![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
There have been so many separate headers created by psyc12&iss246 in the last couple of days, I do not know where to respond? Edits I have personally made are not deleting other editor's work (nor their carefully added reliable sources) Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. There have been 2 distinct topics, ie. occupational stress and occupational safety and health, deleted from this article and many of the reliable sources attached. Each of these topics are quite distinct in organizational psychology which is a very broad profession. There is also no space limitation in articles. Can you please clearly define why you believe the 2 long term topics in this article, occupational stress and occupational health & safety have been deleted and merged? Mrm7171 ( talk) 01:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I can only explain what I added and deleted. Psych12 can explain (he did above) why he merged the sections. I explain what I deleted and added. I deleted the sentence bearing on the three sets of consequences, behavioral, psychological, and physical, and placed a variant of that sentence in the occupational stress entry. I edited the material on occupational stress. Remember that above I indicated that my edits would be similar if I were to edit a stand-alone occupational stress section or the merged section. I edited the material on occupational stress to avoid giving the general, nonspecialist encyclopedia user the false impression that i/o has been prime source of research on work and health problems (e.g., coronary disease). I showed sources that i/o has not been a leader in research on work and health. Psyc12 mentioned that he conducted an ISI search that showed little research on work and health was published in i/o journals (not none but relatively little).
However, I did want to emphasize that i/o has been a good source of research on occupational stress and other kinds of work-related problems (e.g., counterproductive behaviors). Iss246 ( talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I add Mrm that it is unproductive to give i/o another name (IWO) because it will confuse readers. Iss246 ( talk) 02:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Mrm, my edits were in line with giving the general, nonspecialist reader a more accurate view of where i/o psychology is strong in occupational stress research, for example, occupational stress contributing to counterproductive work behaviors (which I sourced) and where its contribution has been weak, for example, occupational stress and health (which I also sourced). I emphasize to you Mrm that I am not denigrating i/o psychology.
Mrm, i/o is a large field that covers a lot of ground. I/o has an ambitious research portfolio of topics as anyone can see from the i/o Wikipedia entry; however, it does not cover everything connected to work. And that is understandable. There is just too much territory to cover when it comes to health. 03:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I/o psychology is on the top of the list on the Bureau of Labor Statistics document ( http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t04.htm). I think the idea that it is the fastest growing occupation is of interest but it needs to be put into perspective because in terms of numbers i/o psychology is one of the smallest occupations on the BLS's list. We should not inadvertently mislead the reader into thinking that the numbers are large. In addition, the BLS document applies to i/o psychologists with a master's degree. The entry should also be clear that the citation does not pertain to Ph.D. i/o psychologists. I suspect that the market is strong for Ph.D. i/o psychologists but I don't have figures handy. Perhaps SIOP has information relevant to Ph.D. i/o psychologists. I think the readers would like to know what the market is like for Ph.D. i/o psychologists as well as for their master's level brethren. My guess is that the market for Ph.D. i/o psychologists is as good or better than it is for master's level psychologists. Iss246 ( talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I am requesting that we edit the introductory line and throughout the article, to define I/O psychology as IWO psychology to reflect the international nature of the profession/discipline and standards. Worldwide, the profession is increasingly defining the field as IWO psychology (indusrial work organizational) and I think Wikipedia as an international encyclopedia needs to reflect this.
I quote from the current Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology - Volume 2: Organizational Psychology Neil Anderson & Deniz S. Ones & Handan Kepir Sinangil & Chockalingam Viswesvaran
In the preface they state...."From scientific management to human relations movement, from cottage industries to craft guilds, from the industrial age to the informational society, the issues that have dominated the field of Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology have changed over the years. In the 21st century, IWO Psychology is becoming a global science and an arena for professional practice."
