Social Psychology and
I-O Psychology
Module from SIOP
Social and I-O Psychology
• Many theories and findings from social psychology
research have been applied in I-O psychology
research.
• The list is long, but here are a few links:
– Attraction  Bias in employee selection & evaluation
– Social exchange  Organizational citizenship behaviors
and Counterproductive workplace behaviors
– Group processes  Motivation and Decision making
– Power/interpersonal influence  Leadership
Attraction  Bias in Evaluation
• Social psychologists know there are
predictable reasons why we are attracted to
others (e.g., proximity, similarity).
• I-O psychologists know that these reasons can
unduly influence evaluation of people who are
looking to get hired or get a good raise.
• Excessive attraction bias can lead to
employment discrimination
Social exchange  OCBs/CWBs
• Social psychologists know that people expect to receive
something in exchange for what they have given, and
vice versa.
• I-O psychologists know that when workers feel their
organization has been good to them, they are more
motivated to return the favor in terms of voluntary,
helpful behaviors (called organizational citizenship
behaviors).
• If a worker feels s/he has been treated unfairly, s/he is
more likely to “return the favor” in terms of harmful
behaviors (called counterproductive workplace
behaviors) such as absenteeism or theft.
Group processes  Influence and
Decision making
Social influence:
• Social facilitation – when a worker is being watched,
s/he is more likely to work harder
• Social loafing – when a worker is part of a team
responsible for some work, a lack of individual
accountability can lead to lower effort for that worker
Decision making:
• Group think – decisions made in a work team can be
poor quality if dissent is not explicitly encouraged and
cohesiveness is high
• Group polarization – decisions made in a work team
can be more extreme if emotions run high
LeadershipTheories
There are different approaches to leadership research:
• “Great man” approach – you must be born a great leader
• “Power” approach – leadership is about acquiring and
wielding the right kind of power
• Behavioral approach – you just need to exhibit leader-like
behaviors to be a good leader
• Dyadic/situational approach – leadership depends on the
relationship between the leader and the follower
(subordinate)
• Transformational approach – you need to inspire your
followers to buy into your vision
• Abusive/destructive leadership approach – some leaders
are not trying to be supportive, good leaders
Class Discussion
• How can factors influencing attraction possibly lead to
employment discrimination?
• Have you ever gone the extra mile for your organization? If
so, what factors contributed to your decision to help?
• Have you seen social facilitation or social loafing at your
workplace? How can organizations encourage teamwork
and avoid social loafing?
• How can an organization help support workers who want to
become great leaders?
Further Reading
•
•
•
•
•
•
Elkins, T. J., & Philips, J. S. (1999). Evaluating sex discrimination claims: The
mediating role of attributions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 186-199. dated
article, more current articles about attractiveness bias
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors.
Journal of Management, 17(3), 601. very dated, much more current research
Kelloway, E. K., Francis, L., Prosser, M., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). Counterproductive
work behavior as protest. Human Resource Management Review, 20(1), 18-25.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2004). Social loafing: A
field investigation. Journal of Management, 30(2), 285.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job
behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(2), 327-340.
Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F., III. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership
development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 217-248.