Talk:Psychology/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Contemporary issues in methodology and practice dispute

@Snowded: I will begin this discussion since you haven't but you should be the one articulating why you think the content I added was to make a political point. It wasn't. It was an elaboration on the preexisting content, which states "Fanelli argues that this is because researchers in 'softer' sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases." More importantly, if you'd read the articles that were cited, you would find that the content I added was in fact a neutral summary of the research that was cited, and since what that research has shown, as I summarized, that "the disparity has been undermining the quality of research in psychology", it is more than relevant to the section about contemporary issues in methodology and practice, and while I recognize that the surveys were done of academic societies in the United States, that is why I added the additional text as a disclaimer.

In addition, you also removed other content that was unrelated to the political ideology and affiliation statistics, and that was a summary of the replication crisis in other subfields of psychology and reforms the field has taken to address the problem, which I can neither see how there is any plausible reason to remove from the section (as it is also about contemporary issues in methodology and practice of the field), nor can I see how that content was intended as a political point either. -- Jajhill (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

It reads as a statement in wikipedia's voice that the field shows political bias and its only US based anyway. I really can't see how its significant or how the conclusion could be legitimately held to undermine quality of research. The majority of evolutionary biologists are not young earth creationists - that doesn't indicate bias or undermine their research -----Snowded ^TALK 15:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: As I noted before, it is not my conclusion that the imbalance in the political ideology and affiliation of academic psychologists is undermining the quality of research in the field. That was the conclusion of the studies that were cited, one of which was actually a literature review. Also, considering that the academic psychology organizations that were surveyed are among the largest professional psychology organizations in the world, even though they are based in the United States, it is disingenuous and absurd to suggest that to cite those surveys is somehow giving them undue weight, especially when it is noted in the text that the organizations are based in the United States. Also, your comparison of academic psychology to evolutionary biology is not even remotely suitable. Evolutionary biology has not had the same issues with regard to the replicability of its findings that academic psychology has had, and it has had those issues due to the biases of the people working in the field as the preexisting content noted, which I reiterate, the content that I added was an elaboration of and were the conclusions of the studies and the literature review that was cited.

Additionally, you have ignored the fact that you removed content that was unrelated to the political ideology and affiliation statistics. Since you have not provided any remote justification for having removed it, I will be restoring it to the article. -- Jajhill (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

There are several conclusions that could be drawn from that data - an alternative was implied by my reference to evolutionary biology. There is no reason to privilege one interpretation which is clearly making a political point. Ditto to ideology and affiliation - you need to demonstrate that is relevant. -----Snowded ^TALK 16:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: I already did demonstrate that it was relevant since it was a continuation of the preexisting content. You are just simply not willing to acknowledge it. While there may be multiple conclusions that could be drawn from the data, they are not for Wikipedia editors to make. Our role is to summarize the sources of our information, and the conclusions that I put forward were not my own. They were the conclusions of the authors of the source, which as I reiterate, were performing a literature review published in an academic journal with one of the highest impact factors in the field, and as such, it is disingenuous and absurd to suggest that it was politically motivated or is privileging a particular interpretation of the data to make a political point. More importantly, the literature review was conducted to show how the decline in the ideological diversity of their field has damaged the quality of the research in the field, which as I also reiterate, is highly relevant to the contemporary issues and methodological practices of the field, which you are also just simply not willing to acknowledge. I'm restoring the rest of the content, and if you attempt to revert it again, I will notify the vandalism message boards that you are vandalizing the article. -- Jajhill (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

You were bold, you were reverted, now you discuss. I suggest you self revert - if not I will restore the stable state pending agreement. Accusing experienced editors of vandalism is generally frowned on - especially when they are simply removing controversal new material. If there is no agreement bring in other editors, call a RfC, lots of mechanisms other than edit warring - for which I have now warned you -----Snowded ^TALK 17:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: Fine. I will revert it. Since I don't know any other editors who might have an opinion about this or how to call an RfC, you should do that. -- Jajhill (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: You can remove the disputed section notice since I've removed the content that you disputed. -- Jajhill (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and I have - I will forumlate something if other editors who have this on their watch list do not respond. -----Snowded ^TALK 18:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Snowded: Thank you, and I apologize for my tone and inappropriate reverts before. Rereading what I wrote, I recognize that some of my comments were rude. I'm just accustomed to other editors (including some very experienced ones) being incredibly rude to me and arbitrarily reverting edits that I make good faith because they assume that I'm not doing so, and it's now become an reflexive reaction that I have when someone reverts content that I add. I also often feel that other experienced editors and administrators often have a bias against me in dispute resolution. -- Jajhill (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, you did the right thing in self reverting. I'm impressed :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

For other editors, here is the disputed content:

Multiple studies since Fanelli's research have found academic psychology in the United States (and social psychology in particular) to be severely imbalanced in terms of political ideology and political party affiliation. Recent member surveys of American academic psychology societies have shown that 84 to 89 percent of academic psychologists self-identify as liberals, while only 6 to 9 percent self-identity as centrists or moderates, and only 3 to 8 percent self-identify as conservatives, and the ratio of liberals-to-conservatives or Democrats-to-Republicans has increased from less than 4:1 prior to 1990 to 36:1 by 2016. (Duarte et. al; Haidt and Jussim) In addition, studies of the field have shown that the increased ideological imbalance in psychology has been caused by self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination towards non-liberals, and that the disparity has been undermining the quality of research in psychology. (Inbar and Lammers; Honeycutt and Freberg; Duarte et. al)

• Duarte, José L.; Crawford, Jarret T.; Stern, Charlotta; Haidt, Jonathan; Jussim, Lee; Tetlock, Philip E. (January 2015), "Political diversity will improve social psychological science" (PDF), Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 38, Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430, retrieved January 20, 2017
• Haidt, Jonathan; Jussim, Lee (February 2016), "Psychological Science and Viewpoint Diversity", Observer, 29 (2), Association for Psychological Science, retrieved January 20, 2017
• Inbar, Yoel; Lammers, Joris (September 5, 2012), "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology" (PDF), Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (5), SAGE Publications: 496–503, doi:10.1177/1745691612448792, retrieved January 20, 2017
• Honeycutt, Nathan; Freberg, Laura (September 15, 2016), "The Liberal and Conservative Experience Across Academic Disciplines: An Extension of Inbar and Lammers", Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7 (5), SAGE Publications: 115–123, doi:10.1177/1948550616667617, retrieved January 31, 2017

-- Jajhill (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Psychology/Archive 7 and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'.

