Talk:Industrial and organizational psychology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Main issues to discuss

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)

In the section above called Occupational stress, part 3 I clarified the edits I made regarding occupational stress research. I wrote that clarification before Psyc12 reorganized. When I did go about editing a number of hours later, it was in the reorganized section. If the section were not reorganized, my edits would have been similar. My edits are consistent with the cited articles. I want avoid the situation in which the average encyclopedia reader who is not a specialist in psychology comes away from the i/o entry with the view that i/o psychology has been a leading source of research in the area occupational stress and health problems such as coronary disease when i/o has not been such a source of research. I also refer you the a search Psych12 made of ISI Thomson's Web of Science described above.

I did want to emphasize that i/o psychology has, proportionately, been a very good source of research on occupational stress and work-related problems such as counterproductive behaviors. Iss246 (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to say? The 2 'separate topics' in this article, ie. occupational stress and occupational safety and health are distinct. You have merged them and deleted many reliable sources from both distinct topics in doing so, without us discussing here. Both are areas that IWO psychology and IWO psychologists are concerned with (research and practice). This is the IWO psychology article so they are appropriate and have been in the article a long while. Can you both please address these clear points?Mrm7171 (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am tried to explain above. Bear in mind that I did not merge the topics. However, regardless of whether the topics were or were not merged (I think Psyc12 wrote an explanation of the merger on this page), my edits were in line with the view that the way the section was written could lead the average, nonspecialist encyclopedia reader to come away from the i/o entry with the idea that i/o psychology has been a leading source of research in the area occupational stress and a health problem such as coronary disease when i/o has not been such a source of research. Psych12's search of ISI Thomson's Web of Science described above indicates as much. My edits would have been very similar if the occupational stress section were in tact.

I, however, emphasized that i/o psychology has been an important source of research on occupational stress and work-related problems such as counterproductive behaviors. Iss246 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

One other point, I made sure that the sentence (or a slight variant of it) about behavioral, psychological, and physical health consequences of occupational stress is in the occupational stress Wikipedia entry. It more aptly belongs in the occupational stress entry, especially considering what I wrote above, namely, that i/o psychology, while a leader in research on some topics, has not be a leader in research on the health consequences of working conditions. Iss246 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. The two sections were not deleted, the content has just been moved. I agreed with you that the section on accidents should be expanded to health and safety, so I just followed your lead and consolidated the three sections together. I think it actually works better that way. We can discuss how much content should be in that section, but we should not do that in isolation of the rest of the article. More on that later. Psyc12 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The 2 distinct topics, ie. occupational stress and occupational health and safety have been merged and you both deleted many reliable sources in doing so. IWO psychology is concerned with both of these distinct topics. This is the IWO psychology article, so they are appropriate to be included as separate topics? Do you agree? If you agree, they are distict topics why are they merged into one topic?Mrm7171 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

These 2 topics need to be kept separate in the article. Occupational stress is not the same topic in IWO psychology as occupational health and safety. I will separate the 2 areas even more clearly in the article then.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:32, 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)

Mrm7171. Originally the sections were distinct. One on accidents/safety, one on stress, and one on health/well-being. You were the one who insisted on merging stress, health, and accidents/safety. I think it actually works very well that way, and I just followed your lead. Now you are trying to argue that they have to be separate. I am confused. Psyc12 (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Based on the objective edit history from yesterday, occupational stress and occupational health and safety have always been separate topics. In I/O psychology they are separate topics and related topics to I/O psychology (research & practice). Do you not agree with those clear points? If not I will restore these separate topics as they were yesterday then. I also asked psyc12 what was the "promotional" text you mentioned earlier, I can't see it? Can you please tell me exactly what you thought was promotional?

