No abstract

Human Performance, in press. We gratefully acknowledge Margaret Beier for her help with some of the analyses reported here.Two studies developed and validated a context-independent situational judgment test (SJT) of prosocial implicit trait policy (ITP). The first study developed an SJT based on critical incidents about the prosocial behavior of physicians, lawyers, community service volunteers, and human factors engineers. In a sample of 396 undergraduates, this SJT was internally consistent and correlated significantly with other trait constructs related to prosocial ITP. In the second study with 134 undergraduates, the SJT was significantly correlated with relevant trait constructs and prosocial performance in role-plays simulating scenarios in which others needed help. These results show that a generic SJT developed from items that describe situations and actions specific to several occupations can predict behavior in situations unlike any that appear in its items.

The differences between ‘work as imagined’ (WAI) and ‘work as done’ (WAD) reflect theoretically pervasive and well-known barriers to the examination of human performance at work. Due to the dynamic and situational nature of work, the idealized performance reflected in procedures is not always done as prescribed. The identification and examination of this gap and the nature of these deviations are imperative for high-risk industries. The present study used conventional content analysis to compare stakeholders’ performance expectations to the realities of operator performance through interviews collected at a high-risk petrochemical producer. Direct comparisons of stakeholder and operator perspectives revealed divergent expectations of how procedures are used, when they’re most useful, and reasons why operators don’t utilize the procedure amendment process. These differences could be resolved through increased collaboration between stakeholders and operators. Future research should consider collaboration interventions to bridge the gap between WAI and WAD.

Kath et al. (2021) called for IOP readers to practice what they preach and assess whether their classroom pedagogy can be improved by using evidence-based findings from industrialorganizational (I-O) psychology research. We extend this call by encouraging academics to apply those same principles to undergraduate research experiences in I-O psychology. We use Kath et al.'s four intersections of practice and teaching to organize our recommendations in a timeline spanning from the recruitment of student research assistants (RAs) to the end of their experience as RAs. Perhaps your lab already follows some of these recommendations, and that's good! These changes can scaffold and support each other, elevating your mentorship from "good" to "great." Why focus on research labs? Foremost, it is clear that research experience pre-graduate school is a critical part of the I-O talent pipeline. Many I-O programs have a formal or informal (e.g., through a compensatory selection model) expectation that their students will have engaged in research prior to entering the graduate program. For some programs, completing research within the context of a class (e.g., a course on research methods) is sufficient, but for many others, more intensive research experiences, such as those offered in academic or applied research positions, are preferred. Applicants with a stronger record of research are considered more competitive and are therefore more likely to be admitted into a graduate program. We also want to help students develop into knowledgeable and engaged citizens of the world. Students will apply the skills honed in the lab (e.g., teamwork, learning to give/take constructive feedback) whether they continue in their education (in I-O psychology or elsewhere) or enter the workforce; these skills are crucial to future success. We believe I-O psychology research labs must reflect the diverse populations represented in the U.S. workforce if our field wishes to (a) contribute to producing a diverse and scientifically literate population, (b) influence workplace practices and expectations of the college-educated workforce, and (c) have a diverse group of people who engage in I-O psychology in academia and/or practice. Thus, the optimal research lab experience should be evidence-based, fulfilling, and open to students of all backgrounds. The guiding questions and challenges presented in Table 1 are meant to help you reflect on how you can apply best practices from the field of I-O psychology to your research lab. Building from this foundation, we provide recommendations that can be implemented during four stages: the recruitment and selection of RAs, the beginning of the semester, during the semester, and the end of the semester. Further considerations for students who return as RAs for multiple semesters are also provided. We want to emphasize that these recommendations are not exhaustive, and many may fit into more than one of Kath et al.'s (2021) four focal categories.