would be helpful if you would supply references and rewrite (as needed) the remuneration section. That effort could potentially put Graywalls, Psyc12, you, and me on the same page. The references, of course, would have to come from the I-O literature and not from the human resource management literature. Iss246 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The references, of course, would have to come from the I-O literature and not from the human resource management literature. this I am not sure, it may need to be asked at WP:MED if this article is expected to be held to WP:MEDRS standard. In any case, any WP:SYNTHESIS that may have been done by editors here, but not supported directly (referring to multiple sources and coming up with own interpretation is original research and this is not a directly supported idea) should be deleted. Graywalls (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in support of wiping out things that are not cited and/or appear to be original research. In fact, it really falls on those wanting to re-instate such material to properly and directly support the material per WP:BURDEN. Further, if there's disagreement over the decision to include/not include, those wanting to include must establish consensus. These guidelines aren't written by one editor wanting their own rules but a consensus formed over time that represents the larger Wikipedia community. There has been issues in some articles with some editors pushing back contents without citation on the ground of self proclaimed personal knowledge that it is correct and such, but that goes against guidelines as well as common sense that assuming something is correct and credible because some anonymous editor said so is not a good idea. It is the proper sourcing that validates anything said in Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with keeping the compensation section if it is properly referenced. I think that would put us all in agreement.Psyc12 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal reflection/original research trim

Trimmed out items that do not meet WP:V and WP:RS. Parked as courtesy. Graywalls (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Remuneration and compensation

Origin (at least some of it) 2009 Graywalls (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Compensation includes wages or salary, bonuses, pension/retirement contributions, and employee benefits that can be converted to cash or replace living expenses. I-O psychologists may be asked to conduct a job evaluation for the purpose of determining compensation levels and ranges. I-O psychologists may also serve as expert witnesses in pay discrimination cases, when disparities in pay for similar work are alleged by employees.

From leadership section

The below is attributed to this edit from 2011 and other edits by highly focused, WP:SPA that was used exactly for one day and never to be seen from again. The whole contribution by the single purpose account didn't in-line cite or add any source. Graywalls (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the contingency-focused approaches mentioned, there has been a high degree of interest paid to three novel approaches that have recently emerged. The first is transformational leadership, which posits that there are certain leadership traits that inspire subordinates to perform beyond their capabilities. The second is transactional leadership, which is most concerned with keeping subordinates in-line with deadlines and organizational policy. This type of leader fills more of a managerial role and lacks qualities necessary to inspire subordinates and induce meaningful change. And the third is authentic leadership which is centered around empathy and a leader's values or character. If the leader understands their followers, they can inspire subordinates by cultivating a personal connection and leading them to share in the vision and goals of the team. Although there has been a limited amount of research conducted on these theories, they are sure to receive continued attention as the field of IO psychology matures.
Follower-focused approaches
Follower-focused approaches look at the processes by which leaders motivate followers, and lead teams to achieve shared goals. Understandably, the area of leadership motivation draws heavily from the abundant research literature in the domain of motivation in IO psychology. Because leaders are held responsible for their followers' ability to achieve the organization's goals, their ability to motivate their followers is a critical factor of leadership effectiveness. Similarly, the area of team leadership draws heavily from the research on teams and team effectiveness in IO psychology. Because organizational employees are frequently structured in the form of teams, leaders need to be aware of the potential benefits and pitfalls of working in teams, how teams develop, how to satisfy team members' needs, and ultimately how to bring about team effectiveness and performance.

An emerging area of IO research in the area of team leadership is in leading virtual teams, where people in the team are geographically distributed across various distances and sometimes even countries. While technological advances have enabled the leadership process to take place in such virtual contexts, they present new challenges for leaders as well, such as the need to use technology to build relationships with followers, and influencing followers when faced with limited (or no) face-to-face interaction.

Personally, I would delete this entire portion on leadership. Besides no cites, there exists a very long article on leadership, so a link can be given where the reader can go for details. For topics where a good article exists, the section in the IO article should be short with the link provided for more information.Psyc12 (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I think leadership should be a section of the I-O entry. I hope that @Orangesnlemons or another knowledgeable editor would edit the section and add sources. Iss246 (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It is advisable to thoroughly read WP:AS. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal. Extremely lengthy articles are discouraged. Graywalls (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you Graywalls. I also think readability is of paramount importance. Clear, clear but accurate writing matters. And dividing an article into clearly demarcated sections is also helpful to readers as WP:AS notes. Iss246 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that just this section of the leadership topic could be deleted and the remainder should be well referenced which I will help with. In relation to the compensation topic it is only a very small part of the field and not often not even mentioned in IO references. Orangesnlemons (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I vote to omit ethical principle. Reference to trade groups make it too specific and ethical expectations like not falsifying records, not stealing aren't unique to I/O psych. Same goes for accountants, medical billers, service writers or stock traders. Graywalls (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I will agree with Orangesnlemons about what needs to be deleted and what needs to remain but be better sourced.

On another note, I have a concern about I-O psychology's ethical principles. Even if other professions share some of the ethical principles, I think those principles should NOT be deleted. They are worth mentioning because they are important and reflect on the I-O psychology profession. @Orangesnlemons, what do you think? Iss246 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I also don't think the ethical principles section should be omitted and am not at all sure why Graywalls is suggesting this option. Can you elaborate further why you want to delete it as the section is important I think as well and lots of references exist. Orangesnlemons (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree to keep the ethics section. I added a cite to the discussion of APA ethical principles and deleted the random example that had no cite.Psyc12 (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Are we in agreement to delete just that one part of the leadership article?Psyc12 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not clear about what we want to do with compensation. I agree with @Orangesnlemons that it is a very small part of the IO field, so there isn't much written on it. Sometimes job evaluation (mentioned) is discussed under the topic of job analysis. Pay satisfaction is part of job satisfaction, but not often studied alone. Is it worth including this in a separate compensation section, or should compensation be mentioned in other places (e.g., job analysis, job satisfaction)?Psyc12 (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Could compensation be limited to one or two sentences in connection to job evaluation? Job eval would be placed inside performance appraisal. Something like that. Iss246 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Performance appraisal/management

The below is unsourced since 2017: Graywalls (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Performance appraisal is frequently used in promotion and compensation decisions, to help design and validate personnel selection procedures, and for performance management. Performance management is the process of providing performance feedback relative to expectations and information relevant to helping a worker improve his or her performance (e.g., coaching, mentoring). Performance management may also include documenting and tracking performance information for organizational evaluation purposes.
An I-O psychologist would typically use information from the job analysis to determine a job's performance dimensions and then construct a rating scale to describe each level of performance for the job. Often, the I-O psychologist would be responsible for training organizational personnel how to use the performance appraisal instrument, including ways to minimize bias when using the rating scale and how to provide effective performance feedback.