at Chattanooga G. P. Latham and G. Whyte (1994) found that managers gave less positive evaluations to a proposal to implement a valid selection procedure when information about the utility of that procedure was also given. The authors hypothesized that the manner in which the utility information was presented might explain this result. Two empirical studies (Ns = 145 and 186) were conducted. Results of mean contrast analyses show that the effect found by Latham and Whyte was not replicated, that revised scenarios including utility information are more understandable to managers, and that utility information presented in a revised manner has a low-to-moderate positive effect on the acceptability ratings that managers give to these selection proposals. However, acceptability ratings remain disappointingly low no matter which scenario is presented. Future study is encouraged to examine managerial reactions to innovations suggested by psychological research.A general question facing all professionals, including industrial/organizational (I/O) psychologists, is how best to communicate the important findings of a discipline to individuals who are in a position to use that information but who are not familiar with the intricacies of the research that led to those conclusions. Miller (1969) made this point very well for psychologists in his memorable American Psychological Association (APA) presidential address. His comments focused on the challenges and difficulties facing psychologists who were in a position to give the important findings of scientific psychology away to nonpsychologists.Many researchers who have focused on the calculation of the utility of human resource practices have assumed

No abstract