Opinion: I don't believe the material should be included. Taking it at face value, my reaction to it is "so what" in relation to the general scope and purpose of this article (which is, let me add, exactly how I believe an ordinary user of the encyclopedia would take it). Even if it were rewritten to make it clear that it's a further expansion of, or comment upon, Fanelli's point, I think that it gives undue weight to the material in the proposed addition. (I'm less certain about the following opinion, but I'm also a little uncomfortable that in its current form, even properly understood as a riff on Fanelli, it might be prohibited synthesis by implication, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (emphasis added), and that if rewritten to make that riff clear that it might be outright prohibited synthesis. But that's kind of moot since I don't think it should be here in the first place.)

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Overlinking

This is the most overlinked page I've ever seen.

Please read: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked

Common terms including "brain" and "sports" which anyone will already understand are linked while obscure technical terms that should be linked like "emergent properties" are not linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:145:4380:54B7:0:0:0:2973 (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I went through the whole article and culled 2500 characters worth of repeat and unnecessary links.--Megaman en m (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added a few more main and see also links before I saw these comments. Also noticed there is a lot repeated content across these wikipedia articles on psychology which would be better discussed in a subarticle. Suggest to either remove duplication or perhaps use Wikipedia:Transclusion. Notgain (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone noticed that from (almost) any article, when clicking the first link to mainspace in the body of the article and then repeating, you always get to this page? JonsterMonster (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

I'm submitting a request to add the article below to the section on the WERID bias:

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/45/11401.full.pdf

This article documents the WEIRD bias in the flagship journal of the APS, Psychological Science, almost a decade after the term was coined by Henrich et al. It shows that not only the reliance on the WEIRD sample continues, many authors do not even acknowledge that their results are limited to their samples. The authors offer a set of recommendations to editors and authors/reviewers to correct course.

It is possible that this article has caught the attention of the recently appointed editor of Psychological Science, Patricia Bauer: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/new-psychological-science-editor-plans-to-further-expand-the-journals-reach

I propose the following text to be added.

In 2018, Rad, Martingano & Ginges showed that nearly a decade after Henrich et al.'s paper, over 80% of the samples used in studies published in the journal, Psychological Science, were from WEIRD populations. Moreover, their analysis showed that several studies did not fully disclose the origin of their samples. Rad et al. offer a set of recommendations to editors and reviewers to reduce the WEIRD bias.

Stefanmarkazi (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Section on weather Psychology is a science

Its an important part to put in--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It's mentioned that psychology is a science in the first sentence, I don't understand the problem.--Megaman en m (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying pyschology is not a science (even though thats what I think), No I mean a a section detected to the debate on weather psychology is a science or not. EXAMPLE: https://lwsd-my.sharepoint.com/:i:/r/personal/s-priyer_lwsd_org/Documents/sa.PNG?csf=1&e=f7XqAT.--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't access your link, but if you read Science it defines science as "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". That describes psychology as well as any other science. Psychology uses the scientific method for much of its research, and has done so for many decades. The professional literature includes many thousands of examples of that. That's not to say that every study uses randomized double-blind control trials, but that's true of many sciences. All sciences have their weaker, less robust bodies of research. Some aspects of psychology haven't advanced to the level that other sciences have, but if you look at the history of other sciences they all went through periods of immaturity and growth. They didn't all simply spring forth as fully developed as they are now. Psychology is a newer science than some of the others; that doesn't make it less of a science. Other science articles aren't required to devote an entire section to debate whether they are a science; neither should this one. There's plenty in this article that describes how psychological science has evolved through the decades. More detail is in History of psychology, which is linked in the article. That information is covered in the entire article; it doesn't need to be repeated in one section devoted to whether psychology is a science. We're going to need a lot more than your personal opinion to create a separate section that might cast doubt on whether psychology is a science. Stated briefly, we need reliable sources, but that's not enough. The sources must represent the broad perspective of the scientific community in a way that is WP:BALANCED and gives the most WP:WEIGHT to the consensus of experts on the topic, not just a few outliers. You're going to have a hard time finding that, even among experts in other sciences. You're in a small minority, and that's fine because you are entitled to your opinions. But that is not how the content of Wikipedia is determined. And every science has a minority of views that question the validity of how they operate. Sundayclose (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Im not saying pyschology is not a science should be here, Im sayig there should be a section on the debate weather psychology is a science or not, are you even listening?--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I'm listening. Did you read my comments, which lay out the requirements for a separate section on whether psychology is a science, a section that is not found in other science articles? So far you have provided nothing except your opinion that there should be a separate section, and you have no support here. The content of an article is not determined by the opinion of one editor. Sundayclose (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess you are right, sorry for the rage I thought you were trying to say something else.--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Smit Bharat Dama 2405:201:802:A7AD:6CC2:64FF:801C:AE65 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I want to change a line. Smitdama143 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Compelling evidence dictates that title of Science should be removed from psychology

Science (noun) is a fact of nature. Facts are verifiable. If your fact is not verifiable, then you never had a fact to begin with.

Psychology is hinged on statistics and statistics fail verification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_psychology

A Psychologist is still a scholar. He can still execute the scientific method on a patient. He still does science (verb). But psychology is not a Science (noun). Not verifiable.

The field of experimental psychology is trying to bridge this gap but it has not produced anything yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuzamarine (talk • contribs) 02:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

My answer here is the same as Talk:Medicine#Compelling evidence dictates that title of Science should be removed from medicine. —PaleoNeonate – 23:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wuzamrine expresses a very narrow and poorly informed perception of psychology and science in general. Every science has matters that are not "verifiable" at the current time. That doesn't make it any less of a science. Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC Is Swami Vivekananda a reliable source ?

Article Superstitions in Muslim societies is in process of expansion. Various related issues are under discussion at Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

it includes following topic Where in issue of Psychology was raised.

Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#RfC_Is_Swami_Vivekananda_a_reliable_source_?

Any one can participate in expansion of Superstitions in Muslim societies and give inputs at various related discussions at Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies

For information and record

Bookku (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

on the issue of psychology being a science or not

first of all id like to state my personal position on this debate which is that psychology IS NOT a science. however, I don't think that it's wise to discuss psychology alone in a vacuum.

a more productive debate will be to compare the approach of psychology to understand the mind and its parts vs the neuroscience approach to understanding the brain and its aspects i will state the main arguments for each in short:

the psychological argument: something as complex as thought and emotion can't possibly be understood from simple elements such as neurons firing stereotypical signals such as [[action potentials;( because there are too many of them) therefore it is more productive to study thinking organisms via the mind. thinking organisms are also affected by there Natural environment which means that our understanding of the mind is not complete unless we study the mind + environment as one whole. environment in this context means the social world (and some analog of this for animals) as well as the abiotic world

the neuroscientific argument: just as the 1s and 0s on a hard drive can explain all the functions of a computer including everything you see on a screen, sound, internet connection, and functionality of the mouse and keyboard, so to, the ion channels arranged on the neurons in the brain can explain its functionality. it should be noted that the principles of neuron logic are very different from that of a computer, mainly that the neurons in the brain form a network unlike the elements in a computer which are discrete this fact means the brain can academically be treated as a complex system and also has some simplifying theorys such as the theory of Cortical column RJJ4y7 (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Psychology really a science?