Accidents and injuries is part of occupational health and safety and I had placed it in the OHS topic, where it belongs? Hope that is clarified now?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. I am glad to answer, but I wonder if you are even reading my comments as I have already answered. Chapters in I/O textbooks often combine stress with accidents safety and health. For example, check the chapter in the Spector text. So these topics work very well together, and I think you were on the right track to expand accidents/safety. I am confused because now you seem to think that is a bad idea. The parts deleted were promotional because they were saying that I/O was important in this topic or that topic. There's no need for that because the topics wouldn't be in the article if they wasn't relevant. Psyc12 (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take out the wording "significant" contribution then. Agreed. Anything else promotional? Also shall we then separate occupational stress and occupational health and safety? Accidents and injuries is part of the larger OHS topic, so it belongs in that topic. Also I made comment on the graduate programs in the US. I am flexible on the 'number issue' you mentioned, but counted over 250 grad courses myself? I will be adding other graduate programs worldwide, over the coming week to add balance and prevent bias by just mentioning US programs. Comments please?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just deleted sentence with number of grad programs in the US until it can be agreed which reliable source is most appropriate as suggested.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:30, 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)

Agreed. I/O or work psychology is very broad. That is why in the UK and Australia for instance, it takes at least 8 or 9 years full time training to qualify as an Occupational or Organizational Psychologist respectively. Once qualified, psychs then choose which areas to specialize in. However the only point left to discuss here it seems, is again separating these 2 topics, which are also separate topics in Wikipedia: That is, occupational stress and occupational health and safety (incl. accidents & injuries within this OHS topic). I have never made comment 'how' important these 2 topics are in I/O psych, just that they 'are' topics in I/O psych and should be in the article. This article needs a lot more work, over time, and this is not a big deal for us to get caught up on.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick but relevant point, given our discussion. Occupational health and safety is an increasingly popular specialization for qualified occupational & organizational psychologists worldwide.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care which way we cut things up as long as there isn't redundancy. If stress is pulled out separately, then it should not be mentioned in the section on OSH, which should then focus mainly on accidents and injuries. For the most part the Occupational Stress and Health field focuses on accidents, injuries, and illness due to work conditions such as exposure to asbestos and other harmful substances. There is some overlap with psychosocial things, but that can get us into stress if we aren't careful. As I've said before, it works combined, as that's how I/O texts often present it, but separate can work too.Psyc12 (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, regarding redundancy point. Occupational safety and health (OSH) & occupational health & safety (OHS) are exactly the same, just different acronyms, depending on USA version (OSH) or international version (OHS). Probably OHS more widely used as other editors have discussed over the years on the article's talk page. Either way, when discussing OHS as a separate topic in this I/O article, occupational stress is only relevant as a psychosocial or psychological hazard, among many other hazards in the workplace and just needs to be mentioned briefly. Then in a separate occ stress topic, we could mention other aspects to occ stress like its effect on performance etc.? Can we move forward with this approach then?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay made changes as discussed. No words like "significant" contribution. Included a couple more examples of I/O's contribution to OHS, through "safety leadership" and its effect on OHS/OSH 'compliance.' with a 2009 and 2013 reliable sources. No redundancy, or very little. All topics included come from major Organizational/Occupational journals. Hope this is enough for us to move on now.Mrm7171 (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Two sections look fine. I removed the repeated reminders that I/O psychologists do this or I/O psychologists do that for several reasons. First, as I've said repeatedly, it seems promotional, but even if it isn't..... Second, it is superfluous because the article would not be talking about something if it wasn't relevant to I/O. Third, it is inconsistent with the style of the other sections that don't keep touting what I/Os do. Fourth, there is no reference for it. For each such claim, there would need to be a reference that said exactly that, but it seems such an unimportant point that it would not be worth distracting the reader. Psyc12 (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Work psychology as the fastest growing occupation in the US

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'm not sure that this is only MA level. They list typical education, but I wonder if that means minimum education. What these numbers mean is if one gets the degree, there will be lots of opportunity, even if the field is rather small. Psyc12 (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the small numbers should be mentioned in order to give the reader a more rounded picture. Iss246 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to change title to IWO psychology

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)

No editors have objected or commented on this long standing request to change the article's title to reflect the international nature of the profession and this broad area of psychology. Will give it another couple of days and then make a bold edit based on this request and the reasoning presented above. Simply a change to Industrial, Work & Organizational (IWO).Mrm7171 (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I would not support this change. It is fine in the opening paragraph to note that sometimes other terms are used a list a few, but I/O is the term used most often in the literature to refer to this field, and to use the IWO term instead is likely to cause confusion. Psyc12 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The term organizational psychology, rather than I/O psych is probably the most common in the literature. The 'increasing use' of the term industrial, work and organizational (IWO) psychology, at least needs to be reflected in this international Wikipedia article, based on reliable sources? Mrm7171 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I have created the page Industrial, work, and organizational psychology as a redirect to here. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is needed because IWO is rarely used. Here's a source on the acronym that says it is rare. http://www.acronymfinder.com/Industrial,-Work-and-Organizational-%28psychology%29-%28IWO%29.html I did a search for IWO spelled out, and got very few hits, with most just to I/O. Psyc12 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary either. But it does seem to be accurate and it may defuse one part of this situation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Psyc12 (talk) 19

