Where Has All the Psychology Gone? (Twenty Years ...

616

m i c ha e l j. z i c k a r a n d s c o t t h i g h h o u s e

Chandler, C. G. (2015, August). Organizational effectiveness: Replacing a vague construct with a defined concept. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada, August 8–10. Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science, 34(1), 51–61. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and metaanalysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, 1–11. Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555–561. Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D., & Drnevich, P. (2014). Ethics in the production and dissemination of management research: Institutional failure or individual fallibility? Journal of Management Studies, 51(1), 118–142. Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Citations to management articles: Cautions for the science about advice for the scientist. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 507–509. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011). An epidemic of false claims. Scientific American, 304(6), 16. Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422, 259–261. Lawrence, P. A. (2008). Lost in publication: How measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 8, 9–11. MacDonald, S., & Kam, J. (2007). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 44(4), 640–655. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. O’Boyle, E., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79–119. Tsui, A. S. (2013). 2012 presidential address: On compassion in scholarship: Why should we care? Academy of Management Review, 38(2), 167–180.

Where Has All the Psychology Gone? (Twenty Years Later) Michael J. Zickar and Scott Highhouse Bowling Green State University

Aguinis et al. (2017) contribute interesting analyses of cited sources in contemporary undergraduate industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology textbooks and continue their ongoing investigation into the long-term viability of I-O psychology as a unique discipline (see Aguinis, Bradley, & Brodersen, 2014). These analyses, conducted by authors who are members of business schools, attempt to answer questions related to the nature of work conducted by I-O psychologists, comparing the quality and importance of Michael J. Zickar, Bowling Green State University; Scott Highhouse, Bowling Green State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael J. Zickar, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403. E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Bowling Green State University, on 07 Mar 2018 at 15:10:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2017.66

w h e r e ha s a l l t h e p syc h o l o g y g o n e ?

617

work conducted by faculty in business schools with that conducted by faculty in psychology departments. One of their general themes is that members of business schools are conducting important research that is influencing the future of I-O psychology by overtaking undergraduate textbooks. As such, the article has the feel of a conquering hero taunting its vanquished foe. Concerns about applied psychology’s long-term viability are nearly as old as the field itself. Early applied psychologists had to fight with experimentalists like Titchenor and Boring to justify their professional existence (O’Donnell, 1979). Nearly 50 years ago, Lawler and colleagues held what might be the first symposium to discuss the impact of business schools on the future of I-O psychology (Lawler et al., 1971). In particular, they were concerned about the migration of I-O psychologists into business schools (which themselves were a relatively new phenomenon; see Friga, Bettis, & Sullivan, 2003): “Industrial-organizational psychology is moving to the business schools. Can it be maintained in psychology departments given the attractions business schools offer and its questionable standing there?” (Lawler et al., 1971, p. 21). Since that time, the extrinsic attractions of business schools have only grown. In the 2016 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Income Survey, the median salary of SIOP members in business schools was $132,000 compared to $85,000 for psychology faculty members. For assistant professors, the mean salary of business school faculty was $113,263 compared to $70,947. These extrinsic motivations to leave psychology departments for business schools have long-lasting intellectual consequences for our field. Other incentives to leave psychology departments include less pressure to obtain external grants in business schools, as well as the avoidance intradepartmental battles, often between I-O and clinical psychology (though it should be noted that business schools are not immune to disciplinary battles, often with management programs competing with finance, strategy, and accounting for resources). Twenty years ago, we expressed concern about what we perceived as the gap between I-O psychology and the basic discipline of psychology: the I-O psychology–psychology gap (Highhouse & Zickar, 1997). In the early days of I-O psychology, psychologists were given general training in psychology and often conducted research across a variety of different research topics (see Lowman, Kantor, & Perloff, 2007). For example, I-O psychology pioneer Walter Dill Scott studied with Wilhelm Wundt and published articles on hypnotic suggestion, memory, and emotions in addition to his work on personnel selection and advertising. Psychology departments were smaller in the early days of psychology, and intradisciplinary lines were much fuzzier than they are now. As departments have grown in size and as the various subfields of psychology have grown, the ties between I-O psychology and other areas of psychology have become even more frayed. The migration of many


