Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T08:25:39.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why We Need Industrial–Organizational Psychology to Fix Industrial–Organizational Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

George C. Banks  and
Ernest H. O’Boyle Jr.
George C. Banks*
Affiliation:
Longwood University
Ernest H. O’Boyle Jr.
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Management, Longwood University, 201 High Street, Farmville, VA 23909
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 284 - 287
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 715–725. doi: 10.5465/amle.2010.56659889Google Scholar
Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Arnaiz, J. A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.-W., Cronin, E., Decullier, E., … Williamson, P. R. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PloS One, 3, e3081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.00030Google Scholar
Dwan, K., Altman, D. G., Cresswell, L., Blundell, M., Gamble, C., & Williams, P. R. (2011). Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. The Cochrane Collaboration. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000031.pub2Google ScholarPubMed
Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PloS One, 5, 10. e1006810.1371/journal.pone.0010068CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in I–O psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(3), 252–268.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4Google Scholar
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rynes, S., & Gerhart, B. (2003). Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strech, D. (2012). Normative arguments and new solutions for the unbiased registration and publication of clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 276–281. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.002Google Scholar