33, 5 February 2014 (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)

Anyway solved this a few days ago, by simply adding it to the first sentence of the lede instead. Just seemed like a decent solution to cater for the different titles used around the world and this international Wikipedia article.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Overview Section Deleted

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)

Agreed. Was going to do the same thing.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:36, 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)

No, strongly oppose. A lot of work has gone into this article over many years by many editors using many reliable sources. No need whatsoever to start culling? for no reason? Often readers won't click through to these other articles. These topics are some of the main topics in I/O psychology as a profession, broad as it may be. Further there is no space limitation. What could be culled is the sections on I/O consulting. Penbat has very competently already began that work.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Further, discussion in this article is only relating to I/O psychology's contribution to each topic. Whereas main articles are made up of all disciplines and professions contribution to that topic.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I won't do anymore culling unless other editors call for it. I agree that there's too much on consulting. Psyc12 (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks psyc12. I think that some streamlining would be acceptable. However if a reliable source, especially from a dedicated I/O psychology journal, is already used in this I/O article, supporting separate points, then deleting it would obviously not be acceptable and would likely lead to unnecessary conflict. I say this after extensively reading various relevant Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary particularly in relation to the policy guidelines on Alternatives to reverting and other policy guidelines. With the I/O consulting sections, I noticed Penbat has already streamlined these yesterday, so I would want to discuss that with Penbat also and perhaps develop some consensus between all editors here on talk over the next few days on any significant changes. Does that sound fair enough?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Good plan. Psyc12 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent deletions of edits "removed contentious," etc.

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)

As far as this comment you just made above "..... i/o psychology has played a major role in research on health when that would be misleading." I am confused. The occupational stress and other topic sections simply includes reliable sources from dedicated I/O journals, mostly conducted by I/O psychologists and I/O researchers. Obviously different disciplines also study occupational health and occupational stress. That's fine. Richardkeatinge made a great point in this regard. However this is the I/O psychology article. You keep deleting the words "health" from this article. No statements are made in this article regarding the 'degree', 'significance' or 'weighting' I/O psychology has contributed, so I don't see your point? The number of reliable sources which exist in these areas speak for themselves. Can you also reply specifically to these clear points I just made please?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am responding with clear points. You are misunderstanding me. I am not saying the i/o psychology has absolutely nothing to do with health. The point I am making is that health has been a very small component of i/o's portfolio of research interests. As mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, Psyc12 checked ISI Thomson's Web of Science data base for 2012, which at this time is the year with the most complete set of entries. Of 168 articles on occupational stress, he found that only "15 appeared in the category of applied psychology, and of those only 6 were in I/O journals." Moreover, this finding is supported by the citations entered from Ilgen and Quick. The way the occupational stress section is now configured, nonspecialist encyclopedia readers can get the false impression that i/o psychologists have been leaders in the investigation job stress and health problems such as coronary disease. Of course, they aren't.

Don't get me wrong. There is another side to this. I think i/o psychologists' research is helping us understand the relation of job stress to important non-health problems such as counterproductive workplace behaviors. I included a citation from Spector to support this point. I would like the nonspecialist reader to come away with an appreciation of the valuable occupational stress research i/o psychology has done in the non-health domain but not mislead the reader about i/o and health research. Iss246 (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with those figures. Best to leave 'statistics' out of this talk, can be very misleading. Mrm7171 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I write here to put the figures that Psyc12 mentioned into context. It would be helpful that if you distrust the figures obtained by Psyc12, you could go to ISI Thomson's Web of Science to check the figures for 2012. The ISI Thomson Web of Science data base is one of most prestigious data bases in the world.

