Talk:Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christinegardella (article contribs).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gsmiller2, D ramirez22 (article contribs).

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Faroule15 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2020 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ariannajones (article contribs).

References

Craighead,W.E. & Nemeroff, C.B(2004) The concise corsini encyclopedia of psychology and behavioral science(3rd):NY.NY.John Wiley and Sons. Just to let you know I made some changes that I thought would be helpful in completing this assignment;

Replication Crisis

I wonder, perhaps in the section on criticism, if there ought not be some discussion of the replication crisis issue in psychology? See some of the recent furor over the special edition of the journal Social Psychology on replication studies (most of the furor appears to be regarding just one of those studies).

WEIRD redirects here. It shouldn't

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

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

Readability

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

I/O Psychology

An editor inserted i/o psychology into the section "Health, well-being, and social change." Unfortunately, the insertion overreaches by underlining the idea that for 100 years i/o psychology was interested in worker health. There were, however, with rare exceptions. Kornhauser, one exception, was an admirable figure in what was then called industrial psychology but he was a lonely figure. His twentieth-century colleagues were not so interested in worker health. They were considerably more interested in worker productivity. Paul Spector ("What Is Occupational Health Psychology?" [3] and "From occupational fatigue to occupational health." In L. M. Lapierre & C. Cooper (Eds.). Cambridge companion to organizational stress and well-being. New York: Cambridge University Press) has written about the difficulty of i/o psychology to accept research on work and health. Spector makes clear that worker health became more of a concern in i/o psychology after the turn of the twenty-first century. The studies by Sonnentag and Bowling and colleagues show that. Both investigators have presented their research at occupational heath psychology conferences; Bowling is a member of the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and Sonnentag, the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology. The citing of Charles Myers was misleading because Myers was a medical doctor who had an interest in experimental psychology. He was not an industrial psychologist. One reason why occupational health psychology emerged as a discipline is that researchers in i/o and health psychology, while studying important topics, were not concentrating on the interface of psychosocial work factors and health. The section thus needs editing. Iss246 (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

user:Brokenrecordsagain, let's have more editors weigh in on the matter. One way you overreached was to make the physician Charles Myers an industrial psychologist. Another way you overreached was to make Kornhauser representative of what i/o psychology did for work and health in the twentieth century. Kornhauser was an admirable figure, but was out of the mainstream in i/o psychology, which was more interested in productivity than worker health. See Spector[4]. Iss246 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I make three points in response.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BR, you are changing the topic. The document you have shown is consistent with your overstating the interest of i/o psychology in health. The source from Spector (Spector, P. [2019]. What Is Occupational Health Psychology? [6]) indicates i/o psychology for a long time downplayed the issue of work and health. The uptick in the 2000s in i/o psychologists' interest in work and health came with the emergence of occupational health psychology as a field.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inclusion of Lillian Moller Gilbreth in the health and wellbeing section

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New material for Health Well-Being and Social Change

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

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

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

Fatigue

BR's attributing to industrial psychology concern about fatigue during World War I is highly inflated. The concern of government ministers for whom Myers operated was with preventing worker fatigue from impeding the production of munitions. The government was concerned with "productivity," even if that productivity was aimed at producing weapons to kill. See Adam Hochschild's To End All Wars.

We don't see in government ministers a parallel concern for fatigue in, say, British textile workers. What helped enormously to reduce worker fatigue in the UK and elsewhere was not industrial psychology. It was the struggle of the labor movement to improve working conditions, which included giving workers a living wage and an eight-hour workday and a five-day workweek. That is what reduced worker fatigue. See Linder and Nygaard's Void Where Prohibited.

BR gives too much credit to industrial psychology, which, with very few exceptions (e.g., Arthur Kornhauser) was on the side of management, not labor. Iss246 (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The edits were made by Psyc12 including the very good source they added today regarding early British industrial psychologist's interest areas. You forget that the field is worldwide as is Wikipedia. You keep focusing on the USA only for some reason and ignore logic and the sources presented to you which is not helpful. Despite this there is no consensus for your forced changes that you keep making Iss246. Just stop edit warring as it is disruptive and both Psyc12 and myself have made significant concessions in the spirit of collaborative editing. It would be appreciated if you could do the same. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

BR, you inflated the role i/o psychology made in the area of worker health. I left in your sources regarding the research by Sonnentag, etc. But I deleted the string of sentences enumerating this finding and that finding. These micro-findings don't belong in a summary. A summary gives the big picture, not a string of micro-findings.

