2017
DOI: 10.1017/iop.2017.67
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Review of the Field or an Articulation of Identity Concerns? Interrogating the Unconscious Biases That Permeate I-O Scholarship

Abstract: Aguinis et al.’s (2017) analysis of the “most frequently cited sources, articles, and authors in industrial-organizational psychology textbooks” is a commendable piece of scholarship. Certainly, they have applied themselves to an important question and articulated a meaningful set of answers. We have no doubt too that for many readers the insights and answers they provide will be informative, compelling, and even reassuring—if only because they reinforce a view of the world with which they are familiar and by … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 37 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Extrapolating from the Peters et al (2014) study, I want to suggest that scholars' judgments of the quality and relevance of ideas are shaped similarly by personal and social identities (see also Hodgkinson and Haslam, 2017). In particular, I maintain scholars' fundamental identity concerns are triggered whenever ideas are encountered (be that in the capacity of editor, reviewer, or researcher) that challenge their primary disciplinary training and assumptions, and that they resolve those concerns by rejecting (or downplaying) the significance of the ideas in question.…”
Section: Bridging the Micro-macro Divide Asmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Extrapolating from the Peters et al (2014) study, I want to suggest that scholars' judgments of the quality and relevance of ideas are shaped similarly by personal and social identities (see also Hodgkinson and Haslam, 2017). In particular, I maintain scholars' fundamental identity concerns are triggered whenever ideas are encountered (be that in the capacity of editor, reviewer, or researcher) that challenge their primary disciplinary training and assumptions, and that they resolve those concerns by rejecting (or downplaying) the significance of the ideas in question.…”
Section: Bridging the Micro-macro Divide Asmentioning
confidence: 99%