I'm a numbers guy. Let me show you how the numbers play out in a way that can deceive the nonspecialist encyclopedia user. Suppose Psyc12 is right, and there were 6 articles on work and health published in i/o journals in 2012. Let's assume there were several hundred articles published in i/o journals in 2012, and this is not a wild assumption. You could cite every one of the 6 articles in the occupational stress section. That would impress a nonspecialist encyclopedia user. You could cite another 6 from 2011. And another 6 from 2010. That would make it seem to the nonspecialist encyclopedia user that i/o psychology is in the forefront of research on work, stress, and health when, in truth, it isn't. When, in truth, health has been a very small part of the i/o research portfolio. What a tiny fraction of the sum of all i/o research those numbers are.

I also want to impress upon you something else. I certainly don't want you leave this page thinking that I don't have respect for i/o psychology. That is far from the truth. I think i/o psychology, your field, is a terrific field. I recognize that i/o psychologists have made progress in research on the relation of occupational stress to problems other than health problems, for example, counterproductive workplace behaviors. I even cited a publication by Spector to that effect. Of course, there is research on the relation of occupational stress to motivation, quitting, performance, and so on. The section should emphasize the i/o research in those areas.

That is why I would like to emend the occupational stress section of the i/o entry. I don't want to get into an edit war with you. But I want to give the nonspecialist user of Wikipedia a more accurate picture of i/o psychology's work on occupational stress. Iss246 (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, I want to follow up on something else in your comment above. You mentioned physical health. I think i/o has made a very small contribution to the fund of research on work and physical health. I also think that its contribution to research on health and mental disorder has been very small as well.

That doesn't mean i/o is deficient in any way. I/o has a large portfolio of research topics. I mentioned above important topics such as counterproductive workplace behaviors, motivation, quitting, performance, &c. Iss246 (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I/O psychs also publish in many other journals, so best to keep statistics out of it, especially if you only look at one year? In this article I have purposely included I/O psych research from the 1970's until today and only in dedicated I/O psychology journals, so there is no ambiguity that these reliable sources are specifically in the I/O field and each reliable source(s) has been placed in this article to succinctly represent 'separate sub-topics' of I/O psychology's unique contribution to the broader topic of occupational stress (as per Wikipedia policy). But I ask you again these specific 'unanswered' questions. When you say "health" that is very broad? Physical health? or Mental health? Is employee wellbeing "health related" in your opinion? And since the 1960's, which area of psychology could possibly have been 'more' involved in 'occupational' stress research/practice than work psychology?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:36, 7 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 want to give an accurate picture too iss246, so here it is! The European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, is a dedicated work psychology journal, and a journal which I did not even need to begin selecting reliable sources from! I just tell as it is and let readers see for themselves rather than quoting statistics. It lists 11 research papers from 2012, covering wellbeing, health, demands, exhaustion, coping etc. Nearly every single one of these 2012 articles are occupational stress related and cover nearly all sub-topics within this occupational stress topic in this article. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/pewo20/current#.UvRaPGKSzFC Mrm7171 (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And the one very pertinent question iss246 that you've 'still' left unanswered is this. Since the 1960's, which area of psychology could possibly have been 'more' involved in 'occupational' stress research/practice than work psychology?Mrm7171 (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know what disease endpoints are involved in the research, whether it is research conducted in the 1960s or a later era. Iss246 (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

To return to my original point, the occupational stress section needs to be pared down because the research on health is questionable. However, the research on occupational stress and other domains, for example, counterproductive workplace behavior, performance, motivation, quitting, etc. is important, and should be included. Iss246 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I ordered one of the articles but I am not sure that the article I ordered is the one you are referring to. I could not download from the page.

Back when our disagreements were more heated, the experienced Wikipedia editor WhatamIdoing indicated that it is inappropriate for you to interrogate me. We are not in a district attorney-police suspect relationship. She indicated that it is more appropriate that you show evidence for the idea you are trying to get across. Psyc12 searched through the ISI Thomson Web of Science data base to show that only a tiny fraction of studies published in i/o journals concerned health. You responded that he did not count health-related articles published by i/o psychologists in non-i/o journals. I responded that you could conduct a search that paralleled Psyc12's but with the target of your search would be health-related articles published by i/o psychologists in non-i/o journals. You then responded that "it is best to leave 'statistics' out." In effect, you are not providing evidence for your point of view.