I'm not trying to be confrontational with this question -- I'm genuinely interested in perusing psychology, and whether it's considered scientific, or otherwise, wouldn't deter me in this pursuit. I've been to psychologists before, and besides the obvious counseling, I've been administered tests like IQ, Rorschach and Myers & Brigg. The latter two make me question the scientific validity of the field. And maybe those tests aren't indicative of the field in general. I was hoping to get some opinions on this matter -- I'm genuinely asking this in good faith. Jeff 139.138.6.121 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

If your question is raised simply out of your personal curiosity, please be aware that article talk pages are not forums for general discussion of the topics; they are to be used only for discussing improvements to the article. Feel free to raise any of your questions at Wikipedia's reference desk. If you wish to discuss changes to the article, you need to identify specific changes you would like to make and provide reliable sources to back up your ideas. Sundayclose (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Could you recommend an internet site where I could ask these questions? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, please take this to the reference desk. You have made these kinds of comments on a number of talk pages. Please stop. It's disruptive. Sundayclose (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I won't ask any more questions here. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

WEIRD redirects here. It shouldn't

WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) should not redirect to a sub heading critical to psychology. It is definitely notable enough to have its own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaverett0 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It won't happen, as what you propose is just another WEIRD idea... – Sophos II (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Readability

I am far enough along in my editing of the psychology entry to write on this talk page. I have been working on improving the readability of the psychology entry. I've been working on the article a little bit every day. My goal is to make the article more accessible to the general reader. I am not reaching out to the specialist. I would also like to make the entry reasonably accessible to high school students and college freshmen and sophomores, groups that include a future generation of psychologists. To reach those groups, I did not want to make the entry overly technical. For slightly more technical detail, a reader can capitalize on the internal links already in the article and the links I added. Iss246 (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I/O Psychology

An editor inserted i/o psychology into the section "Health, well-being, and social change." Unfortunately, the insertion overreaches by underlining the idea that for 100 years i/o psychology was interested in worker health. There were, however, with rare exceptions. Kornhauser, one exception, was an admirable figure in what was then called industrial psychology but he was a lonely figure. His twentieth-century colleagues were not so interested in worker health. They were considerably more interested in worker productivity. Paul Spector ("What Is Occupational Health Psychology?" [1] and "From occupational fatigue to occupational health." In L. M. Lapierre & C. Cooper (Eds.). Cambridge companion to organizational stress and well-being. New York: Cambridge University Press) has written about the difficulty of i/o psychology to accept research on work and health. Spector makes clear that worker health became more of a concern in i/o psychology after the turn of the twenty-first century. The studies by Sonnentag and Bowling and colleagues show that. Both investigators have presented their research at occupational heath psychology conferences; Bowling is a member of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and Sonnentag, the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The citing of Charles Myers was misleading because Myers was a medical doctor who had an interest in experimental psychology. He was not an industrial psychologist. One reason why occupational health psychology emerged as a discipline is that researchers in i/o and health psychology, while studying important topics, were not concentrating on the interface of psychosocial work factors and health. The section thus needs editing. Iss246 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The additions I made were all based on the reliable sources and did not overreach at all. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

user:Brokenrecordsagain, let's have more editors weigh in on the matter. One way you overreached was to make the physician Charles Myers an industrial psychologist. Another way you overreached was to make Kornhauser representative of what i/o psychology did for work and health in the twentieth century. Kornhauser was an admirable figure, but was out of the mainstream in i/o psychology, which was more interested in productivity than worker health. See Spector[2]. Iss246 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two streams of I-O psychology that began during World War I, one in the UK and the other in the US. The UK stream incorporated employee heath/well-being right at the beginning. The US didn't really catch up until late in the 20th century. The way the 3rd paragraph reads is that the field of IO has been concerned with Health/WB for a century. This is correct in that the UK branch was concerned since WWI. Does it give an erroneous impression that there was a parallel interest in the US at the same time? I'm not sure it does. The paragraph says the interest began with Myers in the UK, and first mention of an American is Kornhauser in the mid 20th century. Yes, Kornhauser was a rare American example, as you can find little health/WB research from the U.S. for a few decades. What I would recommend as a compromise is to leave the paragraph as it is, but add a sentence at the end saying something like the following.

"Although interest in health/well-being has always been a major focus in British I-O psychology, it wasn't until late in the 20th century that a parallel interest developed among American I-O psychologists, with few notable exceptions such as Kornhauser." Psyc12 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It is probably important for us to take a global perspective to the field of work psychology not just industrial and organizational psychology in the United States, which I think is what Iss246 appears to be doing by downplaying this 'international' perspective of workplace psychology. However I will let that editor comment further about what they are getting at if Iss246 liked. The reliable sources show that health and wellbeing as well as safety in the workplace has always been a major part of work psychology throughout Europe as well as throughout the Asia Pacific region and particularly Australia and New Zealand. Therefore I do not see the problem in stating the fact that this interest in health and wellbeing in the workplace spans over a century. Not specifying this long term involvement in these domains by work psychologists around the globe would be misleading. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am amused that User:Brokenrecordsagain "will let" me comment further. Iss246 (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A good source on history outside of the U.S. is Peter Warr's chapter "Some historical developments in I-O psychology outside of the United States" that is in Laura Koppes "Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology" published by Lawrence Erlbaum. He has a section contrasting UK and US and notes one major difference is the UK had a tradition of being concerned with health/WB of workers and the US did not. I think what is in the article now is ok. I would not go farther in detailing country differences given the focus is not on history of IO. It would fit well in the article on IO psychology in a subsection on "history" or "global history". That could distinguish the development of the field in different countries/world regions.Psyc12 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree Psyc12. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

