Undergraduates Learn About Industrial–Organizational Psychology and Human Factors From an Informational Brochure

Abstract

An informational brochure was created to assist students and faculty unfamiliar with the industrial–organizational (IO) and human factors (HF) disciplines. The brochure highlights the content of these two professions, presents advice for undergraduates to prepare for admission to IO and HF graduate programs, provides sources of IO and HF information, and suggests employability options in IO and HF. To determine if this brochure effectively informed students about these professions, students read either the IO and HF brochure or information about school psychology. Knowledge about IO and HF programs increased significantly after reading the IO and HF brochure. Suggestions for its distribution are offered.

Keywords

industrial–organizational psychology human factors advising college students

The fields of industrial–organizational (IO) psychology and human factors (HF) are each identified by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as having a brighter than average job outlook (U.S. Department of Labor, 2013). Despite considerable growth in graduate programs in IO psychology, many psychology departments do not have concentrations in IO nor IO faculty (Bott, Stuhlmacher, & Powaser, 2006). Accordingly, potential IO graduate students may miss career opportunities because faculty and students are unfamiliar with the IO discipline and graduate programs. Similarly, many psychology undergraduates are not exposed directly to the HF discipline, as there are few HF professionals in university psychology departments (Martin & Wogalter, 1997). Therefore, students and faculty often are unfamiliar with HF (cf. Gardner-Bonneau, 1984). Given that many introductory psychology texts fail to include IO (Culbertson, 2011; Payne & Pariyothorn, 2007) and similar concerns exist for HF (e.g., Brill, DeLucia, Flach, Kaber, & Youmans, 2013), a potential dearth of IO and HF information for undergraduates exists in many universities. Shoenfelt, Kottke, & Stone (2015) developed an informational brochure to address this need. Whether this IO and HF informational brochure can effectively inform undergraduates about these career options is the focus of this article.

In the college setting, there are two key methods of educating students about IO and HF. One way to inform undergraduate students about the IO and HF disciplines is through exposure in introductory courses. Unfortunately, there is a lack of visibility of IO at the introductory level, as 50.9% of introductory psychology classes fail to include the topic of IO psychology (Culbertson, 2011). Advising is another option for informing students about IO and HF; these fields, however, are not well understood among psychologists. Gasser et al. (1998) quantified this lack of familiarity with IO in a survey that included a sample of American Psychological Association (APA) members. Although 96.6% of APA members recognized “IO Psychologist,” they rated their confidence to accurately describe IO work content as only moderate (M = 5.94; on a 10-point scale). Even among those who have heard about IO psychology, there is considerable ignorance of the field (cf. Ryan, 2003; Thayer, 1988). In fact, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) has made a concerted effort to increase the understanding of IO psychology by posting information on its website specifically targeting students, the general public, and business managers in organizations (Allen, 2014; Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2013). However, faculty unfamiliar with IO are unlikely to search the SIOP website for this information.

A similar concern exists for HF. Discussions about increasing HF content in introductory psychology texts, identifying better ways to attract undergraduates to the HF field as well as how to increase the pipeline into the HF profession are long-standing (e.g., Brill et al., 2013; Stone, 1995). The absence of IO or HF faculty members in many departments and the lack of coverage in introductory courses mean undergraduate students may miss career opportunities because faculty advisors are unfamiliar with these disciplines and their graduate programs.

Thus, both IO psychology and HF would likely benefit by having this information more widely disseminated. Consonant with the call by SIOP to provide more visibility to IO, we developed an informational brochure to inform students and faculty about these disciplines. If undergraduate students can learn directly from this brochure, they can then make wise decisions about IO and HF careers and graduate programs. For example, after receiving advising about the curriculum within their university and department, students at a Midwestern US comprehensive university reported an increase in their knowledge of their academic major and were able to make informed decisions about their career options (Johnson & Morgan, 2005). In this study, we address whether similar gains can be found with exposure to the material in an informational brochure not tied to a specific university or curriculum. Accordingly, it was hypothesized that the brochure material would increase student knowledge about the fields of IO and HF.