Moreover, the response that leaving statistics out is inappropriate. Psychology uses statistics everyday, in almost every article psychologists publish. Statistics are important, and verifiable. Sure people can lie with statistics, but they get caught. I think it is important that you demonstrate using statistics that your contention is true. Anecdotal evidence is not a substitute for the statistical evidence is important in settling this matter.

You also wanted to know what I meant by health. I indicated that for physical health I refer to hypertension, atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and ischemic heart disease, disease endpoints that research has linked to job stressors. I don't include disorder categories such as cancer because the research literature has not linked cancer to work stress. For mental disorders, I refer to major depression, dysthymia, atypical depression, and elevated scores on the CES-D, endpoints that have been shown in longitudinal and prospective studies to be related to job stressors.

I continue to want to edit the section on occupational stress but I am still holding off. I prefer to lay out my reasons here on the talk page before doing the editing so that at least you can understand my reasoning. My aims are not negative. I want nonspecialist readers to not come away with the misleading idea the i/o psychology is a center of important research on work and health. I would also like to emphasize the important research in i/o on the relation of occupational stress to CWBs, job performance, job motivation, quitting, etc. but but remove the footprint of health. Iss246 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't keep re-hashing the past. You mentioned things like "atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and ischemic heart disease". Is that the "health" you keep focusing on for some reason? Probably health psychology is the area looking at these type of factors and stress. But they are not mentioned in this article? So I don't see your issue? The topics modern work psychology is concerned with and are therefore briefly included in this work psychology article, based on modern journal research.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to include in this work psychology article "atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, and ischemic heart disease" is that what you are saying? I don't think it is has been important to work psychology, but lets discuss if that's what you are saying? Work psychology has traditionally looked at work stress and each of the topics already concisely mentioned in this article. Mrm7171 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion tomorrow. I mentioned the disorders I did (cardiovascular and depressive mental disorders) because they have been linked in epidemiological research to psychosocial job stressors. Those are the serious health problems to which there is promise for occupational stress research. Other disorders, for example, cancers, have not been linked to occupational stress. I/o psychology has not done much research on the link between stressful conditions at work and those disorders. That is why I want to reduce the footprint of health in the occupational stress section, and emphasize the research work that i/o psychology has done important work, for example, in the relation of job stress to CWBs. Iss246 (talk) 01:06, 8 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)

Mrm, the reason why I mentioned the disorders (e.g., atherosclerosis, MIs, depression) I mentioned is because epidemiological research has shown that they are the disorders most closely linked to occupational stress. I did not mention infectious diseases or cancer because there is little evidence of a link to occupational stress. I question that the i/o psychology research portfolio is large enough to include mention of health in the small section on occupational stress. I don't want to give the nonspecialist encyclopedia reader the wrong idea by magnifying the role of i/o psychology in research on occupational stress and health. Of course, we can mention research on the link between occupational stress and health in the occupational stress Wikipedia entry but not in the small section on occupational stress within the i/o entry.

We are not discussing the health psychology Wikipedia entry. We are discussing the i/o entry. We can discuss health psychology on the health psychology talk page.

I appreciate as much as you Mrm that the i/o psychology research portfolio is replete with research linking occupational stress to counterproductive workplace behaviors, performance, motivation, quitting, etc. That research should be prominent in the i/o entry's section on occupational stress. I would like to make the edits I plan after our long discussion on this page. Iss246 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me how occupational stress is related to "quitting or motivation" please? Performance and CWB are already mentioned pretty concisely.Mrm7171 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, there is a good deal of research out there. For example, Podsakoff et al. (2007) published a meta-analysis on job stressors and turnover intentions and turnover. Iss246 (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to briefly cite occ stress & turnover, okay with me, as long as it is conducted by I/O researchers/psychs, and is published in an I/O dedicated journal as all of the reliable sources I have used are. That way there is no ambiguity that research included in this article has been from work psychology alone. I think the topic in the article is pretty tight, 'jam packed' with high quality reliable sources. No need either to make any statement as to which subtopic is more important than any other in work psychology. I think we should move on. Other topics need much more work if you want to help out?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In the occupational stress section, we need to know what is meant by health?