An editor added Lillian Moller Gilbreth as an i/o psychologist when she was an engineer. She was concerned with ergonomics and its effects on worker fatigue. I think it is stretching a point that a non-psychologist is an i/o psychologist.Iss246 (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Lillian Moller Gilbreth She was also awarded a PhD in psychology 1915 Iss246. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/lilian-gilbreth-biography https://www.womenshistory.org/lillian-moller-gilbreth https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lillian-Evelyn-Gilbreth https://www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/a-genius-in-the-art-of-living-lillian-moller-gilbreth-industrial-psychology-pioneer.html http://faculty.webster.edu/woolflm/gilbreth2.html Not a psychologist! Have you got reliable sources that say that she's not? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right. She was also a psychologist. And an ergonomics expert. I recognize that. It seemed to me that her concern was more with worker efficiency than worker health. Her concern with reducing fatigue, like the fatigue-reducing changes made in British munitions factories during World War I, was primarily in the interest of improving worker efficiency, which is naturally important to enterprises. She had become an expert in efficiency and applied her ideas to improving the efficiency of classroom teachers too. It seems to me efficiency was a paramount concern. Iss246 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Her main occupation was a psychologist as she was awarded a doctorate in psychology. She has been referred to as an industrial psychologist in many reliable sources. Her focus was on occupational health and wellbeing in unison with worker efficiency which are all interrelated of course. You seem to be way off stating earlier that industrial psychologists have not been interested in worker health and wellbeing for long. This was in 1915 not 2015 and she was an American! I will take your apology though as a lot of academics appear oblivious to this female industrial psychologist and her importance to the history of psychology and industrial psychology. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The facts are that i/o psychologists' commitment to research on the impact of work on health was dwarfed by their commitment to studying worthwhile subjects such as efficiency, productivity, selection, leadership, performance appraisal, etc. One reason why Kornhauser stands out as an i/o psychologist is that he broke that mold and concerned himself with work and health. Unlike other i/o psychologists, who largely sided with management, he sided with labor unions. I add that the emergence of occupational health psychology came about because there was a need for psychologists to examine the health-impact of working conditions; see Everly (Everly, G.S., Jr. (1986). An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt (Eds.), Innovations in clinical practice: A source book (Vol. 5, pp. 331–338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.), Raymond, Wood, and Patrick (Raymond, J., Wood, D., & Patrick, W. (1990). Psychology training in work and health. American Psychologist, 45, 1159–1161. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.10.1159), and Spector (Spector, P. (2019). What Is Occupational Health Psychology? [3]). OHP would not have emerged if i/o psychology had been going full speed ahead in research on work and health. Learned societies in both Europe and North America developed in tandem with the emergence of OHP, demonstrating the need for OHP.

Is it not that industrial and organizational psychology is a very broad field within psychology as is clinical psychology, with psychologists in each field choosing areas such as worker health and wellbeing to specialize in. I demonstrated to you that industrial psychologists such as Lillian Moller Gilbreth as early as the beginning of the twentieth century have been involved in worker's health and wellbeing as did Psyc12. That specialization among certain industrial psychologists did not just stop since that time and has only increased as an area of specialization within the broader field. Today most industrial and organizational psychologists around the world are involved in employee health and wellbeing in some way or another either in practice or research or both. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

BR, I am not sure the Gilbreth addition is correct. You have two cites. The first I can't find because it is incomplete--just two partial names and page numbers. The second is to an article about Lillian Gilbreth's ideas about homemakers. The comments about health are about the health of homemakers, achieved by making her work more efficient. I can't find anything here about her being concerned with employee health and well-being. Everything I read about the Gilbreths is that they developed ways to make people more efficient through things like time and motion studies, which are the antithesis of concern with health/well-being. Is there something that explicitly shows they focused on health in their work? Thanks. Psyc12 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Will add several more sources to back up the fact that she was involved withg work life balance, worker safety, worker health and wellbeing through job redesign and other strategies to improve wellbeing in workers. As she was a female industrial psychologist she has the admiration of feminist psychologists worldwide. Many academics try to downplay her influence, particularly in the USA. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the wiki-article on Gilbreth would be helpful. I don't see anything there about worker health/well-being, but I do see discussion of her pioneering work in human factors. Maybe it would work better to devote a separate paragraph to her as one of the pioneers in human factors/engineering psychology, which is a major area of applied psychology, and her biggest contribution.Psyc12 (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

As I have said before, Arthur Kornhauser is an admirable figure. Unfortunately, there were not enough Arthur Kornhausers in 20th century i/o psychology. An editor is overselling 20th century i/o psychology's concern for mental health. Iss246 (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends if you were in the USA or the rest of the world at the time Iss246. As Psyc12 noted in Europe worker health and wellbeing were research interests right from the get go. I added the APA cite quickly today to back up the Lilian Gilbreth entry. She was arguably the first industrial psychologist, not just a psychologist and definitely not just an engineer. She combined worker wellbeing, job satisfaction and happiness with scientific management and engineering principles. Her brief one line mention in this section on health and wellbeing is certainly justified. I will gather more sources over the next couple of days to add some further meat to this inclusion. Shame she wasn't recognized by the so called expert academics who have written books on these topics and the history of psychology and industrial and organizational psychology. Shameful really. Her status among feminist psychology is not lost though. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I make three points in response.

1. Gilbreth was a fine figure. But Brokenrecordsagain has not made it clear, as per Psyc12's comment, that the documentation provided pertains to Gilbreth's work and health.

2. The editor needs more documentation to show how much i/o psychology in the UK and Commonwealth countries was concerned with work and health. If the editor has the documentation for Gilbreth, the editor needs to show that she was not the lonely figure Kornhauser was.

3. Singling out Kornhauser in the section misleads readers into thinking that he was representative of i/o psychology in the U.S. Iss246 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

BR, I have read your new source on Gilbreth on the APA website and I cannot see where it says she was concerned with worker well-being. The only place I saw her mention satisfaction/happiness was referring to managers being happy with production increases from using scientific management. I also went through Laura Koppes' book Historical Perspectives in IO Psychology and read everything written about Gilbreth throughout the book. Nowhere does it claim she was concerned with worker well-being. She was concerned with productivity, and her human factors approach was to design jobs and motions to maximize productivity. Based on everything I have seen about her, I agree with ISS that we should remove the sentence about her. If you want to say something about her contribution to IO, I would move it to the section on IO or to a section on human factors so her major contribution is better highlighted. Psyc12 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Peter Warr's chapter in Koppes book supports BR's position that in the UK worker health/well-being was a major focus from the beginning. Warr talks about how British thinking prior to 1940 was concerned not so much with maximizing productivity but with giving the worker "greater ease", both mentally and physically. IO in this time was strongly influenced by physicians who were concerned with health. This is quite different from the U.S. where the focus was productivity. Based on this and other things I've seen, I agree with BR that from a global perspective, the IO field has been concerned with health/WB from the beginning. Psyc12 (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I recommend, based on BR's and Psyc12's analyses, we should mention that i/o psychologists in the U.S. were rarely concerned with worker health but in the U.K. i/o psychologists were more concerned with worker health. One paragraph could do the work provided that appropriate documentation is included, which Psyc12 provided. I don't think we should have the health, wb, and social change section contain three paragraphs on i/o, taking up most of the text in the section. I think one paragraph giving a nutshell synopsis plus of course documentation would work. These sections are not to be exegetical. Iss246 (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Given how you are concerned with taking up too much space in that section Iss246 I do not believe we should be discussing the differences between the USA and the rest of the planet and the history involved. It is a small section of the psychology article. This statement I entered is correct regarding over 100 years involvement in worker health and wellbeing by industrial psychology. It started at the beginning of the twentieth century through the work of pioneering industrial psychologists and has continued to develop for over 100 years since. What is so controversial about that statement of fact? I think the section about occupational health psychology is very long and given the size of this other interdisciplinary field which is not anywhere near the size of industrial and organizational psychology internationally, should not be given so much space and weight in this section. Maybe just a brief mention to say occupational health psychology exists but is a specialization within the broad field of industrial and organizational psychology. Would that work? As far as finding more sources for Lillian Gilbreth I am on to it today Psyc12. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that too much space is being given to history and to parsing which areas of psychology did what. I would take BR's suggestion a step farther and merely have a single paragraph on contributions of psychology to psychological health. It doesn't really matter when interest started, in which countries it stated and who were early figures. More value would be provided in briefly overviewing that psychological factors are important in workplace health (physical and mental), mention stress, accidents/injuries, etc., and cite a few good sources with more information. Link to other articles that deal with these topics in more detail.Psyc12 (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Chapter X of the book by Gilbreth was disappointing. Underwhelming. If anything, it suggests a very thin interest in worker health in 20th century British i/o psychology. For example, Gilbreth wrote about the physical improvement in the worker:

"The indefiniteness of Traditional Management manifests itself again in this discussion, it being almost impossible to make any general statement which could not be controverted by particular examples; but it is safe to say that in general, under Traditional Management, there is not a definite physical improvement in the average worker. In the first place, there is no provision for regularity in the work. The planning not being done ahead, the man has absolutely no way of knowing exactly what he will be called upon to do. There being no measure of fatigue, he has no means of knowing whether he can go to work the second part of the day, say, with anything like the efficiency with which he could go to work in the first part of the day. There being no standard, the amount of work which he can turn out must vary according as the tools, machinery and equipment are in proper condition, and the material supplies his needs."

I think one paragraph on i/o psychology would do the job given the thinness of the foundational material. Iss246 (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Research and practice into worker health and welfare began at the beginning of last century and has become bigger and bigger until today in the world of industrial and organizational psychology. Today most industrial and organizational psychologists around the globe are involved in worker health and wellbeing to some degree. I think the section on occupational health psychology is way overblown. Also isn't occupational health psychology a specialization within industrial and organizational psychology Iss246? That is my understanding. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

BR, you are changing the topic. The document you have shown is consistent with your overstating the interest of i/o psychology in health. The source from Spector (Spector, P. [2019]. What Is Occupational Health Psychology? [4]) indicates i/o psychology for a long time downplayed the issue of work and health. The uptick in the 2000s in i/o psychologists' interest in work and health came with the emergence of occupational health psychology as a field.

It is true that OHP is related to i/o psychology. OHP derives from two subfields of psychology, health psychology and i/o psychology, and occupational medicine (Everly, G.S., Jr. [1986]. An introduction to occupational health psychology. In P.A. Keller & L.G. Ritt [Eds.], Innovations in clinical practice: A source book, Vol. 5, pp. 331–338). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange). OHP emerged because there was a need for such a subfield. I/o psychology and health psychology, although studying worthy subjects, were largely not studying the impact of psychosocial workplace factors on health.

Almost every subfield in psychology had progenitors in other subfields. Health psychology emerged out of clinical psychology. I/o psychology emerged out of experimental psychology, social psychology, and psychometrics. There is nothing wrong with that. The new fields began to emerge and develop more independently from the parent fields.

I therefore think it is time to reduce the overstated paragraphs on i/o psychology to one paragraph. Iss246 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree at all with reducing this section on industrial and organizational psychology. Psyc12 introduced the textbook which explains to you how industrial psychology was involved in worker health from the get go everywhere in the world apart from the USA. I am confused though. Is occupational health psychology a separate field of study from psychology? Because industrial and organizational psychology already studies and applies all of the same topics as this other field does? I would appreciate your clarification Iss246. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Is i/o psychology a subfield of social psychology? Social psychology contributed to the development of i/o because social psychologists are concerned with interpersonal relationships and laid the foundation for research on teams and leadership. That does not make i/o a subfield of social psychology. By the same token OHP emerged from health psychology, i/o psychology, and occupational medicine (as I wrote previously). OHP emerged because research in health psychology and i/o psychology, while valuable, did not focus on work and health. That i/o psychologists in the 21st century study work and health is a credit to the influence of OHP. Iss246 (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I asked if occupational health psychology is a field within psychology or a field separate to psychology? Can others who are not psychologists or do not have degrees in psychology practice it? Clinical psychology or industrial and organizational psychology for example both require practitioners to be psychologists or hold psychology degrees. Is it the same with this other field? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

OHP is a subarea of psychology that has emerged in the past 20 years. Most of the people who would claim to be OHPs were trained as IO psychologists, but not all of them. There are also nonpsychologists who are interested in it and do research in it, but that is true of many topics within psychology, including much of IO psychology. But I don't think this section should get bogged down in issues of which areas of psychology contributed to what. The main issue is that psychology has contributed to health/well-being of people at work and other domains of life. Workplace interest began a century ago in the UK, but I'm not sure that level of detail is important. I wouldn't say anything further than that, personally. 2603:900B:A02:2D00:5030:1926:60D4:CDB2 (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you user:2603:900B:A02:2D00:5030:1926:60D4:CDB2 for your comment. Iss246 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Industrial and organizational psychology is one of the major sub disciplines within psychology. Occupational health psychology seems to be a special interest group within psychology. We should not be giving the same weight to an interest group compared to one of the largest and major subdisciplines within psychology. The reality is industrial and organizational psychologists are trained and practice in every topic this interest group does. For example all of the topics covered in another psychology interest group, like addiction psychology, also are covered in research and practice by clinical psychologists. I therefore think the section on this interest group occupational health psychology should be trimmed if mentioned at all. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

OHP is recognized as more than an interest group. I did a web search for what is OHP and here's the first three sources that aren't an ad. They all define it as a field or subarea of psychology, not a special interest group.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/ohp/default.html

https://paulspector.com/what-is-occupational-health-psychology/

https://www.onlinepsychologydegree.info/faq/what-is-occupational-health-psychology/ Psyc12 (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I say we let majority rule on the issues, which means we keep the statement about IO and 100 years, drop Gilbreth, and leave in OHP. Our energies would be better spent adding content about how psychology has contributed to health by noting major issues and not get bogged down in what different areas of psychology contributed. I would add mention of accidents/injuries, stress, violence to name a few, with links to the full articles.Psyc12 (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Je suis d'accord. I agree with Psyc12. Let's have a rewrite and then move on. Iss246 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

