An Analysis of Industrial-Organizational Psychology’s Indifference to Labor Unions in the United States
- 1 February 2004
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Human Relations
- Vol. 57 (2), 145-167
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704042925
Abstract
Although many writers have bemoaned psychology’s indifference toward labor unions, there has been little critical analysis of why this indifference exists. In this article, several explanations that have been offered to explain this indifference are identified and evaluated. These explanations are: (i) limited access to relevant data; (ii) limited financial rewards;(iii) early psychologists’ attitudes toward unions; and (iv) the failure to appreciate power differences between workers and management. The history of psychology in the US is compared with the history of sociology and economics in order to investigate the viability of these hypotheses. It is concluded that the two crucial reasons for the neglect of labor union issues by applied psychologists are the psychologists’ reluctance to address the presence of conflict between employers and employees and the dearth of early, pro-union psychologists.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Development of the Neoclassical Tradition in Labor EconomicsILR Review, 2001
- The Sociology of Work and OccupationsAnnual Review of Sociology, 1993
- School Superintendents' Antilabor Bias in Screening Researchers' Access to ClassroomsSociology of Education, 1990
- Plant Shutdowns and Union DeclineWork and Occupations, 1987
- History of the Social SciencesOsiris, 1985
- Industrial unrest as social pathology: The Australian writings of Elton MayoHistorical Studies, 1982
- Is industrial psychology none of Marxism's business?American Psychologist, 1982
- Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and class bias in psychology.American Psychologist, 1981
- 4. PSYCHOLOGY AS SEEN BY A TRADE‐UNIONISTPersonnel Psychology, 1961
- Research in Labor UnionsAmerican Journal of Sociology, 1950