I still think the section on occupational stress needs some adjustment. I also think you and I have different views for what "health" means, specifically with regard to the relation of occupational stress to health. I mentioned what it means for me; I referred to the disorders (e.g., atherosclerosis, etc.) that have been linked to job stress in the research literature. To what are you referring when use the term health in connection to occupational stress and i/o psychology? You may mean something different from what I mean. Maybe we can clear something up and resolve our differences. 23:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Iss246, there are now approximately 30 reliable sources used in the work stress topic carefully selected from a dedicated I/O psychology journal, so there is no ambiguity. Many of them relate to health in various forms. I could literally have added hundreds more work stress related sources from this journal alone. I did not even begin to use the hundreds of reliable sources from other dedicated industrial, work, organizational psych journals. I think rather than waste space here, the reliable sources speak for themselves. I am going to begin working on other topics that also need a lot of work.Mrm7171 (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Mrm, I observed that you have added (e.g., Ullah article) and subtracted (e.g., deleted material on the relation of occupational stress to counterproductive workplace behavior) from the section on occupational stress. I have refrained from making any edits in the last few days because I think it would be helpful if we could come to understand what each of us means when he refers to "health." I would like to return to editing but a mutual understanding will help in editing. I think each of us means something different from what the other means. Perhaps you have a broader meaning and I, a narrower one. Right now it is not clear. Coming to a clear understanding could help us minimize the risk of edit warring. Iss246 (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not 'deleted' or subtracted anything. That's not true. Show me exactly where you mean please, based on my objective edit history, rather than just say that. Lots of disciplines study work stress too, like 'OHP' iss246, but this is the work psych article that's all. I really think the reliable sources from dedicated work psychology journals explain what is meant by health. Not sure why that matters to this article? Why does it matter to you iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 14:57, 10 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)

Fine. As long as it is clear I did not delete anyone else's reliably sourced work. I wouldn't do that. In fact I added to your source on turnover with a RS on mobility & burnout. Was the source you used from a dedicated work psych journal though to avoid any ambiguity that is clearly I/O psychology?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of paragraph 2 has 4 references. Why not use one or more of them to guide what is said here and maybe remove the word health as it seems to be causing confusion. Jex (p. 3) talks about psychological, physical, and behavioral responses/strains in response to stressors. He mentions as examples job dissatisfaction, anxiety, depressed mood, minor somatic complaints and coronary heart disease, as well as absenteeism, poor performance, and turnover. Hart & Cooper (p. 101) talk about cognitive (job dissatisfaction) and affective (negative emotion) aspects of employee well-being. Psyc12 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Work psychology and work psychologists are obviously involved with health, (and increasingly so) mainly psychological health, it is a 'health profession' after all? see here: https://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/protectedtitles/ under occupational psychologists. I understand that non psychology and even multidisciplinary fields like 'OHP', (which both you and your colleague iss246 are both heavily involved with), also study work stress. That's fine. Even management students study work stress nowadays. But this is the work psychology article. Many of these reliable sources all from dedicated work psychology journals use the term 'health' within the article, even in their article title, referring to: mental health, physical health, (can you separate the 2)? depression, wellbeing, burnout etc? The approx 30 reliable sources speak for themselves. Hope that helps. Why are you both so focused on this word health anyway? There is so much more work to be done on this article.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just took out the reference relating to theory, research, and implications for 'managerial practice.' I think it was in this dedicated work psychology and work psychologist article by mistake. Better placed in another article, maybe articles on management studies, for instance, which also are now beginning to look at work stress, but mainly in relation to things like performance and non-psychological and non health-related type issues because you don't need to study psychology or be a psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171. The website you provided does not say that occupational psychology is a health profession. It is about both "health" and "care" professions. Forensic psychology and educational psychology are also on the list, and they do not deal with health. None of what you wrote here is helpful at all in figuring out what to say in this section, as you are stating your opinion rather the providing a good reference to inform what should be said. Psyc12 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Mrm, I would like to return to the health matter before I engage in editing. I want to avoid an edit war.