BR, I read the section you provided from Gilbreth's book. She claims that Scientific Management--making employees perform tasks with exactly the same motions over and over will somehow make them healthier and happier. It wasn't long until psychologists realized that the opposite was true, and that simplified factory work was leading to labor disruption. Scientific Management that she advocates is controversial and considered inhumane by many, especially in the UK where it never caught on. Gilbreth cites no evidence. She just claims that her time and motion approach will benefit workers. She might have been sincere in her hope that Scientific Management would be good for people, but it is not reasonable to put her forth as a pioneer in the effort to make work healthier and employees better off just because she wrote that she thought it benefit them. Her main contribution was in the area of human factors, not employee health, and that's the topic where she should be mentioned. If you want to write about her in this article, I recommend starting a new section on Human Factors that would include her contributions.Psyc12 (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a critique of Scientific Management. Near the bottom there's criticisms by IO psychologists. https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/scientific-management/criticism-of-scientific-management-by-workers-employers-and-psychologists/25833 Psyc12 (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Psyc12 (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Gilbreth blended psychology and humanistic psychology into scientific management and was a pioneer. Ridiculous critiquing her 110 year old thesis. The reality is she was interested in health, welfare and safety of workers in the USA as the first industrial psychologist. All of the sources say that. I am talking about Gilbreth's work not her husband's Frank. Have you read this source Psyc12 that I added to the article. It supports what I've said but you have neglected it. Sullivan, S.E., (1995). Management’s unsung theorist: An examination of the works of Lillian M Gilbreth. Biography 18(1), pp. 31-41. Also Psyc12 did you login with an IP address to make an edit a couple of days ago 16:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC) IP address 2603:900B:A02:2D00:5030:1926:60D4:CDB2? Okay if you did but the IP address just appeared during this discussion with a similar point of view. Also do you guys personally know this lecturer in Florida USA you keep referring to? You and Iss246 keep adding him in support of your view https://paulspector.com/what-is-occupational-health-psychology/? which seems unusual. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Psyc12 is right. BR, you can write about Gilbreth in the human factors and ergonomics WP entry. We need to shorten i/o parts of the "health, well-being social change" section and not inflate the importance of i/o for health. We also need to augment the material on psychology's role in social change. The focus on Kenneth and Mamie Clark and their role in Brown v. Board of Education is good. We need a little bit more. Iss246 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I rewrote the material on i/o psychology to make it less tendentious. Iss246 (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree with the changes you just made Iss246 and in the middle of our discussion. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 04:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BR, I have read 4 of the 5 sources you provided about Gilbreth and none of them support your view that Gilbreth's work concerned employee health. I have noted several peer-reviewed sources that discussed her contribution, including chapters from Koppes book on IO history, and none of them say she was concerned about health. I have looked at a dozen more online. All say her work was focused on improving productivity through optimizing how people did tasks. You are incorrect that "all the sources" say she was interested in health of workers as they do not say that. This discussion has reached the point where it is no longer productive. We need to move on.Psyc12 (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think one mention qualifies as "keep referring to". I did a web search on "what is occupational health psychology" and listed the first 3 hits which included Spector's article. Psyc12 (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have revised this section based on our discussion. I kept the historical discussion including that roots in WWI (2 of 3 editors agree with that), but I deleted Gilbreth because the sources do not support what was written (2 of 3 editors agreeing with that). I added some introduction/transition to put the history in better context. I moved the OHP paragraph so it better flows with the history theme that interest began with IO and then emerged into OHP, which if you read the paragraph, is primarily associated with IOs. In the last paragraph I changed IO psychology to just psychology because I do not know if the authors of all these sources were IO psychologists (or even psychologists).Psyc12 (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

One final suggestion. A mention of Gilbreth could fit well two sections up in the section on Work. I would focus on what the writers about Gilbreth consider her major contributions--the time and motion study and an emphasis on worker efficiency, not to mention her work with human factors. These were huge contributions.Psyc12 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There was no reason to delete the section on more recent research by industrial and organizational psychologists. So I restored it as it was very well sourced. Given your opposition to the Gilbreth entry Psyc12 I have opened a new section below to discuss the matter, rather than edit war. So I left it out as you wished while we discuss it below.Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BR, I did not delete the section on more recent research. I just moved it to the end. I am fine with putting it back where it was. Note, that it now appears twice. One point though--it is not clear that the sources were all IO psychologists, which is why I just said psychologist.Psyc12 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Lillian Moller Gilbreth in the health and wellbeing section

I would like to add Lillian Gilbreth to the article section on health and wellbeing. This is the line I would like put in and here are some supporting reliable sources. I will find more as there are heaps around. During the early part of the twentieth century industrial psychologist Lillian Moller Gilbreth was also a pioneer into research on workplace efficiency, worker health and wellbeing and worker safety such as improved lighting and regular breaks. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

References

BR, you say that there are lots of sources to support your point but I can't find them, even in what you cited. I've checked lots of sources trying to find evidence that she was concerned with health. For example, I checked every chapter in Koppes IO history that mentioned her, and she is mentioned throughout the book by different scholars. None credit her with health. What everyone credits her for is time & motion, efficiency, and human factors. None say she is a pioneer in workplace health. I've checked a bunch of books on stress and on worker health. None mention her. For example, Hofmann & Tetrick's edited "Health and Safety in Organizations" mentions Kornhauser, but does not mention Gilbreth. Cooper & Dewe's book "Stress a Brief History" has no mention of her, even in the chapter dealing with occupational stress. I have checked other books with the same result. If the sources were there, I would support you on this, but they just aren't. I would support adding your statement without mention of health and well-being to the section on IO rather than this one. Psyc12 (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

BR, you have lots of enthusiasm for i/o psychology. That is admirable. But that enthusiasm has caused you to make i/o psychology, at least in the area of health, look grander than it actually has been. I am going to narrow the text in proportion to i/o's historic contribution to health. Unfortunately, your edits make it seems as if i/o psychology surpasses even health psychology in terms of advancing health. Don't get me wrong. I think your enthusiasm is great. But we have to think in terms of proportion. Iss246 (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources I provided all say she was involved in worker wellbeing and welfare. Is it that she is a female industrial psychologist that you dislike including her? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

https://womenyoushouldknow.net/lillian-moller-gilbreth-the-first-lady-of-engineering-and-the-founding-of-industrial-psychology/ Quote from that source. "Together, they gave America’s booming industrial scene the semblance of a soul by giving the physical and mental well-being of workers equal weight with profit and plant efficiency" Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The laundry study was more ergonomics than i/o. Her efforts to motivate workers looked more like i/o but the details were fuzzy. The work on motion design was ergonomics/human factors. Iss246 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You did not even know she was a psychologist Iss246. The sources talk for themselves. And human factors is part of industrial and organizational psychology as a specialization like occupational health psychology it seems. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

