中国劳动心理学概况

列宁称为“資产阶級剝削底最巧妙的殘酷手段”和“最丰富的科学成就”的太罗制,关于它的主要著作的中譯本在1916年出版以后,資本主义国家的“应用心理学”、“工业心理学”陆續被介紹到我国来。这类介紹性的文章在1934—1936年的一段时間內数量最多。一部分心理学者抱着“工业救国”的心腸(这是民族資产阶級的立場)提倡“工业心理学”以为它对发展工业会有所帮助。另一部分人則有意識地企图用它为官僚資本剝削和     

INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN FRANCE

The current status of French industrial psychology is evaluated. Within the social and economic context of contemporary France, varying ideologies and scarce resources have created a gap between applied and academic industrial psychology. Personnel practices and systems and organizational research are noted.     

中国劳动心理学三十年

一 西方的工业心理学从本世纪初开始被介绍到中国来,在30年代中期,有关这类文章的介绍为数渐多,同时也有些心理学家从事过为数不多的研究。但由于当时西方的工业心理学既不为厂主所重视,更不受工人群众的欢迎,所以长期以来,工业心理学没有在中国的土壤里生根发芽。     

STATE OF SCIENCE IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: A REVIEW OF SELF-REPORTED LIMITATIONS

This study investigated self-reported limitations of published papers as an alternative and novel operationalization of the state of science of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. A content analysis was conducted of the reported limitations in every I-O psychology articles published in the Academy of Management Journal, the Journal of Applied Psychology, and Personnel Psychology between 1995 and 2008 (N= 2,402). Articles were coded for the number and types of limitations reported, characteristics of the research design, and topic area. Threats to internal validity were the most often reported limitations. In addition, variations were detected in the reporting of limitations over time, indicating a subtle but steady shift in the focus of I-O psychology research. Implications of these results for the science and practice of I-O psychology and for the use of self-reported limitations in scientific communication are discussed.     

澳大利亚的心理学研究

中国科学院心理研究所应澳大利亚心理学会的邀请,委派我们三人组成代表团去参加澳大利亚心理学会第十三屈年会(1978年8月27日-9月1日),会后又参观访问了钮卡索、悉尼、布里斯班、堪培拉等地的心理学教学和研究机构。共参观访问了九所大学的心理系、四个教育研究中心、五所医院及两个生物学研究单位,对澳大利亚心理学情况有了初步的了解。在访问期间澳大利亚同行给予热情接待,赠送了书刊资料、录音带、     

RESEARCH SETTINGS IN INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: FACTS,FALLACIES, AND THE FUTURE1,2,3

Data were collected about research issues involving laboratory and field settings through a content analysis of the 1966, 1970, and 1974 volumes of the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, and Personnel Psychology. Four general categories of data were collected: (a) affiliation of investigators, (b) topic areas investigated, (c) settings of the research, and (d) research strategies employed. Four common beliefs of either laboratory or field advocates were contradicted by the data. First, laboratory research was found fairly frequently in the industrial-organizational literature. Second, theory and hypothesis testing were not overemphasized. Third, laboratory research was as applied as field research. Lastly, studies published by researchers with nonacademic affiliations were as likely to have been conducted in laboratory settings as field settings. Recommendations were made to use the laboratory more frequently for theory and hypothesis based research and to use a variety of research strategies in both laboratory and field settings.