Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Industrial and Organizational Psychology
  4. Most cited
Journal Home
Refine listing
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Most cited

This page lists all time most cited articles for this title. Please use the publication date filters on the left if you would like to restrict this list to recently published content, for example to articles published in the last three years. The number of times each article was cited is displayed to the right of its title and can be clicked to access a list of all titles this article has been cited by.

Contents

Page 62 of 63

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • From the Editor

  • John C. Scott
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    23 March 2017, pp. 1-2

  • The goal of focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice is to present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • Victim Precipitation: Let's Not Silence That Voice

  • Mark A. North, Spencer Smith
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    06 March 2018, pp. 137-141

  • Cortina, Robello, and Holland (2018) advance a case for the danger of using the victim precipitation model in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology—a model that is interpreted as suggesting that characteristics and behaviors of victims may influence criminals to select them as targets, in effect blaming victims for crimes committed against them. This “victim blaming” found its way into criminology, criminal justice, sociology, and other disciplines, resulting in revictimization and in the exoneration of violent criminals, among other undesirable outcomes. We agree with Cortina and colleagues that these outcomes, then and now, are unacceptable: Victims cannot and should not be blamed for their aggressors’ actions, and aggressors should unequivocally be held accountable for their crimes. This extends to workplace mistreatment. Using the operationalizations of generalized workplace harassment, workplace incivility, sexual harassment, and abusive supervision as guides (Rospenda & Richman, 2004, as cited by Cortina et al., 2018; Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Tepper, 2000; Walsh & Magley, 2014), we define workplace mistreatment as any interpersonal interaction in the workplace that creates an oppressively intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment that extends beyond acceptable evaluative and professional actions given situational demands (e.g., poor performance reviews, layoffs during downsizing/mergers/acquisitions, discipline, etc.). Although an unpopular point of view, we maintain that whether or not victims influence the contexts that facilitate victimization in the workplace is an empirical question. This research continues to be scientifically valuable, relevant, and practical, and it is necessary to more fully understand workplace mistreatment (Barling, 1996; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001). Two principal reasons drive this position: (a) the lack of scientific, data-driven evidence to support the exclusion of the victim precipitation model and (b) the potential harmful premise of its replacement, the perpetrator predation model. Elucidating our thoughts on these reasons will occupy our commentary.

  • Cited by 1

  • I've Found It, but What Does It Mean? On the Importance of Theory in Identifying Dominant General Factors

  • Zhenyu Yuan
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    23 March 2016, pp. 212-216

  • In their focal article, Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) based their definition of a dominant general factor (DGF) on two criteria: (a) A DGF should be the largest source of reliable variance; (b) it is influencing every variable measuring the construct. Although detailed attention has been paid to the statistical properties of a DGF, I believe another criterion of equal if not greater importance is the theoretical justification to expect a DGF in the measurement of a construct. In the following commentary, I will highlight the importance of theory as another important criterion when determining the meaningfulness and usefulness of DGFs, discuss the risks of creating a DGF without any theoretical guidance, and elaborate on the complexities surrounding job performance as a detailed example to illustrate why theory is important before extracting a DGF from performance ratings.

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • From the Editor

  • Kevin R. Murphy
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    21 April 2015, p. 1

  • Focal articles in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas and stimulate a conversation in the form of comment articles that extend the arguments in the focal article or that present new ideas stimulated by those focal articles. The two focal articles in this issue stimulated a wide range of reactions and a good deal of constructive input.

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • Issues of Gender Inequity Go Beyond STEM

  • P. D. Harms, Karen Landay
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 June 2018, pp. 323-326
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Although Miner et al. (2018) effectively argue that there is a need for greater efforts on the part of I-O psychologists to confront gender inequity in the STEM fields, we feel that the preoccupation with STEM may blind us to other domains where similar issues not only exist but may be even more prevalent and problematic. Specifically, we would argue that more attention needs to be paid to skilled trades, transportation-related jobs, and other so-called “dirty work.”

Page 62 of 63