Still servants of work? Exploring the role of the critic in work and organizational psychology

This paper situates the burgeoning movement of critical work and organizational psychology (CWOP) within a broader and ongoing effort to rehabilitate work in a broken society. Drawing upon Loren Baritz's seminal critique of the field, The Servants of Power, the argument is made that while CWOP scholars clearly militate against pandering to the “power elite,” they nonetheless risk becoming servants of work, defined as the propensity to perpetuate work's outsized psychological significance. To support such an argument, a core yet neglected theme in Baritz's book is revisited, that of the role of the critic, to demonstrate how CWOP scholars might navigate their own entanglements with servitude while at the same time contest work's symbolic power. The paper also addresses the charge of intellectual elitism that can result from holding such a position of “critical distance” not just from mainstream scholarship, but from work itself. Implications for the future of CWOP are discussed.     

Free to blame? Belief in free will is related to victim blaming

The more people believe in free will, the harsher their punishment of criminal offenders. A reason for this finding is that belief in free will leads individuals to perceive others as responsible for their behavior. While research supporting this notion has mainly focused on criminal offenders, the perspective of the victims has been neglected so far. We filled this gap and hypothesized that individuals’ belief in free will is positively correlated with victim blaming—the tendency to make victims responsible for their bad luck. In three studies, we found that the more individuals believe in free will, the more they blame victims. Study 3 revealed that belief in free will is correlated with victim blaming even when controlling for just world beliefs, religious worldviews, and political ideology. The results contribute to a more differentiated view of the role of free will beliefs and attributed intentions.     

The Psychological Cost of Racial Discrimination: What is the Role of Residential Segregation?

Racial discrimination is known to harm health, but to what extent the health burden of racial discrimination is contingent on residential contexts is understudied. This study examines the moderating role of racial residential segregation in the relationship between racial discrimination and psychological distress. Nationally representative data from the 2002–2003 National Latino and Asian American Study were merged with metropolitan-level data from the U.S. Census. Logistic regression models were used to test the independent and joint contributions of racial discrimination and residential segregation to psychological distress among Asians and Latinxs, stratified by nativity status. Higher residential segregation (measured by the interaction index) is associated with lower odds of distress among U.S.-born Asians but not among other groups. As for the moderating effect, residential segregation exacerbates the positive association between discrimination and distress among foreign-born Asians (measured by the dissimilarity index) and foreign-born Latinxs (measured by the interaction index), but not among their respective U.S.-born counterparts. Taken together, the present study highlights that strategies to mitigate the psychological burden of racial discrimination need to move beyond individual-level efforts to incorporate neighborhood-based approaches. In particular, results provide empirical support for efforts to reduce residential segregation, particularly among immigrants who are discriminated against.