psychology_Sons_(2003)

(Elle) #1

374 Industrial-Organizational Psychology


theories, foresight or imagination. In short, I-O psychologists
tend to be more reactive than proactive...”(p.824).
Scholars also recognize that the discipline’s progression re-
sulted from internal forces or individual visionaries within the
field who advocated and pushed for the application of psy-
chology (e.g., Koppes, 1997; Landy, 1997; Van De Water,
1997). Entrepreneurial efforts by independent investigators
moved the discipline forward because of their develop-
ments in theory, research, and practice. Most historians agree,
however, that both internal and external influences shaped the
discipline. For example, Van De Water (1997) noted, “A com-
bination of internal and external forces helped transform in-
dustrial psychology from a few individuals’ visions into a
larger, self-perpetuating institution” (p. 487). To fully under-
stand the sociohistorical context of I-O psychology, both
external and internal forces must be considered.


Socioeconomic Forces


Socioeconomic forces refer to indicators of the economy
(e.g., income, the gross national product, unemployment),
societal views (e.g., with regard to workers, organizations,
environment, health) and ideologies (e.g., social Darwinism
and eugenics), and population demographics. Katzell and
Austin (1992), for example, observed that I-O topics seem to
be correlated with cycles of social or political concerns (e.g.,
labor relations with labor–management conflicts, job analysis
with fair employment issues).
In the late nineteenth century, American society experi-
enced rapid changes and developments because of industrial-
ization, immigration, a high birth rate, education reform,
and urban growth. A progressive drive for reform prevailed
(Minton, 1988), and Americans were ready for the practical
and useful. Multiple changes created problems for humanity
(Napoli, 1981), and society looked toward science for practi-
cal solutions. In addition to these societal demands, institu-
tional pressures and the desire to improve their institutional
status to keep their discipline alive forced psychologists to
popularize their science and demonstrate the value of psy-
chology in solving problems and helping society (Burnham,
1987; Goodwin, 1999). Taking psychology outside academic
laboratories and increasing psychological research on practi-
cal applications in education, medicine, criminology, busi-
ness, and industry were expressions of psychologists’ intense
desire for social recognition and support (Camfield, 1973).
One proponent of applied research stated that progress toward
the development of an applied psychology offered “the hope
of seeing greater socio-economic values placed upon the sci-
ence in American community life” (cited in Camfield, 1973,
p. 75). The intellectual, social, cultural, and economic milieu
engendered the formation of an applied psychology.


As psychology’s popularity increased, society and the
business community became skeptical and disenchanted with
the discipline because individuals not trained in psychology
began practicing to gain financial rewards. Psychologists felt
compelled to combat society’s images of psychology as com-
mon sense or as occultism and superstition (Burnham,
1987) and society’s stereotype of the psychologist as an
“absent-minded professor, preoccupied with abstruse man-
ners” (Burnham, 1987, p. 92). One response was to use ex-
perimentation to invalidate the claims of pseudoscientists
(Van De Water, 1997). Methodological developments in-
cluded measurement methods (mental tests, observations,
case studies) and statistics for measuring and analyzing indi-
vidual differences (regression, simple correlation, partial
correlation) (Cowles, 1989). Furthermore, Gillespie (1988)
noted that the decision to undertake social scientific research
in the workplace during the 1920s was a political process,
and “social and behavioral scientists believed that experi-
mentation would guarantee objectivity of their findings and
recommendations, and ensure their professional standing on
an intellectual and moral plane above that of capitalists and
workers” (p. 133).
During the 1920s, euphoria and prosperity swept the United
States. Despite a short recession in 1921–1922, the gross na-
tional product rose 39% between 1919 and 1929 (Cashman,
1989). The growth of employment associated with the rise in
the gross national product provided opportunities for indus-
trial psychologists as full-time employees or consultants in
industry. Companies were interested in psychological applica-
tions used during the war (i.e., selection and placement), and
the primary concern was finding the right employee for the job.
Articles and books on various aspects of personnel psychology
described developments and issues (e.g., Link, 1919; Pond,
1927; Scott & Hayes, 1921).
Viteles (1932) noted a shift in the social philosophy of
workers during the early part of the twentieth century. A policy
of noninterference shifted to a policy that emphasized the em-
ployee’s welfare. This policy of employee’s welfare was rein-
forced during the economic depression, when 25% of the
workforce was unemployed (Manchester, 1973–1974). The
depression’s adverse effects on individuals led to heightened
sensitivity to and concern for the human condition and the hu-
manization of work. Organizations and the U.S. government
felt responsible for employee welfare; thus, social issues such
as unemployment and adjustment of workers became preva-
lent. The greatest need was to find jobs for people to fill, so
there was less need for and interest in personnel selection
and training. More than 16% of the companies that had
used personnel tests dropped them during the Great De-
pression (Katzell & Austin, 1992). None of the studies cited in
an extensive review of the psychological literature on training
Free download pdf