In addition, the motivation for the British government to reduce worker fatigue was not its humanity. Efforts to reduce worker fatigue were initiated in order to improve the production of munitions. See Hochschild. If the British government around the time of World War I and its aftermath were so concerned with worker fatigue, it would have tried to reduce worker fatigue in all factories. What reduced worker fatigue were the struggles of the the labor movement and, eventually, Labour governments, not i/o psychology.

Have some perspective. Iss246 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I have read two additional sources on the issue of history. Quick (1999 Health Psychology) in his history of OHP talks about the earliest work in the US relevant to worker health and safety. He says OHP is a combination of health psychology, clinical psychology, public health and medicine in an IO context. He downplays the importance of IO, and notes that IO needs to get into this area. He mentions that Munsterberg was interested in accidents and the next person mentioned is Kornhauser. There is no mention of Myers or the UK, but this is not unusual for Americans as noted by Kwiatkowski et al. (2006, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology). They talk about how Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology was concerned with many IO topics including employee health. The earliest work was focused on fatigue. I found a 1920 book by Myers that was focused on efficiency and productivity. The discussion of fatique was from that perspective.

Putting all this together with earlier readings, my conclusion is that we can find early examples of interest in worker health and well-being associated with IO clearly in the UK in that there are peer-reviewed sources that say so. The earliest interest was focused on fatigue and how it affected efficiency. Later the interest broadened. But as Kwiatkowski notes, the impact was fleeting as by WWII much of what they had accomplished was abandoned and most of what he did was forgotten. We cannot find the same in American IO where there was little interest until after WWII.

I am going to try a compromise between what ISS wants to say and what BR wants to say. Psyc12 (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these first two sentences ("The concern of industrial psychology, in its infancy, with worker fatigue began during World War I when government ministers in Britain were concerned about the impact of fatigue on workers in munitions factories but not other types of factories.[224][225] British interest broadened to worker health and well-being by Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the period between the two world wars.[226]") in the paragraph on i/o psychology should remain. Iss246 (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I propose we include a detailed description of the field of industrial organizational psychology similar to occupational health psychology. Will go ahead and include that if nobody objects with solid reasoning. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I object to BR's inflating i/o psychology in this section by including a detailed description of i/o psychology. This is a broad summary of psychology. It is not about the details of i/o psychology findings, a concatenation of individual studies' findings. Moreover, Psyc12 and I finally achieved some consensus. BR, join the consensus. Iss246 (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I object. I deliberately kept the text on occupational health psychology brief. This is a broad article about psychology in general. It is not for pumping up the i/o psychology text in this section. Iss246 (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Iss246 stop inflating this other competing field occupational health psychology more like it and then trying to make it appear that the major field of industrial organizational psychology had little to do with worker health and wellbeing. That is not what the sources say. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Also would you mind indenting your comments please Iss246. It makes it difficult to read the thread and wiki rules are there for a reason. You are not bigger than Wikipedia and you do not own this article or any article Iss246. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