BR You have gone against consensus in insisting on your way regardless of other editor opinions. I have modified the mention of Gilbreth to more closely match what this last source says, which is that the main concern of Gilbreth was to avoid the negative consequences of Taylor's version of Scientific Management. Working in a factory in the early 20th century was not healthy, and merely imposing new methods that squeezed more production without making health worse is not the same as making worker's lives better. All this said, I do not think Gilbreth should be in this section of the article. Psyc12 (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The only inclusion I made that you and Iss246 were both against was Lillian Gilbreth who you both for some strange reason deny had anything to do with worker wellbeing when the sources say she does. For some reason you just included Frank Gilbreth as well who was the scientific management guy. He died in 1924 and Lillian the industrial psychologist continued in her consulting career by herself for another thirty or so years! The sources I included literally say Lillian was involved in improving worker welfare, worker wellbeing, job satisfaction, safety and happiness. What more do you need to support this woman's achievements as the very first industrial psychologist 120 years ago! I haven't reverted your edit today as this is the only bit you and I are disagreeing over and maybe we can sort this Lillian Gilbreth edit out with the help of an independent editor. Does that sound okay with you? The other editor Iss246 has obliterated your edits as well as mine in their need to include their preferred wording in the rest of the section and edit warring. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

BR, I have already explained many times my position which is based on many reliable sources that were peer reviewed, but you fail to even acknowledge this disconfirming evidence. The last source you added which is the clearest statement that she was concerned with health is not reliable by Wikipedia standards--it is a self-published article on a website by someone who does not have peer reviewed work on the same topic. The sources I have mentioned are peer reviewed histories by scholars of IO psychology, such as Laura Koppes who is a recognized leading expert on the history of IO psychology--here's a short bio: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/champions-of-psychology-laura-l-koppes.Psyc12 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You claim that Gilbreth earned the first IO PhD, but that is debatable. Zickar & Gibby (Koppes book on IO history) says that the first "official PhD in IO" was earned by Bruce Moore, and most sources agree. In her chapter Koppes notes that Gilbreth's dissertation was on scientific management which Koppes says might have been the first on a topic relevant to IO. She does not credit her with having the first IO degree.Psyc12 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to include Gilbreth as a workplace health pioneer, and continuing to make you case, which is unconvincing, is not going to change that. Psyc12 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why did you include Frank Gilbreth Psyc12? You did not answer that. He died in 1924 and Lillian Gilbreth continued her career for 45 more years! Also why did you delete my APA reliable source on Lillian's bio? Here it is again. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/lilian-gilbreth-biography. Also I have not included in this article the contention she was the first industrial psychologist so what is the big deal. Her Wikipedia article says she was the first industrial psychologist. She obtained her doctorate in psychology in 1915. For a long time male authors of industrial psychology text books had a hard time recognizing her because she was a woman I am afraid to say. Read the source I provided. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I added Frank because the Gilbreth version of scientific management was developed by both of them. I deleted the APA source because it does not say Gilbreth's contribution was employee health. It summarized it as "Gilbreth’s writing on topics such as leadership, motivation, selection, job analysis, quality, promotions, group cooperation, training and nonfinancial incentives was at the forefront of many modern ideas of industrial and organizational psychology." Male authors credit her with many contributions to IO far more important than first PhD, so it is hard to say that it is gender bias. My reading from many sources is that it is not clear that her PhD was in IO itself.Psyc12 (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You adding Frank Gilbreth seems strange Psyc12 as her husband Frank was not a psychologist and Lillian was. Very big difference. You are trying to paint Lillian with her husband's brush of scientific management and then say Lillian's contributions to worker wellbeing, welfare, happiness and job satisfaction over decades of her independent work as an industrial psychologist mean nothing. Psyc12 Lillian was an industrial psychologist, most of the sources say that too. She was a human engineer if you like. Also this section on Health, wellbeing and social change in the psychology article which we are discussing is as much about worker wellbeing as it is to worker "health" is it not? If not, why not Psyc12? And why are you trying to downplay this industrial psychologist's remarkable contribution to worker wellbeing, welfare, happiness and job satisfaction that the sources talk about? Worker wellbeing includes worker welfare, happiness and job satisfaction all of which Lillian was heavily involved in during the 45 years of her career as an industrial psychologist after her husband Frank died! The APA source says all of that. Anyone can read it in black and white. Surely the APA meets your criteria as a reliable source Psyc12? https://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/lilian-gilbreth-biography Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A quote from the APA article is "Gilbreth understood the importance of identifying the best motions to improve efficiency but she also wanted to know if those best motions provided the happiest result to those who used them. While Frank Gilbreth was studying the employee’s motions, Lillian was observing and analyzing the employee’s dedication to his/her job. In Gilbreth’s doctoral dissertation, she asserted that scientific management proponents should consider the perspectives and happiness of workers". Very much a pioneer. No one else was so invested in worker wellbeing, happiness, welfare and job satisfaction as Gilbreth was 100 years ago Psyc12 and without her hubby Frank that you insist on putting in the mix to muddy the waters. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

We will just have to agree to disagree BR. I do not agree to add her and unless ISS changes their mind, you do not have consensus on this point.Psyc12 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I would have gotten to this page sooner, but I was traveling. I have not changed my mind. What I would like to happen is to have a highly experienced WP editor, someone with more than 50,000 edits, intercede in this disagreement, make recommendations, and give us clarity. I don't want another tendentious newcomer arrive at the WP entry and make all kinds of changes that don't have the appropriate documentation. In other words, I ask that a highly experienced WP editor give us clarity. Iss246 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Iss246 I just put back Psyc12's wording that you wiped out and replaced with your wording which is not even accurate to the source you provided. It was "most" like Psyc12 said definitely not "half" like you said. Psyc12 if I compromise on this Gilbreth entry, it seems we agree on the other changes you've made to that section. Would that be correct? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Psyc12 I have removed the Lillian Gilbreth entry in the article as you've requested. I do not think we have any other points of contention as I agreed with how you've written up the section regarding industrial organizational psychology. I also put your wording that Iss246 changed back into the section as your version seems to be true to the sources I checked which the other editor Iss246 is not. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This section is supposed to be on application. Does noting that in the U.S. most OHP training happens in IO graduate programs give the reader a better understanding of how psychology is applied to improve worker health? I do not see how. This statement would fit well in the OHP article in a section talking about training of OHPers. It doesn't belong here. Psyc12 (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

New material for Health Well-Being and Social Change

I added this section to focus on new additions. I added a list of major areas where psychology has contributed to our understanding of worker health and provided some cites, using reviews where I had them, and linking to other relevant wiki articles. I don't talk about subdisciplines within psychology as my goal was to highlight the contributions more broadly.Psyc12 (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I am okay with the edits user:Psyc12 made although they are not the edits I most preferred. The take-away from those edits is that people from all around psychology have contributed to making workplaces healthier and safer. Those edits are sufficiently helpful that I can accept them. Iss246 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Zickar, cited in the article, indicated that Kornhauser was a lonely figure in industrial psychology, his being virtually alone given his concern for worker health. Iss246 (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Regrouping about worker health

Let's refocus on the article.