Interlibrary loan sent me a copy of the Benoliel and Sommech study that you mentioned in an earlier exchange. It is becoming clear to me that we have differences in what we consider health. The GWB scale used in the Benoliel and Sommech study measures feelings of sadness and hopelessness as well as feelings of depression. While the scale has reasonable internal consistency reliability, it does not provide a diagnosis. It cannot diagnose major depression or an anxiety disorder. The use of scales like the GWB in other articles you cite is of interest. I am not opposed to citing studies that use such scales rather arrive at diagnoses. I think, however, the nonspecialist encyclopedia user should know that the section on occupational stress relies on research that largely employs nondiagnostic scales that reflect people's feelings. Or take the RAND Mental Health Index which is used in the DiMatteo et al. study you cite; the DiMatteo et al. study concerns dentists. The Rand instrument comprises 5 items that reflect depressive feelings and positive affect. It does not yield a diagnosis. Like the GWB used by Benoliel and Sommech, the Rand instrument too tells something about the feelings of the research participants. Feelings are important but they are not diagnoses.

I am not opposed to the occupational stress section mentioning this kind of research. What I want is that the section accurately reflect what the research shows. I reiterate, I don't want to be in an edit war when I begin editing. That is why I have taken pains to write here, and read studies you cited. Iss246 (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine. But you don't mention what you want to to do or why? All I have said is that work psychology deals with these 30 reliable sources from these dedicated work psychology journals. Other multidisciplinary fields like 'OHP' and even management studies also are interested in work stress nowadays. But this is the work psychology article. Why do you keep mentioning edit warring?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that often you both may be only looking at what is going on in the USA. I have always tried to bring a worldwide view to these articles. In Europe, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the world, work psychologists are very much involved with 'health.' Maybe more than in the USA? Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias We just need to recognize that and make sure articles reflect that worldwide view. I have done a lot of research on exactly what Wikipedia wants editors to try and do in these cases. Thoughts please?Mrm7171 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick addition. In the second paragraph of the article it states this. "In Australia, the title organizational psychologist is also protected by law and is regulated by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)." Just thought that example may help explain my point that we need to bring a world wide view to articles.Mrm7171 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I read widely, and have come to know the research of people in many countries. I will be fair. One limitation I have is that while I know the licensing requirements in Melbourne, Florida, I am not familiar with the licensing requirements in Melbourne, Victoria (go Seagulls).

I hope that as I strive to be fair when describing research coming from outside the USA, you would be fair to research coming from the USA. Iss246 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Point at hand for this article and all related articles is simply these issues Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. In Europe for instance, work psychologists focus heavily albeit not entirely on topics like work stress, wellbeing, burnout, distress, coping, exhaustion, job demands. See here for latest research in work psychology throughout Europe. Hope it helps clarify things. http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/pewo20/current#.Uvq3wmKSzFAMrm7171 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing the occupational stress section of the encyclopedia entry

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)

The I/O consultant sections of this article

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)

Just asking again if any editors would like to comment on this proposal please. Will leave it here for comment for a bit longer. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I plan to remove this section from this article specifically on I/O psychology. It is generic to all areas of consulting. I also base this removal on no other editors objecting or discussing this bold removal over the past week.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For two reasons, I recommend that you not be precipitate in removing the section. First, editors come to this Wikipedia entry slowly. Second, I know i/o psychologists who do consulting work. I don't have the figures but I think i/o psychologists, compared to psychologists in other branches of psychology, engage in more consulting. It is probably better to edit the section to bring it up-to-date than to remove it. Iss246 (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Point being that it seems generic to consulting per se rather than related specifically to I/O psych. I agree, work psychs are often involved with consulting too, significantly more than other areas of the profession as you say. I was not comfortable with removing that editor's work entirely and had instead thought about placing it in another article, or at least sections of it?Mrm7171 (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Editors

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)

A 'Worldwide view' of the profession much needed in this article title

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)

Will leave this here for a bit longer, for an open discussion, before going ahead and making a bold edit based on all of these reasons detailed above, and change this global profession's article title throughout, to industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology and address the current bias and imbalance using only industrial and organizational, without reference to work psychology as it is referred to throughout much of Europe for instance.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Vandalism

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)

The section was dense because my editing. But I was not happy with the whole shebang. Iss246 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