In the area of work and health OHP is bigger than i/o psychology. Of course, i/o psychology is bigger than OHP in areas such as selection, task analysis, etc. I note that you are copying my words. "Inflating," indeed. Iss246 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you indent your comments Iss246 like we are instructed at Wikipedia. It makes it difficult for others to follow the thread. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to get my head around this. I just looked up the 54 divisions of psychology with the American Psychological Association (APA) and this other field of yours occupational health psychology is not listed at all Iss246? https://www.apa.org/about/division Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You haven't tried hard enough BR. Your comment reveals your bias against OHP by grasping at every tidbit of information in your attempt to undermine OHP. Your choices show your prejudice. The Society for Occupational Health Psychology and the American Psychological Association and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have teamed up to organize a conference on work, stress, and health in November. They have teamed up for years in organizing the conference. If you would have dug deeper, you would understand. Iss246 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Again would you please indent your edits like we are supposed to Iss246. I think that is a reasonable request. Your disregard of the rules makes it difficult for other readers to follow the thread by not properly indenting. As far as my last comment no bias. Just complete confusion on my part I am afraid to say! Please humor me. Now you say this field is supposedly part of psychology yet in the USA the peak body for psychology the American Psychological Association does not even list this other field of occupational health psychology within the 54 divisions which make up the field of psychology Iss246? https://www.apa.org/about/division. Given this article is about psychology and the major disciplines within psychology such as clinical, health, industrial and organizational, sport and so on we are giving this other area, not even on the list of 54 divisions within psychology so much attention. We need to show readers what the reality is and not try and inflate this other interdisciplinary field of study. It would be absurd to list ALL of the actual 54 divisions within psychology, yet alone this hazy interdisciplinary area that you are here pushing into the psychology article. I have also read other sources yesterday that say this field is separate to psychology. I will find the article I was reading. So yes I am completely confused. Please understand other editors are not as personally invested in this area as you and Psyc12 appear to be Iss246. I'm just trying to understand why you are so insistent on inflating this field. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hazy-Shmazy. Here you go again. Mrm7171. Lightningstrikers. Sportstir. Yep. You're a broken record alright. You play the same tired old song. You are very invested in attacking OHP. That is almost all you do on Wikipedia. If it weren't for your attacks on OHP and your inflating i/o's contribution to health, you would have very little else to do on WP. It galls you that OHP exists. Yeah, the "P" stands for psychology. Ne l'oubliez pas. And now you are copying my words. Iss246 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Indentation talks about indenting which you obviously you feel doesn't apply to you. By not following that simple rule it is very difficult for others to follow the thread. Obviously you are a nutter and have no response to my genuine questions trying to understand why you are using Wikipedia to push your views against all reliable sources. You've had trouble with lots of editors it looks like looking over your block history for edit warring. Don't go pointing your finger at me you misogynist! Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Laughable accusation. Iss246 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's get back to the issue at hand. Should there be more about IO in this section? I don't understand why this section needs to list some miscellaneous studies and claim they represent IO. First, we do not quote a source that says these represent the contribution of IO to employee health. According to what WhatAmIDoing told us, such a source is needed to make such a claim. Second, an earlier subsection listed some major health areas where psychology has contributed, so why split the discussion into two places. The earlier spot would be the place to talk about specific contributions of psychology, but I wouldn't claim they are all IO without some source saying they are. How do we know all of these authors were IO psychology.

I would delete from "More recently" to the end of the paragraph.Psyc12 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that Brokenrecordsagain tends to oversell i/o psychology as a health specialty. A more careful phrasing would strengthen the piece.Ohpres (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Ohper (Iss246) can you please indent so it is readable.

I am not Ohper. Sorry to disappoint you MRM. Iss246 (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah right. Do you know Psyc12 outside of Wikipedia Iss246? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not see the purpose of including all of this detail in such a small section on health and wellbeing? "OHP addresses topic areas such as the impact of occupational stressors on physical and mental health, workplace mistreatment, work-family balance, the impact of involuntary unemployment on physical and mental health, safety/accidents, and interventions designed to improve/protect worker health. OHP grew out of health psychology and industrial and organizational psychology. OHP has also been informed by disciplines outside psychology, including occupational medicine, industrial engineering, sociology, and economics.

I added Lillian Gilbreth. The entry is really well sourced. She is a pioneer and big in feminist psychology. She was not recognized earlier last century as misogynist male authors chose to not recognize her achievements of 45 years past her husband Frank's death. She was a true pioneer and very much concerned with worker wellbeing, welfare, job satisfaction and worker happiness. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

BR, you are editing against the consensus of other editors by adding in Gilbreth again, and now you are going against consensus of 3 other editors in putting back the material on IO and edit warring. Please remove these items. If you feel strongly that they should be in the article, then take it to dispute resolution where you can make your case and other editors can make theirs, but edit warring and refusing to listen to now 3 other editors is not productive.Psyc12 (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you and Iss246 know each other outside of Wikipedia? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I responded by adding a summary to the dispute resolution page. Iss246 (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Regrouping about worker health

Let's refocus on the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BR, it is better to write on the talk page than to hurl pointless accusations at another editor. You changed the text without providing an adequate justification on the talk page. I think your devotion to i/o psychology is admirable. But you can't make i/o psychology the critical center of research on the work-health interface because it isn't the critical center. Several other disciplines, within and outside of psychology, are devoted to that research area. I/o psychology, of course, in recent years has come to play a role in research on the work-health interface. See Spector, P. (2019). What Is Occupational Health Psychology? [7]. Iss246 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

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

RFC: Lillian Gilbreth

Should the sentence referring to Lillian Gilbreth be deleted from the subsection on Worker health, safety and wellbeing?