618


I-O psychologists from departments of psychology to business schools exacerbates a problem that already existed. I-O psychologists in business schools do not have daily interactions with psychologists of other disciplines, and they are rewarded for publishing in management journals. As these people become the gatekeepers of research in I-O psychology journals, it is only natural that I-O psychology scholars begin to adapt their research efforts away from traditional I-O psychology topics toward topics of interest to managerial sciences—or, as some have suggested, toward pseudotheory (Cucina, Hayes, Walmsley, & Martin, 2014). In Aguinis et al.’s (2017) analyses, only six out of the top 50 most-cited sources are psychology outside of the realm of I-O psychology, with only one of the top-ten journals fitting that category (Psychological Bulletin). In addition, although there are many people in the top 155 most-cited authors in I-O textbooks who got PhDs in general psychology or other types of psychology besides I-O psychology, most of these people conduct research nearly exclusively in the work psychology realm. For example, Filip Lievens received a PhD in general psychology and David Kravitz received one in social psychology, though nearly most of their research is conducted now within the realm of I-O psychology. Aguinis et al.’s analysis provides evidence that psychologists outside of I-O have little influence within I-O psychology textbooks, which is more evidence of the I-O psychology–psychology gap. In one more alarming analysis in Aguinis et al. (2017), the Academy of Management conference will likely soon overtake the SIOP conference in terms of the conference where the majority of most influential (as judged by their analysis) authors present. Although we do not have data on this conjecture, we believe that the number of other types of psychology conferences that SIOP members attend is decreasing. The number of I-O psychologists who attend the annual APA and APS conferences is quite small, as is attendance at other psychology-based conferences. Aguinis et al.’s conclusion that “Based on the knowledge summarized in I-O psychology textbooks, I-O psychology is much closer to business and management than social psychology and psychology in general” (2017, p. 549) suggests that our 1997 predictions have been realized in 2017. This disconnect with the basic psychology literature is troubling for several reasons. First off, our historical identity has been as psychologists. Although nostalgia for our field’s roots may not be a justifiable reason by itself to maintain a strong connection to psychology, our respect for the psychological experimental tradition, as well as our field’s strong penchant for individual differences measurement, have been two themes that have distinguished us from traditional management researchers. As more and more I-O psychologists migrate to business schools, the influence of these two themes has diminished and has been supplanted by more systems theory


w h e r e ha s a l l t h e p syc h o l o g y g o n e ?

619

0.035 Psych Review

0.03 0.025 Psych Bulletin

0.02 0.015 0.01

AMR

0.005 0 1971

1984

1996

2016 ASQ

Figure 1. Percent of citations by source personnel psychology.

approaches. Highhouse and Zickar (1997) illustrated that the citation of top business/management journals had increased in Personnel Psychology and Journal of Applied Psychology since 1971, whereas the citation from top general psychology journals had decreased; we suspect that the trend has continued since that time. To follow up that analysis, we analyzed the references of Personnel Psychology in 2016 and compared the results with our previous data. As can be seen in Figure 1, the percentage of articles cited in Personnel Psychology articles that are from Academy of Management Review and Administrative Science Quarterly has continued to grow, whereas the references to Psychological Bulletin articles have decreased and those in Psychological Review have remained still at a very low rate. Second, I-O psychology has benefitted immensely from our core connection to basic psychology. Throughout our history, many of the best ideas from I-O psychology have been influenced by connections to other areas of psychology. Pat Smith and Lorne Kendall’s influential behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), for example, were inspired by work in developmental psychology (Smith & Kendall, 1963). Assessment centers and leadership theory were influenced by work on psychodrama and sociometry (Hooijberg & Choi, 2000). Our close connections to social psychology have influenced our research on topics as vast as team performance, job satisfaction, and organizational trust. As I-O psychologists lose connection to research being conducted by other areas of psychology, we miss out on important knowledge that can help advance our theories and practice. In addition, we avoid reinventing the wheel—discovering topics and ideas that have already been figured out by more basic psychologists. It could be argued that we are being