I welcome all comments/discussion on this important topic for editors. Thanks. Mrm7171 ( talk) 01:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Richardkeatinge. The issue of title for the profession internationally continues to be discussed amongst psychologists around the world. Given Wikipedia is worldwide, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and that using I/O psychology is quite cumbersome, this point was made. I/O is mostly used in the USA. Throughout Europe, the terms Occupational or Organisational and Work Psychology are used. In Australia and New Zealand Organisational psychology is used. An interesting example of the growing use of the term IWO psychology is at the University of Aukland, NZ's capital city, see this link http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/future-postgraduates/postgraduate-study-options/industrial-work-and-organisational-psychology.html. Mrm7171 ( talk) 00:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the overview section because it was redundant with other areas of the article, e.g., the opening paragraph, the section on training, and the list of topics is replicated in the individual topic areas later. Besides, there's no reference given for what was and wasn't included in the list. Furthermore, the opening paragraph of the section uses old outdated sources, one which refers to workers as just being men, and the other that says I/O only deals with business and industry. Psyc12 ( talk) 22:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the I/O article, there are some very long sections on specific topics that have their own articles. The training section has more information than the training article. That should be reversed, with these topic sections cut down to a sentence or two of definition and then a link to the main article. Information not in the main article that is important could be moved. Psyc12 ( talk) 00:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
These comments were used to justify deletions, "removed contentious, non encyclopedic sentence" and "re-included words health and wellbeing. see talk". In the talk pages I explained the reasoning for the sentences that were deleted. I explained that the section would appear to the nonspecialist encyclopedia user that i/o psychology has played a major role in research on health when that would be misleading. The assertion is not contentious because it is true.
I included the more neutral word "functioning" instead of health in the same spirit. I explained on the talk page the problem of the text misleading the reader into seeing i/o more involved in health than it is. I would have preferred a justification on the talk page rather than the curt words "contentious" and "re-included health" when I went to lengths to explain what I did. Iss246 ( talk) 04:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
By physical health I refer to hypertension, atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and ischemic heart disease. Research has linked these to job stress although the evidence suggests that there are more salient risk factors than job stress. By mental health I refer to major depression, dysthmia, and atypical depression (I am conducting research on atypical depression) as well as elevated scores on the CES-D. There is epidemiological evidence that job conditions are related to these disorders. This is where research on work stress is most likely to pay off. I/o psychology has not made much of contribution here.
One can cite a few studies but they are a tiny fraction of all the i/o studies being published in or out of i/o journals. However the count from i/o journals via the prestigious ISI Thomson's Web of Science data base should be enough to tell you that i/o research on health is a tiny fraction of all i/o research. You mentioned that i/o psychologists publish in non-i/o journals. What fraction of their publications in non-i/o journals concerns health? Psyc12 gave us an indication at least with i/o journals. I don't understand how the fraction will change much if we turn to non-i/o journals in which i/o psychologists publish.
I know you Mrm love i/o psychology. I don't denigrate i/o psychology. It is an estimable field. I have emphasized to you Mrm that i/o psychology has contributed to research on the relation of job stress to counterproductive workplace behaviors, motivation, performance, quitting, etc. That is why I would like to adjust the section on occupational stress without getting into an edit war with you.
Finally, you write that it is best to leave statistics our. It's best if we want to give the reader an inaccurate picture. I want to give the reader an accurate picture. Iss246 ( talk) 03:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I think mentioning those disorders you keep mentioning linked to stress like "atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and ischemic heart disease"? would be much better included in another articlemaybe health psychology? As I have said, work psychology is concerned with occupational stress and its relationship to things like wellbeing, burnout, job demands, work-stress models, work home family issues, coping and stress management, job performance, CWB etc and have been concisely mentioned in this article, in the occupational stress topic. Examples can be seen here in the most recent editions of one of the dedicated I/O psych journals European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/pewo20/current#.UvRaPGKSzFC. Mrm7171 ( talk) 02:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
My bad. Sorry. There was such a flurry of changes in a short period of time that I thought the material on CWBs was deleted. Now I see. It remains in the occupational stress section. Iss246 ( talk) 14:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Now let's return to the matter of what each of us refers to when he uses the term "health" in the occupational stress section. Iss246 ( talk) 15:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I worked on the clean-up of the section this morning. Here are some of the editorial changes I made. I edited for brevity. I fixed up citations, which often did not conform to APA style, the most commonly used style in psychology. I explained what strain is in the lingo of psychologists (not just i/o psychologists but psychologists from many fields); I did not want the nonspecialist reader to think that the research cited comes up with diagnosed mental disorders such as major depression. Instead of alluding to models of stress, I included two prominent examples of models of stress. I deleted, perhaps, one article after reading it because it promised more than it delivered.