There were about five sections that I have now restored. Do you know that you cannot delete whole sections from our articles like that, without at least making an attempt to explain why you are deleting whole parts of our articles. I thought you were about to delete the whole article before I stopped you.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't delete five sections. I think I deleted two sections on which I had worked assiduously. In the end, I found them tendentious. Iss246 (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I just looked back over the sections including the entire training, history, OSH and other entire sections, you deleted. It seems all of these sections had been there, for a long while. I now agree that you seem to have done some good work on bits and pieces throughout the article, but entire sections written by other editors with lots of reliable sources cannot be deleted. I seriously thought you were vandalizing one of our articles.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I edited for brevity, and deleted a few unsourced assertions. In addition, the writing had been weak. The section needed editing. Iss246 (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Charlotte135, you did the right thing editing out the business psychology paragraph. I was on the fence with regard to it. Iss246 (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay thank you. It was just that you deleted these two sections today, so I honestly thought you were vandalizing our article, as these sections look well written to me, and with lots of reliable sources. [1] [2]. Some of your other spot editing has been good though.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:36, 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)

Hi Iss246. Did you wish to delete all of it. Wouldn't deleting parts of it be better?Charlotte135 (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted a great deal of it and reworded some more. You were right, it seemed to have been poorly written.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Charlotte135, thank you for working so diligently on that awfully written section. Best wishes for a happy and healthy new year. Iss246 (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much and the same to you. I apologize again for the earlier misunderstanding.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Iss246, for your diligent and careful editing. I have started to work on other sections along the same vein.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Training and training evaluation

The Training and training evaluation section is too long and not consistent with our other sections.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this section is not very relevant either and should be rewritten.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Iss246 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Organizational citizenship behavior

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)

Consistent with the current rewrite of our article, I made a bold edit in the innovation section. Seems to be written by a student. If anyone disagrees, please revert and discuss why.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)]

Yes, what you edited out seemed as if it were written by a college a student whose assignment was the add Wikipedia. I cannot know if it was written by a college student, but the writing had that kind of style. Iss246 (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you on board with much of this section being deleted Iss246?Charlotte135 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Charlotte135, Yes, I am on board. I am glad not to be working alone on i/o. I appreciate what you are doing. Iss246 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think your changes to a couple of these sections have been good, and you have improved them. I did revert one section you did today, as I don't see it as an improvement. My point has been that we leave sections that are well written, and have good sources alone.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed some section are long and others are very brief. I suggest we work on the very long sections to summarize important information and improve the wording.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:39, 15 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.

Incidentally, the section was well-written because me. I don't like deleting what I wrote/edited, but as I read Bryan and Vinchur, my perspective changed. The writing does not stand still. Even if it is my own writing. Please change it back. Iss246 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should be removing so many studies that are relevant and how it was written was very good. On a different topic, what do you think about my suggestion to make the other very long sections that you have not worked on at all, much shorter?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I just removed a couple of sentences under organizational resources that had no sources.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@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.

Regarding the section on occupational health, which you deleted. The deleted section sums of the field rather well. And briefly. We have to rely more on Bryan and Vinchur, who published a history of the field in a well-regarded volume (Oxford University Press), than string together various journal article citations. Get Bryan and Vinchur out of the library, and see for yourself. Please reverse the edit. Iss246 (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. My suggestion would be to leave the sections with reliable sources in each of our sections and then add something further if you wanted. I think we should be trimming a lot of the longer sections like training and development. Could you help work on those.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@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)

That appears to be a good way of looking at all sections in our article then, and we certainly should be leaving sections that already have good reliable sources in our article, without removing them. Maybe add something else with a reliable source if you wanted. That has been my main point with your edits. I also would like to focus on all the different sections.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:13, 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 think you should restore "Although i/o psychology came late to workplace....." and re-delete "Occupational health and safety is concerned with how....." because the latest history from Bryan and Vinchur supersedes the stale posting of various individual studies. I wanted the "big picture." Iss246 (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed the opening sentence to reflect your point and to make it consistent with how other sections in our article are worded.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Charlotte135:. Iss246 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. What I think needs to happen in our article, is that we really only use relevant sources and relevant text, strictly related to this area. I will try and do a bit more on this when I can. Sources that relate to the various areas should not be removed either.Charlotte135 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Made a few more changes, consistent with what I've said.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Innovation

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 this article already is far too detailed in some sections and sparse in others with irrelevant content added spuriously. Topics should be relative to their importance within I/O psychology. This section on innovation is now way too long. It could even be deleted.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Leadership section too detailed

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'm looking through the other sections including the productive behavior section and I think we should be trimming these as well, and keeping the content of the article strictly focused on I/O psychology.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Two sentences make assumption of country

"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)