Method

Participants

Participants were 814 students (male n = 292, female n = 518, preferred not to state = 4) from a midsized state school in California (n = 285), a large southeastern university (n = 393), and a midsized midwestern university (n = 138). The mean age of the students was 21.7 (SD = 4.73), with 90% of the respondents between the ages of 18 and 25. The distribution of class standing was 241 freshmen, 149 sophomores, 171 juniors, 232 seniors, and 17 post-baccalaureates. The top three reported majors were psychology (38%), engineering (14%), and business (13%). At the discretion of their instructors, participants received credit in one of their psychology or management courses. Participants were treated in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the APA; the protocol received Institutional Review Board approval at all three institutions.

Because we were primarily interested in the effect of the IO-HF content on students who had little or no exposure to IO or HF, we asked students if they had taken or were enrolled in an IO course, which is offered at all three schools. An HF course is offered at the midsized midwestern university but not at the other two institutions. Participants who had completed or were currently enrolled in an IO course were removed from the primary analysis, which left 683 respondents for analysis. The demographics for this subsequent sample were as follows: 254 male participants, 425 female participants, and 4 who preferred not to state. Mean age was 21.0 (SD = 3.72), with 92% between the ages of 18 and 25. Class standing consisted of 239 freshmen, 139 sophomores, 123 juniors, 162 seniors, and 15 postbaccalaureates. The top three reported majors for these participants were psychology (29%), engineering (16%), and business (13%).

Materials

We developed an informational brochure that highlights the content of the IO and HF disciplines and presents suggestions for undergraduates for admission to graduate programs in these disciplines. Specifically, topics briefly presented in the brochure include descriptions of each discipline, graduate school requirements, recommended preparatory courses, and activities to build student portfolios as well as sources of IO and HF information, and information on employability. See the Appendix for illustrative content. The control condition consisted of information about school psychology from the National Association of School Psychologists (http://www.nasponline.org/about_sp/whatis.aspx). We also developed a filler task that separated the presentation of the brochure content from the posttest; this filler task consisted of 30 questions about teamwork. To assess students’ knowledge about the IO and HF disciplines as presented on the brochure, we developed a 20-item multiple-choice test that was utilized as both a pre- and a posttest, with the item order different on the two tests. These questions tapped content from the material contained in the brochure. A sample question was, “Typical requirements for both IO and Human Factors graduate programs include….” We also asked students to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type scale, their level of interest in IO, HF, and school psychology.

Procedure

Solomon’s 4-group design was used to ensure the differences in performance on the knowledge test were due to exposure to the IO-HF information, not sensitization to the pretest. We used a mixed design. Specifically, there were two key factors: pretest (pretest–posttest or posttest only) and information (IO-HF brochure material or information about school psychology). Thus, roughly half of the students received a pretest–posttest packet (n = 348), with the other half receiving a posttest only packet (n = 335). About half (n = 330) of the participants received information about IO-HF; the other half, which served as a control group (n = 353), read material about an unrelated discipline, school psychology. The majority of students (n = 434) were provided with paper copies of a packet containing the following materials in this order: pretest (for those in the pretest–posttest condition), the IO-HF brochure or information about school psychology, a filler task unrelated to the purpose of this study, the posttest, and a demographics survey. Other students (n = 249) completed the study online using Qualtrics, with the same ordering of the materials. At specific points in the packet, students were instructed not to return to previous pages (e.g., when they completed their review of the IO-HF material or school psychology information and moved on to the filler task, or when they moved from the filler task to the posttest). This process was controlled in the Qualtrics survey, so participants could not return to the earlier material once the respondent closed a page and moved to the next page in the survey. Time to complete the pretest–posttest packet of information was about 25 to 40 min, depending on the condition.