Some of the published researchers cited are not i/o psychologists (e.g., Evans, Paul, Murphy) but that did not bother me because most psychologists like to contribute to multiple subdisciplinary journals.
In any event, I think the entry is a little tighter. It likely needs more work. Iss246 ( talk) 15:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
In view of what I have written above, I want to report that it takes a little time not just to obtain the studies cited, but to read and process what I read to determine if they fit the section. At first I thought that a mention of the study by Liljegren and Ekberg belonged in the section on occupational stress because burnout played a role in the study. That was a rushed judgment. I changed my mind. I deleted the study by Liljegren and Ekberg today although it is a well-done and interesting study. I deleted it because the research conducted did not directly concern occupational stress. The research concerned turnover intentions, turnover itself, and burnout. For example, Liljegren and Ekberg found that burnout was correlated with turnover intentions, and that people who changed their jobs lowered their scores on the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Occupational stressors were not measured. Clearly the study could be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on burnout. Iss246 ( talk) 03:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I noted earlier that the 'I/O consultant' sections of this article seem largely irrelevant and outdated to this encycopledic article. Solution might be to move them to a new article? or delete these sections from this article which is purely relating to the field of work psychology and work psychologists. Thoughts please? I will leave this here for a bit to discuss why it is here and if we can remove it from please. Mrm7171 ( talk) 02:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm a student enrolled in a course at CUNY York College looking to edit various I/O articles with information from peer reviewed psychological journals. I would like to edit this page but also would like to get some feedback from fellow editors on what information they are working on and where do they think needs the most help in terms of inputing reliable sourced NPOV & NOR information.
Xyzbb1253 ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Xyzbb1253. Welcome to the article. I have added business psychology to the lede. It is all the same field. That is, work psychology. I did this so we can reflect a worldwide view of the field as required of editors. I removed a couple of links already in other areas of article. Hope these minor changes make the article better for readers.
Mrm7171 (
talk)
02:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Industrial, work and organizational psychology (IWO) psychology is the correct term used internationally to accurately reflect the international nature of the profession/discipline and standards. Worldwide, the profession is increasingly defining the field as IWO psychology and I think Wikipedia as an 'international encyclopedia' needs to reflect this and not be biased in its content.
I quote from the current Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology - Volume 2: Organizational Psychology Neil Anderson & Deniz S. Ones & Handan Kepir Sinangil & Chockalingam Viswesvaran to provide an example. In the preface they state...."From scientific management to human relations movement, from cottage industries to craft guilds, from the industrial age to the informational society, the issues that have dominated the field of Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology have changed over the years. In the 21st century, IWO Psychology is becoming a global science and an arena for professional practice."
Given Wikipedia is meant to be representing a worldwide view, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias (and that using I/O psychology is mostly used only in the USA), IWO psychology seems to make most sense, and be the most representative and balanced title we should use. In fact, throughout Europe for instance, the terms Occupational psychology, or Organisational and Work Psychology are used. Industrial psychology is not even mentioned. And in Australia and New Zealand, Organisational psychology is used. Again, the word 'Industrial' is not even used.
An interesting example of the growing use of the term IWO psychology to broadly represent all regions of the world, is at the University of Aukland, NZ's capital city, see this link http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/future-postgraduates/postgraduate-study-options/industrial-work-and-organisational-psychology.html. Why is this Wikipedia article only using the USA version/title?