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Enter Yes or Delete, or No or Keep, in the Survey section with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion should be in the Threaded Discussion section.

Survey

• Delete. Iss246 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete.Psyc12 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. Ohpres (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. If we specify it was worker welfare/wellbeing not so much health that Gilbreth was one of the pioneering industrial psychologists in. The sources even Lauara Koppes clearly say Gilbreth interceded psychology and worker happiness with every efficiency improvement. Worker health including physical health is a different construct from worker wellbeing and happiness. The argument against the inclusion of Gilbreth in this section is that she was not known for worker health but she was known for improving worker wellbeing and happiness in the history books particularly the 45 years of her career after her husband died. Can we just say wellbeing/happiness rather than worker health as a compromise? Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources provided appear to support her work in employee well-being, and her contributions to workplace psychology. I see no issue. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  The sources I cited talk about well-being and not just physical health, and they do not credit Gilbreth with being a major figure in that area. If you read her work and sources that talk about her work, Gilbreth was focused on efficiency/productivity, and she had an appreciation for individual differences and psychological factors that would affect performance. She wrote that she thought her methods would be more satisfying, but a passing comment doesn't make her a major figure. Koppes wrote an article on 4 early female IO pioneers including Gilbreth. She summarizes their major contributions this way, "The four female psychologists used scientifically rigorous methods to conduct research on areas of I/O psychology typically examined by applied psychologists of the time, such as selection, acquisition of skills, and work methods and job design for improving efficiency...Gilbreth conducted extensive time and motion studies to understand methods of work and design of jobs." There is no mention of worker well-being.Psyc12 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  But even a brief search turns up a biography via JSTOR that on the first page says she was "more concerned about people than production rates". And it goes on to talk about worker welfare, not efficiency. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  During the early part of the twentieth century American industrial psychologist Lillian Moller Gilbreth was a pioneer in the areas of worker efficiency, satisfaction, welfare, happiness and safety. The section in this article is titled health, wellbeing and social change. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  These sources don't all say that. One of them is about homemakers and not employees. Psyc12 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep (invited by the bot). I only gave it a quick look. Apparently she has enough prominence that nobody is arguing that she shouldn't be in the article. It's a wide-ranging section under a wide-ranging title. So including her in the section is not an explicit statement in relation to the title. So IMO she should not be excluded due to the section title. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep It looks like a pretty solid entry based on the plethora of references provided so I don't see why there is any argument. Harrow1234 (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• User:North8000, there needs to be more than a quick look. There is no consensus regarding her contribution to worker well-being. The piece in the journal Biography differs from what is found in other sources. Please read the other sources (for example, Katzell & Austin's paper on the development of i/o psychology, which was published in the J of Applied Psy in 1992). I think we can come to a consensus on her contribution to efficiency/productivity but a note about her contribution to efficiency/productivity would belong in the WP article about her. Iss246 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Iss246 this editor only needed a quick look and that is their vote on the matter which should be respected not downplayed. The reliable sources clearly state that Gilbreth was concerned with worker welfare throughout her career which is a word synonymous with general wellbeing. Multiple sources state in her career as an industrial psychologist she was concerned with worker "welfare" as other editors correctly pointed out after reading the sources currently attached to that sentence in the article. See Welfare (disambiguation) general wellbeing. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23539641 Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  The Sullivan article has a different take than other reliable sources I consulted on Gilbreth or the history of work on health and on well-being None of these scholars credit Gilbreth as being a pioneer in occupational health/WB. Her contributions are in other areas having to do with efficiency and productivity which was the main the focus of early 20th century American IO psychology.. So there is no consensus among scholars about her well-being contributions. Further Sullivan claims that Gilbreth was a pioneer in the area of work stress citing two of Gilbreths works which do not discuss stress, which is odd. To mention her accurately in the context of well-being, we would have to say that some authors claim she made a major contribution, but most scholars disagree. She deserves to be in the Psychology article, but focused on contributions where there is consensus that fit in another section. Psyc12 (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  User:Brokenrecordsagain and User:North8000 I appreciate that North8000 may not have time for more than a "quick look." But for the sake of accuracy, Wikipedia needs editors who can provide a more detailed examination of the sources. The abovementioned articles by Koppes, Cooper & Warr, and Katzell & Austin provide a different perspective from that of Sullivan, the first page of whose article user:Pyrrho_the_Skeptic cited. Iss246 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  I add the following. Koppes Bryan and Vinchur, in a 50-page history of industrial/organizational psychology, showed that i/o psychology manifested a great deal of interest in important topics such as selection, testing, productivity, training, team relationships, leadership, task analysis, performance appraisal, and organizational culture; the chapter, however, barely contained two sentences on job stress and health. Koppes Bryan is the same person as Koppes, the author cited above in an earlier publication on the history of i/o psychology. This authoritative history of i/o psychology indicates that the work-health interface & work-WB played barely a minor role in i/o psychology. The observations of leading i/o psychologist Paul Spector are consistent with that view. Iss246 (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Here are two additional sources in favor of keep. And I echo User:Brokenrecordsagain that all votes here ought to be respected, quick glance or not:

  Harvard blog: "Lillian would be more concerned about worker welfare and reducing stress, fatigue, and boredom."

  MIT paper: "Fatigue study also had strategic and psychological value ... Such vision ... enhanced by an immediate fatigue survey, and reinforced by such basic industrial betterment techniques as open meetings to discuss installation progress was meant to give reality to industrial welfare leader H.F.J. Porter’s imprecation that, 'Men can easily be led and they will then be imbued with a better spirit than when they are being driven'" Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: Saw this on WP:DRN and while many of the sources are paper sources that I can't double check easily, her own page does seem to reliably source that Gilbreth's work did indeed have to do with "Worker health, safety, and well-being". Given this, I think one sentence about her in that section is clearly appropriate. Loki (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Out-of-place back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
User:LokiTheLiar, the WP on Gilbreth, rightfully, credits her for work on motion and human factors. But it does not credit her for work on health.In reading about her, I noted that the principle thrust of her was important to motion/human factors, which I think is great. But her work on well-being is much thinner. Iss246 (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Threaded Discussion

Oppose keeping well-bring. Just as worker health was virtually a nonexistent part of her legacy, worker well-being was a tiny part of that legacy. Efficiency and productivity were the major features of her legacy. The Psychology entry provides a broad outline of psychology. In an entry like Psychology, we should stay away from emphasizing the tiny bits. Iss246 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We also need to delete the smorgasbord of random micro-findings on the work-health interface. They don't belong in an entry devoted to the broad outline of psychology. Iss246 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Color within the Lines

User:Brokenrecordsagain, User:Iss246, User:Psyc12 - The Survey section is for answers, not for back-and-forth. When an RFC says to do back-and-forth in the Threaded Discussion, that is what the Threaded Discussion is for. You couldn't resolve the question about Lillian Gilbreth by back-and-forth discussion above, and came to DRN, and I concluded that an RFC was in order. Why do you think that bludgeoning the RFC discussion will result in consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I agreed at the time you wrote this and your message was loud and clear to any of us reading it. Frankly I have shut up on this RFC discussion. I've cast my vote. That's it. However editor Iss246 continues to come into the discussion and attack any entirely independent impartial editor's opinion that disagrees with them. Can you please do something to stop Iss246 ignoring your warnings, disrespecting the RFC process and trying to intimidate and disrespect the opinions of other editors casting their vote as they did earlier with this comment to editor User:LokiTheLiar [8]. I think we all should cast a vote and then just shut up and allow the process to take its course as intended by Wikipedia. Thank you. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Brokenrecordsagain and User:Robert_McClenon, what BR just wrote is hyperbole. Because I disagree with you and argue that the facts speak otherwise does not mean I am on the "attack." One person can never disagree with another person's claims if the person disagreeing is reduced to being an "attacker." Iss246 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Worker Health, Safety, and Well-Being

Which of the following sections should replace the section on Worker Health, Safety, and Well-Being? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A. Leave the section alone.

B. The following one paragraph:

The origins of interest in psychology applied to worker health and well-being can be traced to Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the UK during the early part of the twentieth century. In the U.S. mid-century Arthur Kornhauser did groundbreaking work on the study of occupational mental health and the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. Barling and Griffiths history notes some groundbreaking contributions in the area that include the Institute for Social Research studies of occupational stress, a program of research on workplace health begun in the 1960s in Scandinavia, a seminal publication on occupational stress by Beehr & Newman, and publication of Karasek's control-demand model that linked work demands and lack of control to heart disease. As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the interdisciplinary field of occupational health psychology emerged, bringing together people from different areas of psychology (e.g., health and industrial-organizational) and disciplines outside of psychology.Psyc12 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