620


overly negative and that, by being in business schools, I-O psychologists will be influenced by a new set of intellectual forces, which will help broaden the impact of our field. We agree that expanding our sources of inspirations can be a positive development, only as long as we maintain our strong connection to psychology. As our analysis of Personnel Psychology demonstrates, however, these new influences seem to be supplanting, not supplementing, our connections to psychology. The economics driving I-O psychologists to business schools is likely to continue this migration into the future. Twenty years ago, we provided some suggestions on how I-O psychology programs could work to reduce the I-O psychology–psychology gap. These include fighting the trend to expand core content courses outside of psychology, including basic psychological journals into doctoral seminars, balancing the trend to include businessrelated competencies with competencies useful for psychology departments (e.g., grant writing training), and encouraging debates that question the core assumptions of our fields. Twenty years later these suggestions seem still important though unlikely to reduce the gap. We believe additional efforts should be focused on how to maintain strong connections between business school I-O psychologists and the discipline of psychology. These faculty should seek joint appointments with departments of psychology, chair and serve on theses and dissertations of psychology doctoral students, attend colloquia and psychology-focused conferences, and read on a regular basis psychology journals in basic areas. In addition, we are concerned that many of the traditional I-O psychology outlets have been taken over by business school scholars. We believe there is a market for new journals that affirm the importance of psychologically based research related to the context of work. In closing, Aguinis et al. (2017) use their analyses to reflect on some of the changes that have occurred in our field. Such handwringing about our identity seems to be part of our historical DNA as I-O psychologists. The trend to business schools is primarily caused by economic factors and may be a symptom of our success as I-O psychologists. As we express throughout this piece, however, we are troubled by the growing disconnect between IO psychology and psychology in general. We believe that more connections with our mother discipline of psychology will benefit the field in the long term.

References Aguinis, H., Bradley, K. J., & Brodersen, A. (2014). Industrial–organizational psychologists in business schools: Brain drain or eye opener? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 284–303. doi:10.1111/iops.12151 Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., Campbell, P. K., Bernal-Turnes, P., Drewry, J. M., Edgerton, B. T. (2017). Most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial-organizational psychology text-


i n t e r r o g at i n g t h e u n c o n s c i o u s b ia s e s

621

books: Implications for the science-practice divide, scholarly impact, and the future of the field. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10(4), 507–557. Cucina, J. M., Hayes, T. L., Walmsley, P. T., & Martin, N. R. (2014). It is time to get medieval on the overproduction of pseudotheory: How Bacon (1267) and Alhazen (1021) can save industrial– organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(3), 356–364. Friga, P. N., Bettis, R. A., & Sullivan, R. S. (2003). Changes in graduate management education and new business school strategies for the 21st century. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 233–249. Highhouse, S., & Zickar, M. J. (1997). Where has all the psychology gone? The IndustrialOrganizational Psychologist, 35(2), 82–88. Hooijberg, R., & Choi, J. (2000). From selling peanuts and beer in Yankee stadium to creating a theory of transformational leadership: An interview with Bernie Bass. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 291– 306. Lawler III, E. E., Cranny, C. J., Campbell, J. P., Schneider, B., MacKinney, A. C., Vroom, V. H., & Carlson, R. E. (1971). The changing role of industrial psychology in university education: A symposium. Professional Psychology, 2, 2–22. Lowman, R. L., Kantor, J., & Perloff, R. (2007). A history of I-O psychology educational programs in the United States. In L. L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 111–137). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. O’Donnell, J. M. (1979). The crisis of experimentalism in the 1920s: E. G. Boring and his uses of history. American Psychologist, 34(4), 289–295. Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 149–155.

A Review of the Field or an Articulation of Identity Concerns? Interrogating the Unconscious Biases That Permeate I-O Scholarship Gerard P. Hodgkinson The University of Manchester

S. Alexander Haslam University of Queensland

Aguinis et al.’s (2017) analysis of the “most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks” is a commendable piece of scholarship. Certainly, they have applied themselves to an important question and articulated a meaningful set of answers. We have no doubt too that for many readers the insights and answers they provide will be informative, compelling, and even reassuring—if only because they Gerard P. Hodgkinson, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester; S. Alexander Haslam, School of Psychology, University of Queensland. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gerard P. Hodgkinson, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, F34 AMBS East, Booth Street East, Manchester M13 9SS, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