IWO therefore seems like the least biased, and most representative title for the international profession, and to cater for ALL of the 3 different titles used around the world not just the USA, and this being an 'international' Wikipedia article. Other editor's opinions? to this issue of representing a world wide view of the profession please? Mrm7171 ( talk) 15:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I have restored some of the entire sections, previously deleted through vandalism by Iss246. What was that all about anyway. Please do not do it again. You cannot delete entire sections from our articles, without at least talking about it first, but especially, when they are densely sourced. Charlotte135 ( talk) 03:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the section on training and outlook in the entry on industrial and organizational psychology is poor. Is there a branch of psychology that does not require "intense training" as the entry indicates as of today, Jan. 2, 2016? What is it about i/o being "intricate and complex"? Another editor, not I, added the banner that indicates that the section reads like a press release. I think the entire section should be removed. A tacky subsection covers the pros and cons of pursuing a career in i/o psychology ("Many career opportunities with a Master's-level degree" versus "Many positions require doctoral degrees"). I think the section on training and outlook should be deleted? If another editor wants to create a better section, she or he should proceed. The entire section as it stands today is an embarrassment. Iss246 ( talk) 08:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The Training and training evaluation section is too long and not consistent with our other sections. Charlotte135 ( talk) 01:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
While we are editing this article, I was looking at this section. Not sure it is at all relevant. At minimum it should be rewritten or trimmed significantly as other sections have been. Charlotte135 ( talk) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
{ping|Charlotte135}}, I am using the most up-to-date history of i/o psychology, Bryan and Vinchur's. It indicates that i/o psychology came late to the study of health. Its coming to the study of health was helped by a late-developing interest in the individual worker. That early lack of interest in the individual worker is what made Kornhauser so different from other industrial psychologists, who were often seen as agents of management.
@ Charlotte135:, Yes, I think brevity is good. I think you should proceed. And you made a good edit for deleting the unsourced statement, but if it were up to me, I would leave it there for a few more months.
@ Charlotte135: I mean that I was okay with your deleting the sentence "Examples of scarce resources....." because it was unsourced. But I also said that I would have responded to the sentence a little differently. I would have left it there for a few months. If nobody added a source by say March or April, I would have deleted it. Iss246 ( talk) 01:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Charlotte135:, that is not the point regarding your deletion of "Although i/o psychology came late to workplace.....", which I worked hard to write, and your re-entering "Occupational health and safety is concerned with how.....", which I rewrote and rewrote. I voice an objection to those edits. Almost everything I write has reliable sources. But sometimes that is not enough. When a secondary source provides the big picture, the secondary source should come into play.
I decided to be bold and replace the entire innovation section of the article. After reading it a few times, this sentence still seemed largely meaningless to me:
..I/O psychologists see the value of that variable where its consideration would, were its reliability and validity questioned, achieve a statistically significant probability that its results are not due to chance, and that it can be replicated reliably with a statistically significant ratio of reliability, and that were a court to raise a question...
I think it's an important topic and deserves some more focussed discussion. This version of January 4th has some interesting content, although the writing style is clumsy, and as far as I can tell it's relying a bit too much on primary sources. I've put in a cut down version of that section; I hope that someone with more knowledge of the subject can further improve it. Jowa fan ( talk) 12:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the leadership section of our article is too detailed, and disproportionate, to other areas within I/O psychology. Charlotte135 ( talk) 00:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
"I/O psychology was ranked the fastest growing occupation over the next decade according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics‘ Occupational Outlook Handbook in 2014. It is estmated to grow 53% with a mean salary of $109,030, with those at the top 10 percentile earning $192,150 for 2018."