Our discussion about Gilbreth has been enlightening as I've read her most impactful publication "The Psychology of Management" and several peer-reviewed sources about her. It is clear that her contribution is significant, but right in line with the major focus of American IO psychology at the time, which is on efficiency and production, not well-being of employees.

The Psychology of Management clearly shows that her focus was on maximizing productivity. From an IO perspective, she talks about some basic stuff like selection and is very much evidence-based. But her view of the worker is simplistic, which reflected the field’s understanding at the time. She talks about each worker’s production being tracked and rewarded (piece rate). Each task is done in exactly the same way each time. Rest breaks are designed to minimize fatigue so output is maximized. She also talks about this being like an athletic competition. Everyone's production is assessed and compared. Workers have to use optimal motions/procedures. They have to take breaks at specific times. The output is public. She assumes that workers would be happy to have a system that maximizes their performance and workplace success, but worker happiness is a hoped for by-product, not the goal. The goal is clearly maximizing efficiency and increasing output. She might have had good intentions, but her assumption that better productivity is sufficient to overcome the experience of extreme standardization we know to be wrong. This is clearly illustrated in the 1949 Coch & French Overcoming Resistance to Change study where it became obvious that piece rate systems are not all they are made out to be and can cause problems, such as rate restriction, conflict among workers, and turnover.

More importantly Gilbreth scholars who published peer-reviewed sources note that she is an important figure in advocating for evidence-based practices, which is why she is prominent in the history of IO psychology. But as the peer-reviewed sources clearly indicate, her contribution is not in the area of employee health. It is in understanding how psychological factors can lead to efficiency and performance, which was the central focus of American IO psychology until the end of the 20th century.

BR, you claim to have a bunch of sources that support you view, but I cannot see how they do. Some are unreliable, one is incomplete (no idea what it is), and some say something different. A source you have that is reliable is self-published by Laura Koppes, who has published peer-reviewed sources on the history of IO, including an edited book. Here is how she characterizes Gilbreth's contributions. You will notice she says nothing about employee health/WB.

"Gilbreth’s writing on topics such as leadership, motivation, selection, job analysis, quality, promotions, group cooperation, training and nonfinancial incentives was at the forefront of many modern ideas of industrial and organizational psychology. She was pivotal in getting management to address personnel issues, and in doing so, attained recognition for psychology in the workplace."

Koppes has this to say in her book, Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

"The primary importance of Taylor's and the Gilbreths' work, however, may have been its programmatic nature and its suggestions of new possibilities for the study of industrial organization and productivity."

Gilbreth belongs in a discussion of history of the IO field according to many reliable sources. She does not belong in the history of psychology's contribution to worker health/WB.Psyc12 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Psyc12 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Psyc12 you keep ignoring worker wellbeing, welfare, job satisfaction, safety and happiness. You keep looking for the word health while ignoring psychological and mental health, worker satisfaction, wellbeing, welfare, safety and happiness. All of these sources talk about this focus on the psychological wellbeing of Lilian Gilbreth. Have you even read the Sullivan source I provided? The quote you included omits the section before it. "In 1912, the Gilbreths gave up the construction business to become management consultants. Their consulting included implementing novel ideas for the time such as an employee suggestion box, rest periods, process charts, and alternative work. They redesigned jobs based on employee’s perspectives, a new approach for the emerging discipline of industrial psychology. They developed ways to employ physically handicapped workers so they could become productive community members. After Frank died in 1924, Lillian continued to consult and research applications of psychology for the next 45 years. Her work was responsive to many issues, and was characterized by an underlying theme: Whenever possible, a human component must be included" Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Gilbreth's husband Frank died in 1924 and Gilbreth continued her career for another 45 years.

None of this indicates that they or she contributed to worker health and well-being and that they could be considered pioneers in this space. All of this was done in service to getting more productivity from people. They recognized that you have to consider psychological factors in order to maximize efficiency.

Neither of us is going to convince the other. The issue at this point is that you are ignoring consensus and just writing whatever you please even if other editors disagree, and you have been edit warring in doing so. Psyc12 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Psyc12's proposed edits. The documentary evidence is on their side. Iss246 (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Psyc12.Ohpres (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

There are now 3 editors who are in agreement that Gilbreth doesn't belong in this section of the article. For that reason I will remove that mention. Psyc12 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I am starting a new subject; I am, therefore, not going to indent here. WP editors can start to indent after this par. The concatenation of micro-findings at the end of the paragraph on i/o and health needs to be compressed. The psychology article itself is a broad summary and what we write in the subsection on worker health should too be a summary. I propose to do away with all those micro findings that may or may not be contradicted by other studies. I propose to leave one or two citations so that readers could look up the articles if they want to. It is too burdensome to present a series of micro-findings as if this article is an excerpt of the Annual Review of Psychology. Let's see what other WP editors have to say. Iss246 (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion makes a lot of sense.Ohpres (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree to remove the "micro-findings". But I have no problem adding a little more history of the interest in work and health/WB, but it should hit 2-3 major developments post-Kornhauser and not just the few scattered findings that are there now. These should be major developments that reliable sources note and not just our opinions, e.g., there is the Barling and Griffiths history in the Handbook of OHP that traces the US interest in employee health/WB. So I agree to remove the "micro-findings". I would not object to replacing it with a few major developments as long as it is short (few words with link to full article) and based on reliable sources (peer-reviewed) that explicitly say that these are the major developments. Psyc12 (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Psyc12, Iss246 and OHPres if you know each other and are part of OHP and the OHP Society, outside of Wikipedia can you declare this as you all are backing each other up and coordinating your editing against what the sources say. You are all trying to promote this society of OHP and trying to attack the major field of industrial and organizational psychology and its involvement in this area of psychology. It is called meatpuppetry and is not allowed. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

BR, it is better to write on the talk page than to hurl pointless accusations at another editor. You changed the text without providing an adequate justification on the talk page. I think your devotion to i/o psychology is admirable. But you can't make i/o psychology the critical center of research on the work-health interface because it isn't the critical center. Several other disciplines, within and outside of psychology, are devoted to that research area. I/o psychology, of course, in recent years has come to play a role in research on the work-health interface. See Spector, P. (2019). What Is Occupational Health Psychology? [5]. Iss246 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

BR has posted on dispute resolution. There is a place for us all to comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Psychology Psyc12 (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)