Analytic Strategy

Because we wanted to know if the material presented in the brochure would be an effective means to transmit information, our key analyses were to determine if there were differences in posttest scores by brochure, for which we used analysis of variance (ANOVA); we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the pretest as a covariate to assess the differences in the posttest by brochure, controlling for initial knowledge scores. Finally, because we thought that ability or administrative method might have an impact on posttest scores, we conducted ancillary analyses to assess the possible effect of grade point average (GPA) or administrative method on posttest scores. Although our primary intention was in assessing knowledge that could be expected from reading the brochure, we had asked respondents to rate their level of interest in IO, HF, and school psychology after they had read one of the two sets of material; thus, we conducted t-tests using interest ratings as the dependent variable.

Results

Initial screening of the data using a 3.3 z criterion (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) indicated five univariate outliers on the pretest, which were removed from further analyses. No other univariate outliers were detected and both pretest and posttest scores were normally distributed. A t-test of the pretest scores indicated that there were no differences in mean scores by administration method, M _online = 6.13, M _print = 5.73; t(332) = 1.47, p = .142, or type of (IO-HF or school) information, M _IOHF = 5.91, M _School = 5.86; t(332) = .19, p = .849. An ANOVA of the posttest scores by pretest–posttest condition indicated no significant difference in the posttest scores for those who took the pretest versus those who did not, F(1, 681) = 2.42, p = .120; M _pre–post = 8.13, SD = 3.78, M _postonly = 7.70, SD = 3.39. To determine if exposure to the IO-HF brochure was effective in informing students about the IO and HF disciplines, the first analysis was a t-test comparing posttest scores between those given the IO-HF brochure (n = 329) and those given the school psychology information (n = 352), regardless of whether they completed the pretest. There was a significant difference, t(679) = 11.85, p < .001, d = 0.90. Regardless of whether students completed the pretest, students who read the IO-HF brochure (M = 9.45, SD = 4.00) demonstrated significantly more knowledge about IO and HF than did students given the school psychology information (M = 6.48, SD = 2.39).

To ensure knowledge actually increased for students who received the IO-HF brochure, a repeated-measures ANOVA was calculated next. Knowledge increased significantly, F(1, 331) = 166.88, p < .001, partial η² = .335, from the pretest (M = 5.89, SE = 0.14 to the posttest (M = 8.20, SE = .18). There was a significant interaction effect, F(1, 331) = 114.63, p < .001, partial η² = .257, whereby there was an increase in knowledge for those who received the IO-HF material (posttest M = 10.13, SE = .26) and no increase in knowledge for those who received the school psychology information (posttest M = 6.26, SE = .25). See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of these results.

Figure 1.

Means of pre- and posttest scores for control and IO-HF content. IO: industrial–organizational; HF: human factors.

Ancillary Analyses

To assess whether cognitive ability was different by condition, we compared self-reported GPAs for the key variables; there were no differences in self-reported GPA by brochure information, t(614) = .10, p = .919; M _IOHF = 3.18; M _SchoolPsyc = 3.17, nor by pre-post condition, t(614) = .33, p = .740; M _Pre–post = 3.17; M _{Posttest_only} = 3.18. Although GPA was not different by condition, it was possible that the ability was related to test scores, so we conducted an ANCOVA with GPA as the covariate. GPA was a significant covariate, F(1, 298) = 17.04, p < .001, partial η² = .054, with the interaction remaining significant, F(1, 298) = 89.81, p < .001, partial η² = .232; posttest scores, adjusted for the covariate, increased significantly from the pretest (M = 5.99: SE = 0.20) to the posttest (M = 9.88: SE = .26) for participants who were administered the IO-HF material. The means for those administered the school psychology material were pretest: M = 5.81, SE = 0.20 and posttest: M = 6.33, SE = .25.