These two sentences assume some country and currency but it's not clear which ones. "estmated" is also misspelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcsfred2 ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
There have been so many separate headers created by psyc12&iss246 in the last couple of days, I do not know where to respond? Edits I have personally made are not deleting other editor's work (nor their carefully added reliable sources) Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. There have been 2 distinct topics, ie. occupational stress and occupational safety and health, deleted from this article and many of the reliable sources attached. Each of these topics are quite distinct in organizational psychology which is a very broad profession. There is also no space limitation in articles. Can you please clearly define why you believe the 2 long term topics in this article, occupational stress and occupational health & safety have been deleted and merged? Mrm7171 ( talk) 01:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I can only explain what I added and deleted. Psych12 can explain (he did above) why he merged the sections. I explain what I deleted and added. I deleted the sentence bearing on the three sets of consequences, behavioral, psychological, and physical, and placed a variant of that sentence in the occupational stress entry. I edited the material on occupational stress. Remember that above I indicated that my edits would be similar if I were to edit a stand-alone occupational stress section or the merged section. I edited the material on occupational stress to avoid giving the general, nonspecialist encyclopedia user the false impression that i/o has been prime source of research on work and health problems (e.g., coronary disease). I showed sources that i/o has not been a leader in research on work and health. Psyc12 mentioned that he conducted an ISI search that showed little research on work and health was published in i/o journals (not none but relatively little).
However, I did want to emphasize that i/o has been a good source of research on occupational stress and other kinds of work-related problems (e.g., counterproductive behaviors). Iss246 ( talk) 02:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I add Mrm that it is unproductive to give i/o another name (IWO) because it will confuse readers. Iss246 ( talk) 02:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Mrm, my edits were in line with giving the general, nonspecialist reader a more accurate view of where i/o psychology is strong in occupational stress research, for example, occupational stress contributing to counterproductive work behaviors (which I sourced) and where its contribution has been weak, for example, occupational stress and health (which I also sourced). I emphasize to you Mrm that I am not denigrating i/o psychology.
Mrm, i/o is a large field that covers a lot of ground. I/o has an ambitious research portfolio of topics as anyone can see from the i/o Wikipedia entry; however, it does not cover everything connected to work. And that is understandable. There is just too much territory to cover when it comes to health. 03:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I/o psychology is on the top of the list on the Bureau of Labor Statistics document ( http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.t04.htm). I think the idea that it is the fastest growing occupation is of interest but it needs to be put into perspective because in terms of numbers i/o psychology is one of the smallest occupations on the BLS's list. We should not inadvertently mislead the reader into thinking that the numbers are large. In addition, the BLS document applies to i/o psychologists with a master's degree. The entry should also be clear that the citation does not pertain to Ph.D. i/o psychologists. I suspect that the market is strong for Ph.D. i/o psychologists but I don't have figures handy. Perhaps SIOP has information relevant to Ph.D. i/o psychologists. I think the readers would like to know what the market is like for Ph.D. i/o psychologists as well as for their master's level brethren. My guess is that the market for Ph.D. i/o psychologists is as good or better than it is for master's level psychologists. Iss246 ( talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I am requesting that we edit the introductory line and throughout the article, to define I/O psychology as IWO psychology to reflect the international nature of the profession/discipline and standards. Worldwide, the profession is increasingly defining the field as IWO psychology (indusrial work organizational) and I think Wikipedia as an international encyclopedia needs to reflect this.
I quote from the current Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology - Volume 2: Organizational Psychology Neil Anderson & Deniz S. Ones & Handan Kepir Sinangil & Chockalingam Viswesvaran
In the preface they state...."From scientific management to human relations movement, from cottage industries to craft guilds, from the industrial age to the informational society, the issues that have dominated the field of Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology have changed over the years. In the 21st century, IWO Psychology is becoming a global science and an arena for professional practice."
