Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:12:52.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Most Frequently Cited Sources, Articles, and Authors in Industrial-Organizational Psychology Textbooks: Implications for the Science–Practice Divide, Scholarly Impact, and the Future of the Field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2017

Herman Aguinis ,
Ravi S. Ramani ,
P. Knight Campbell ,
Paloma Bernal-Turnes ,
Josiah M. Drewry  and
Brett T. Edgerton
Herman Aguinis*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business, George Washington University
Ravi S. Ramani
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business, George Washington University
P. Knight Campbell
Affiliation:
Department of Management, School of Business, George Washington University
Paloma Bernal-Turnes
Affiliation:
Department of International Business, School of Business, George Washington University
Josiah M. Drewry
Affiliation:
Department of Strategic Management and Public Policy, School of Business, George Washington University
Brett T. Edgerton
Affiliation:
Department of International Business, School of Business, George Washington University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Herman Aguinis, Department of Management, Funger Hall 311, School of Business, George Washington University, 2201 G St. NW, Washington, DC 20052. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most future industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology practitioners and researchers initially enroll in an introductory I-O psychology course during their junior or senior year of undergraduate studies, making introductory textbooks their first in-depth exposure to the field and an important knowledge base. We reviewed and analyzed the 6,654 unique items (e.g., journal articles, book chapters) published in 1,682 unique sources (e.g., scholarly journals, edited books, popular press publications) and authored by 8,603 unique individuals cited in six popular I-O psychology textbooks. Results showed that 39% of the top-cited sources are not traditional academic peer-reviewed journals, 77% of the top-cited articles were published in cross-disciplinary journals, and 58% of the top-cited authors are affiliated with business schools and not psychology departments. These results suggest that the science–practice divide in I-O psychology may develop later—perhaps after graduates obtain employment as either practitioners or researchers. Also, results suggest I-O psychology is closer to business and management than social psychology and psychology in general. We discuss additional implications for the science–practice divide, how to define and measure scholarly impact, and the future of I-O psychology as a field, including the movement of I-O psychologists to business schools and the sustainability of I-O psychology programs in psychology departments.

Keywords

scholarly impactscience–practice gaptextbooksbiometric researchindustrial psychologyorganizational psychology
Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 507 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

The fourth, fifth, and sixth authors contributed equally to this article and their names are listed alphabetically. A previous version of this article was presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology annual meeting, Orlando, FL, April 2017. We thank Michael G. Aamodt, Jeffrey M. Conte, and Paul E. Spector for providing us with editable versions of the references for the latest editions of their textbooks.