As already noted, there were no differences in scores for the pretest for those who completed the survey in paper form versus those who completed the survey online. We did, however, find a significant effect for the posttest by administration method for those who had been given the IO-HF material, t(159) = 2.03, p = .002, d = .36. Those who reviewed the material online did more poorly (M = 8.96) than those who had read the material in paper form (M = 10.99). Because of this unexpected finding that the posttest scores differed by administration method, we conducted a repeated-measures ANOVA with administration method as an additional independent variable. As before, test scores improved from pretest to the posttest. Also, as was found in the original analysis, there was a significant interaction effect whereby there was an increase in knowledge for those who received the IO-HF and no increase in knowledge for those who received the school psychology information. Administration method was not a significant main effect but contributed significant, small interactive effects with brochure content and the pretest–posttest repeated-measures. Simple effects testing revealed that for the administration method by pretest–posttest measure interaction, the differences were in the pretest to posttest means, F_online (1, 329) = 29.86, p < .001, partial η² = .083; F_paper (1, 329) = 173.42, p < .001, partial η² = .345, indicating that for both media, there were significant gains in scores from pretest to posttest (regardless of content read); for the three-way interaction, the difference was found only in the posttest measure for the IO-HF brochure condition, F_{IOHFpaper v online} (1, 329) = 15.99, p < .001, partial η² = .046; all other contrasts were not statistically significant. See Tables 1 and 2 for the summarized ANOVA statistics and means.

Table 1.

Summary of Repeated Measure ANOVA of Pretest and Posttest Scores by Brochure and Administrative Method.

		Posttest Scores
Sources	df	F	Partial η²	p Value
Br	1	48.12	.321	<.001
AM	1	0.99	.003	.321
Br × AM	1	2.32	.007	.128
Between-effects error	329	(11.28)
Measure (pre–post)	1	153.01	.317	<.001
Br × Measure	1	102.16	.237	<.001
AM × Measure	1	13.81	.040	<.001
Br × AM × Measure	1	14.86	.043	<.001
Within-effects error	329	(4.91)

Note. Values reported in parentheses are mean square error values. ANOVA = analysis of variance; Br = brochure; AM = admin method; df = degrees of freedom.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations of Pretest and Posttest Scores by Brochure and Administrative Method.

Condition	N	Pretest			Posttest
Condition	N	M	SD	95% CI	M	SD	95% CI
IOHF-online	68	6.29^a	2.92	[5.71, 6.88]	8.96^b	4.16	[8.20, 9.72]
IOHF-paper	93	5.62^a	2.47	[5.12, 6.13]	10.99^c	3.91	[10.34, 11.64]
School psy-online	56	5.95^a	2.17	[5.30, 6.59]	6.38^a	2.43	[5.54, 7.21]
School psy-paper	116	5.83^a	2.27	[5.38, 6.28]	6.21^a	1.98	[5.63, 6.79]

Notes. Means within columns with the same letter are not statistically different from one another. Differences are significant at p < .001. IO = industrial–organizational; HF = human factors; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval.

Interest Ratings

There were three ratings of interest, one each for IO, HF, and school psychology (the item read, After having read the material presented to you, how much interest do you have in…IO, HF, or school psychology?); the Likert-type scale was anchored with 1 = I am very interested and 5 = I am not at all interested (midpoint was I am indifferent); thus, a lower score is indicative of greater interest. For the IO interest rating, there were no differences by brochure, M _IOHF = 3.47, M _School = 3.54; t(678) = .82, p = .411, nor administration method, M _online = 3.57, M _print = 3.47; t(678) = 1.01, p = .313. Similarly, there were no differences by brochure, M _IOHF = 3.48, M _School = 3.40; t(677) = .90, p = .369, nor administration method, M _online = 3.51, M _print = 3.40; t(677) = 1.22, p = .227, for HF interest. Finally, there was a significant outcome for school psychology interest, by brochure, M _IOHF = 3.27, M _School = 3.07; t(677) = 2.01, p = .044, but not by administration method, M _online = 3.16, M _print = 3.17; t(677) = .10, p = .918.