I welcome all comments/discussion on this important topic for editors. Thanks. Mrm7171 ( talk) 01:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Richardkeatinge. The issue of title for the profession internationally continues to be discussed amongst psychologists around the world. Given Wikipedia is worldwide, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias and that using I/O psychology is quite cumbersome, this point was made. I/O is mostly used in the USA. Throughout Europe, the terms Occupational or Organisational and Work Psychology are used. In Australia and New Zealand Organisational psychology is used. An interesting example of the growing use of the term IWO psychology is at the University of Aukland, NZ's capital city, see this link http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/future-postgraduates/postgraduate-study-options/industrial-work-and-organisational-psychology.html. Mrm7171 ( talk) 00:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the overview section because it was redundant with other areas of the article, e.g., the opening paragraph, the section on training, and the list of topics is replicated in the individual topic areas later. Besides, there's no reference given for what was and wasn't included in the list. Furthermore, the opening paragraph of the section uses old outdated sources, one which refers to workers as just being men, and the other that says I/O only deals with business and industry. Psyc12 ( talk) 22:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the I/O article, there are some very long sections on specific topics that have their own articles. The training section has more information than the training article. That should be reversed, with these topic sections cut down to a sentence or two of definition and then a link to the main article. Information not in the main article that is important could be moved. Psyc12 ( talk) 00:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
These comments were used to justify deletions, "removed contentious, non encyclopedic sentence" and "re-included words health and wellbeing. see talk". In the talk pages I explained the reasoning for the sentences that were deleted. I explained that the section would appear to the nonspecialist encyclopedia user that i/o psychology has played a major role in research on health when that would be misleading. The assertion is not contentious because it is true.
I included the more neutral word "functioning" instead of health in the same spirit. I explained on the talk page the problem of the text misleading the reader into seeing i/o more involved in health than it is. I would have preferred a justification on the talk page rather than the curt words "contentious" and "re-included health" when I went to lengths to explain what I did. Iss246 ( talk) 04:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
By physical health I refer to hypertension, atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and ischemic heart disease. Research has linked these to job stress although the evidence suggests that there are more salient risk factors than job stress. By mental health I refer to major depression, dysthmia, and atypical depression (I am conducting research on atypical depression) as well as elevated scores on the CES-D. There is epidemiological evidence that job conditions are related to these disorders. This is where research on work stress is most likely to pay off. I/o psychology has not made much of contribution here.
One can cite a few studies but they are a tiny fraction of all the i/o studies being published in or out of i/o journals. However the count from i/o journals via the prestigious ISI Thomson's Web of Science data base should be enough to tell you that i/o research on health is a tiny fraction of all i/o research. You mentioned that i/o psychologists publish in non-i/o journals. What fraction of their publications in non-i/o journals concerns health? Psyc12 gave us an indication at least with i/o journals. I don't understand how the fraction will change much if we turn to non-i/o journals in which i/o psychologists publish.
I know you Mrm love i/o psychology. I don't denigrate i/o psychology. It is an estimable field. I have emphasized to you Mrm that i/o psychology has contributed to research on the relation of job stress to counterproductive workplace behaviors, motivation, performance, quitting, etc. That is why I would like to adjust the section on occupational stress without getting into an edit war with you.
Finally, you write that it is best to leave statistics our. It's best if we want to give the reader an inaccurate picture. I want to give the reader an accurate picture. Iss246 ( talk) 03:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I think mentioning those disorders you keep mentioning linked to stress like "atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and ischemic heart disease"? would be much better included in another articlemaybe health psychology? As I have said, work psychology is concerned with occupational stress and its relationship to things like wellbeing, burnout, job demands, work-stress models, work home family issues, coping and stress management, job performance, CWB etc and have been concisely mentioned in this article, in the occupational stress topic. Examples can be seen here in the most recent editions of one of the dedicated I/O psych journals European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/pewo20/current#.UvRaPGKSzFC. Mrm7171 ( talk) 02:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
My bad. Sorry. There was such a flurry of changes in a short period of time that I thought the material on CWBs was deleted. Now I see. It remains in the occupational stress section. Iss246 ( talk) 14:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Now let's return to the matter of what each of us refers to when he uses the term "health" in the occupational stress section. Iss246 ( talk) 15:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I worked on the clean-up of the section this morning. Here are some of the editorial changes I made. I edited for brevity. I fixed up citations, which often did not conform to APA style, the most commonly used style in psychology. I explained what strain is in the lingo of psychologists (not just i/o psychologists but psychologists from many fields); I did not want the nonspecialist reader to think that the research cited comes up with diagnosed mental disorders such as major depression. Instead of alluding to models of stress, I included two prominent examples of models of stress. I deleted, perhaps, one article after reading it because it promised more than it delivered.