References

Aamodt, M. G. (2016). Industrial/organizational psychology: An applied approach (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., Bradley, K. J., & Brodersen, A. (2014). Industrial–organizational psychologists in business schools: Brain drain or eye opener? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 284–303.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of Management, 37, 5–38.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., & Lawal, S. O. (2013). eLancing: A review and research agenda for bridging the science–practice gap. Human Resource Management Review, 23, 6–17.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., & O'Boyle, E. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67, 313–350.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., O'Boyle, E., Gonzalez-Mulé, E., & Joo, H. (2016). Cumulative advantage: Conductors and insulators of heavy-tailed productivity distributions and productivity stars. Personnel Psychology, 69, 3–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D. L., Antonacopoulou, E., & Cummings, T. G. (2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13, 623–639.Google Scholar
Aguinis, H., Suarez-González, I., Lannelongue, G., & Joo, H. (2012). Scholarly impact revisited. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 105–132.Google Scholar
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Weiss, H. M., & French, K. A. (2014). Industrial–organizational psychology's Chicken Little syndrome. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 304–311.Google Scholar
Aycan, Z. (2014). ‘“Houston, we do have a problem!” Why should industrial-organizational psychologists be pulled by psychology departments? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 333–336.Google Scholar
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.Google Scholar
Beiler, A. A., Zimmerman, L. M., Doerr, A. J., & Clark, M. A. (2014). An evaluation of research productivity among I-O psychology doctoral programs. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51 (3), 40–52.Google Scholar
Benjamin, L. T. Jr., & Baker, D. B. (Eds.) (2000). Boulder at 50. American Psychologist, 55, 233–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 431–449.Google Scholar
Byrne, Z. S., Hayes, T. L., Mort McPhail, S., Hakel, M. D., Cortina, J. M., & McHenry, J. J. (2014). Educating industrial–organizational psychologists for science and practice: Where do we go from here? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 2–14.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1062–1081.Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2011). Applied psychology in human resource management (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Certo, S. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Brymer, R. A. (2010). Competition and scholarly productivity in management: Investigating changes in scholarship from 1988 to 2008. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 591–606.Google Scholar
Colella, A., Hebl, M., & King, E. (2017). One hundred years of discrimination research in Journal of Applied Psychology: A sobering synopsis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 500–513.Google Scholar
Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.Google Scholar
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Park, J. (2014). An incomplete list of eminent psychologists of the modern era. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2, 20–32.Google Scholar
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 921–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, R. L., & Wang, M. (2010). The internationalization of I-O psychology: We're not in Kansas anymore. . .. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 48 (1), 41–45.Google Scholar
Hadani, M., Coombes, S., Das, D., & Jalajas, D. (2012). Finding a good job: Academic network centrality and early occupational outcomes in management academia. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 723–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joo, H., Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2017). Not all non-normal distributions are created equal: Improved theoretical and measurement precision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102 (7), 1022–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. L. (2007). What causes a management article to be cited—article, author, or journal? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 491–506.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.Google Scholar
Kacmar, K. M., & Whitfield, J. M. (2000). An additional rating method for journal articles in the field of management. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 392–406.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. J. (2017). Reflections on the Journal of Applied Psychology for 2009 to 2014: Infrastructure, operations, innovations, impact, evolution, and desirable directions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 580–588.Google Scholar
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2016). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lefkowitz, J. (2010). Industrial-organizational psychology's recurring identity crises: It's a values issue! Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 293–299.Google Scholar
Levy, P. E. (2017). Industrial/organizational psychology: Understanding the workplace (5th ed.). Gordonsville, VA: Macmillan Learning.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2015). Amazon overtakes Wal-Mart as biggest retailer. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amazon-walmart-20150724-story.html Google Scholar
Lowman, R. L. (Ed.). (2006). The ethical practice of psychology in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
McHenry, J. (2007, April). We are the very model. Presidential address delivered at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY.Google Scholar
McKenny, A. F., Aguinis, H., Short, J. C., & Anglin, A. H. (in press). What doesn't get measured does exist: Improving the accuracy of computer-aided text analysis. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0149206316657594 Google Scholar
McNally, G. P. (2010). Scholarly productivity, impact, and quality among academic psychologists at group of eight universities. Australian Journal of Psychology, 62, 204–215.Google Scholar
Mosendz, P. (2014). Amazon has basically no competition among online booksellers. The Wire. Retrieved from www.thewire.com/business/2014/05/amazon-has-basically-no-competition-among-online-booksellers/371917/ Google Scholar
Muchinsky, P. M., & Culbertson, S. (2016). Psychology applied to work (11th ed.). Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press Google Scholar
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Digest of education statistics, 2016. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2016menu_tables.asp Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 473–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34, 641–720.Google Scholar
Ramos-Rodríguez, A. R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 981–1004.Google Scholar
Riggio, R. (2013). Introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rupp, D. E., & Beal, D. (2007). Checking in with the scientist-practitioner model: How are we doing? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45 (1), 35–40.Google Scholar
Ryan, A. M. (2003). Defining ourselves: I-O psychology's identity quest. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41 (1), 21–33.Google Scholar
Salter, N. P., Allen, J. A., Gabriel, A. S., Sowinski, D., & Naidoo, L. (2016). Call for proposals for I-O graduate program rankings. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 54 (1), 1–2.Google Scholar
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (SIOP). (2015). 2013 SIOP mission statement, vision, core values, and strategic planning goals (para.1). Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/reportsandminutes/strategicplan.aspx Google Scholar
Spector, P. E. (2017). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., Brummel, B., Simonet, D. V., & Rothstein, M. (2014). Making an informed choice of industrial–organizational versus organizational behavior as a PhD student (and a professor). Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 336–342.Google Scholar
Thoroughgood, C., Jacobs, R., & Caligiuri, P. (2014). Industrial–organizational psychologists in business schools: Considering the more subtle issue of fit. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 329–333.Google Scholar
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Raymark, P. H., & Odle-Dusseau, H. N. (2012). The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 499–530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weathington, B. L., Bergman, S. M., & Bergman, J. Z. (2014). Training science–practitioners: Broadening the training of industrial–organizational psychologists. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 35–38.Google Scholar
Woodwark, M., & MacMillan, K. (2014). Industrial–organizational psychology research: The setting is academic. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 324–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 429–472.Google Scholar