C. The following two paragraphs.

Concern with the health and well-being of workers goes back over a hundred years in industrial psychology. Industrial psychology's interest with worker fatigue for example, began during World War I, when government ministers in Britain were concerned about the impact of fatigue on workers in munitions factories but not other types of factories. British interest broadened to worker health and well-being by Charles Samuel Myers and his National Institute of Industrial Psychology (NIIP) in the period between the two world wars. During the early part of the twentieth century American industrial psychologist Lillian Moller Gilbreth was a pioneer in the areas of worker efficiency, satisfaction, welfare, happiness and safety. During the mid-twentieth century another American industrial psychologist Arthur Kornhauser was another pioneer in the study of occupational mental health, having examined the link between industrial working conditions and mental health as well as the spillover into a worker's personal life of having an unsatisfying job. More recently, industrial organizational psychology research and pracrtice has found that staying vigorous during working hours is associated with better work-related behaviour and subjective well-being as well as more effective functioning in the family domain. Trait vigor and recovery experiences after work were related to vigor at work. Job satisfaction has also been found to be associated with life satisfaction, happiness, well-being and positive affect, and the absence of negative affect. Other research indicates that among older workers activities such as volunteering and participating in social clubs was related to a decrease in depressive symptoms over the next two years. Research on job changing indicates that mobility between, but not within, organizations is associated with burnout.

As interest in the worker health expanded toward the end of the twentieth century, the multidisciplinary field of occupational health psychology (OHP) emerged. Just as industrial and organizational psychology does, OHP is also concerned with the health and safety of workers. OHP addresses topic areas such as the impact of occupational stressors on physical and mental health, workplace mistreatment, work-family balance, the impact of involuntary unemployment on physical and mental health, safety/accidents, and interventions designed to improve/protect worker health.

D. Other (specify).

Enter your letter choice with a brief statement in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey

Choice: A. This is a compromise among the editors. It condenses discussion by removing unnecessary details found elsewhere, and is based on reliable sources on history of the field, as opposed to editor conclusions (primary research) based on conflicting statements from biographies on Gilbreth and her own writing, or editor opinions which findings represent milestones.Psyc12 (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I meant B not A. Psyc12 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Choice A The way it is written right now seems ok. The RFC relating to Lillian Gilbreth also needs to be respected and final result should obviously be included in the section of the article. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

I propose a compromise. We condense the two paragraphs to one as I suggested in choice B, replacing the individual study examples with a few milestones noted by Barling. We briefly mention OHP as a milestone deriving from IO and other fields, but leave details for the OHP article. We put Gilbreth back, but we do it in a balanced way, with something like. "Some credit IO Psychologist Lilian Gilbreth with pioneering work on employee well-being [cite the Biography paper], although others view her contributions as indentifying psychological factors leading to on employee productivity [cite one or two sources]". Are you both ok with that? Psyc12 (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I support this idea for a compromise proposed by Psyc12. Iss246 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two separate RFCs running already guys. You have both had your single vote. Let's just let the dispute resolution process run its own course now as entirely independent editors are also voting which is a good thing. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RM closed the dispute resolution case, and I don't see anyone else voting among the choices.Psyc12 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the compromise proposed by Psyc12.Ohpres (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Leave it for 30 days to get an outcome. No rush. Also it is clear that the RFC on Lillian Gilbreth shows a consensus to include the statement voted for in the first RFC. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Psyc12's compromise proposal works. It should be the consensus choice. Iss246 (talk) 00:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

We never reached a consensus conclusion before the case was shut down. Some editors suggested mentioning Gilbreth because of the Biography source, so my proposal is that we do just that. But Wiki articles are supposed to be balanced, so I suggest we cite a source or two with an opposing view about her major contribution. I took your point about too much focus on OHP and suggest only a brief mention so we can link to the OHP article for more on worker health/WB. Psyc12 (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There are two RFCs. The Gilbreth RFC was not to water down the edit. The majority of independent detached editors voted for the Gilbreth sentence in full. That was what the RFC was for. We need to respect the result not continue to do your own thing despite the majority of votes in the RFC. Brokenrecordsagain (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that way. There is not a clear consensus on Gilbreth's contribution to the impact of work on health. Her interest in efficiency and productivity--there is nothing wrong with that--dominates her interests. We also need to delete the string of unrelated articles in the paragraph on i/o. Iss246 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)