Some of the published researchers cited are not i/o psychologists (e.g., Evans, Paul, Murphy) but that did not bother me because most psychologists like to contribute to multiple subdisciplinary journals.
In any event, I think the entry is a little tighter. It likely needs more work. Iss246 ( talk) 15:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
In view of what I have written above, I want to report that it takes a little time not just to obtain the studies cited, but to read and process what I read to determine if they fit the section. At first I thought that a mention of the study by Liljegren and Ekberg belonged in the section on occupational stress because burnout played a role in the study. That was a rushed judgment. I changed my mind. I deleted the study by Liljegren and Ekberg today although it is a well-done and interesting study. I deleted it because the research conducted did not directly concern occupational stress. The research concerned turnover intentions, turnover itself, and burnout. For example, Liljegren and Ekberg found that burnout was correlated with turnover intentions, and that people who changed their jobs lowered their scores on the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Occupational stressors were not measured. Clearly the study could be mentioned in the Wikipedia article on burnout. Iss246 ( talk) 03:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I noted earlier that the 'I/O consultant' sections of this article seem largely irrelevant and outdated to this encycopledic article. Solution might be to move them to a new article? or delete these sections from this article which is purely relating to the field of work psychology and work psychologists. Thoughts please? I will leave this here for a bit to discuss why it is here and if we can remove it from please. Mrm7171 ( talk) 02:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm a student enrolled in a course at CUNY York College looking to edit various I/O articles with information from peer reviewed psychological journals. I would like to edit this page but also would like to get some feedback from fellow editors on what information they are working on and where do they think needs the most help in terms of inputing reliable sourced NPOV & NOR information.
Xyzbb1253 ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Xyzbb1253. Welcome to the article. I have added business psychology to the lede. It is all the same field. That is, work psychology. I did this so we can reflect a worldwide view of the field as required of editors. I removed a couple of links already in other areas of article. Hope these minor changes make the article better for readers.
Mrm7171 (
talk)
02:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Industrial, work and organizational psychology (IWO) psychology is the correct term used internationally to accurately reflect the international nature of the profession/discipline and standards. Worldwide, the profession is increasingly defining the field as IWO psychology and I think Wikipedia as an 'international encyclopedia' needs to reflect this and not be biased in its content.
I quote from the current Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology - Volume 2: Organizational Psychology Neil Anderson & Deniz S. Ones & Handan Kepir Sinangil & Chockalingam Viswesvaran to provide an example. In the preface they state...."From scientific management to human relations movement, from cottage industries to craft guilds, from the industrial age to the informational society, the issues that have dominated the field of Industrial, Work and Organizational (IWO) Psychology have changed over the years. In the 21st century, IWO Psychology is becoming a global science and an arena for professional practice."
Given Wikipedia is meant to be representing a worldwide view, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias (and that using I/O psychology is mostly used only in the USA), IWO psychology seems to make most sense, and be the most representative and balanced title we should use. In fact, throughout Europe for instance, the terms Occupational psychology, or Organisational and Work Psychology are used. Industrial psychology is not even mentioned. And in Australia and New Zealand, Organisational psychology is used. Again, the word 'Industrial' is not even used.
An interesting example of the growing use of the term IWO psychology to broadly represent all regions of the world, is at the University of Aukland, NZ's capital city, see this link http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/for/future-postgraduates/postgraduate-study-options/industrial-work-and-organisational-psychology.html. Why is this Wikipedia article only using the USA version/title?
IWO therefore seems like the least biased, and most representative title for the international profession, and to cater for ALL of the 3 different titles used around the world not just the USA, and this being an 'international' Wikipedia article. Other editor's opinions? to this issue of representing a world wide view of the profession please? Mrm7171 ( talk) 15:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I have restored some of the entire sections, previously deleted through vandalism by Iss246. What was that all about anyway. Please do not do it again. You cannot delete entire sections from our articles, without at least talking about it first, but especially, when they are densely sourced. Charlotte135 ( talk) 03:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the section on training and outlook in the entry on industrial and organizational psychology is poor. Is there a branch of psychology that does not require "intense training" as the entry indicates as of today, Jan. 2, 2016? What is it about i/o being "intricate and complex"? Another editor, not I, added the banner that indicates that the section reads like a press release. I think the entire section should be removed. A tacky subsection covers the pros and cons of pursuing a career in i/o psychology ("Many career opportunities with a Master's-level degree" versus "Many positions require doctoral degrees"). I think the section on training and outlook should be deleted? If another editor wants to create a better section, she or he should proceed. The entire section as it stands today is an embarrassment. Iss246 ( talk) 08:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The Training and training evaluation section is too long and not consistent with our other sections. Charlotte135 ( talk) 01:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
While we are editing this article, I was looking at this section. Not sure it is at all relevant. At minimum it should be rewritten or trimmed significantly as other sections have been. Charlotte135 ( talk) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
{ping|Charlotte135}}, I am using the most up-to-date history of i/o psychology, Bryan and Vinchur's. It indicates that i/o psychology came late to the study of health. Its coming to the study of health was helped by a late-developing interest in the individual worker. That early lack of interest in the individual worker is what made Kornhauser so different from other industrial psychologists, who were often seen as agents of management.
@ Charlotte135:, Yes, I think brevity is good. I think you should proceed. And you made a good edit for deleting the unsourced statement, but if it were up to me, I would leave it there for a few more months.
@ Charlotte135: I mean that I was okay with your deleting the sentence "Examples of scarce resources....." because it was unsourced. But I also said that I would have responded to the sentence a little differently. I would have left it there for a few months. If nobody added a source by say March or April, I would have deleted it. Iss246 ( talk) 01:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@ Charlotte135:, that is not the point regarding your deletion of "Although i/o psychology came late to workplace.....", which I worked hard to write, and your re-entering "Occupational health and safety is concerned with how.....", which I rewrote and rewrote. I voice an objection to those edits. Almost everything I write has reliable sources. But sometimes that is not enough. When a secondary source provides the big picture, the secondary source should come into play.
I decided to be bold and replace the entire innovation section of the article. After reading it a few times, this sentence still seemed largely meaningless to me:
..I/O psychologists see the value of that variable where its consideration would, were its reliability and validity questioned, achieve a statistically significant probability that its results are not due to chance, and that it can be replicated reliably with a statistically significant ratio of reliability, and that were a court to raise a question...
I think it's an important topic and deserves some more focussed discussion. This version of January 4th has some interesting content, although the writing style is clumsy, and as far as I can tell it's relying a bit too much on primary sources. I've put in a cut down version of that section; I hope that someone with more knowledge of the subject can further improve it. Jowa fan ( talk) 12:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the leadership section of our article is too detailed, and disproportionate, to other areas within I/O psychology. Charlotte135 ( talk) 00:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
"I/O psychology was ranked the fastest growing occupation over the next decade according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics‘ Occupational Outlook Handbook in 2014. It is estmated to grow 53% with a mean salary of $109,030, with those at the top 10 percentile earning $192,150 for 2018."
These two sentences assume some country and currency but it's not clear which ones. "estmated" is also misspelled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcsfred2 ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)