Discussion

We developed a brochure that contained information about the IO and HF disciplines to inform students and faculty who might not be familiar with these fields, so they would be able to make informed decisions about graduate school and careers. For the brochure to be effective, students must be able to learn about IO and HF from the brochure content. Thus, our overarching purpose was to determine whether students could learn from the brochure. We used Solomon’s four-group design to test the effectiveness of this informational brochure material that highlights the content of IO and HF disciplines, presents tips for undergraduates on admission to IO and HF graduate programs, provides sources of IO and HF information, and suggests employability options in IO and HF.

Students exposed to the IO-HF brochure material demonstrated more knowledge about IO and HF compared to students presented with information about school psychology. As the pretest scores were not significantly different for students exposed to either the IO-HF brochure or the school psychology information, we can state with some confidence that this brochure informs students about IO and HF.

Given that many institutions do not have IO or HF faculty, courses, or even content in their courses, our data suggest that this IO-HF informational brochure itself helps students unfamiliar with IO and HF acquire knowledge to make informed career decisions. Not only can students gain valuable information, but advisors assisting students in evaluating potential careers and identifying graduate programs should find this information useful. As Johnson and Morgan (2005) found, it is possible to effect positive changes in advising with meaningful and impactful results. This brochure is one means by which advising can be enhanced with the resulting benefit to the IO and HF fields of attracting a larger pool of interested students.

That posttest scores were higher for those who received the IO-HF material in printed paper form was an unexpected finding. The research on reading comprehension appears mixed with regard to medium: superior comprehension and recall has been found for print (Jeong, 2012) as well as no difference in recall (Margolin, Driscoll, Toland, & Kegler, 2013) between print and electronic media. A full explication of the possible explanations for differences in reading comprehension by media type is beyond the scope of this article, but there does appear to be evidence that recall based on print media may be better because the working memory demands are lower for print than for electronic format; further, distractibility while reading online media is often higher, thus affecting comprehension and recall (cf. Green, Perera, Dance, & Myers, 2010). In the case of our study, the same material appeared in the online version as in the print equivalent, but because the appearance of the online version may have varied considerably for cell phone, tablet, or desktop presentation, these variations may have led to a higher memory workload as well as increased distractibility, all of which could have decreased recall on the subsequent posttest.¹ In addition, students completing the paper version were proctored, but those who completed the online version were not. When not being proctored, the students might not have been as conscientious or thorough in their review of the material. Finally, it is possible, but highly unlikely, that students in this study completing the paper (i.e., proctored) version might have ignored the instruction not to return to the information about IO-HF and thus retrieved correct answers from the brochure material while taking the posttest; the option to return to the brochure material was not available in the electronic administration.

We propose that this brochure (or similar materials) be provided to students and faculty unfamiliar with IO or HF in an effort to help create more visibility for our fields and attract interested and qualified undergraduates into the disciplines. The authors encourage the cost-efficient, electronic distribution of the brochure, as the brochure material was effective in increasing knowledge about the IO and HF disciplines. Our brochure is available on and readily downloadable from the SIOP and Human Factors and Ergonomics Society websites and can easily be shared among faculty. Some might argue that a paper brochure is no longer relevant. The difference between recall scores by medium might suggest that there is yet reason to use paper versions. Regardless, for ease of wide distribution, we recognize that content available in electronic formats for faculty and students would be most efficient. We encourage academics and practitioners to share the brochure not only with undergraduates in psychology departments but with advisors who work in central advising centers that exist on some campuses.

Footnotes

Appendix

Authors’ Note

A portion of this paper was presented at the 124th convention of the American Psychological Association (Kottke, Stone, & Shoenfelt, 2016).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Allen

(2014). A message from your president. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 51, 7–9.

Authors. (2013, 7). IO and HF graduate program admission: Information for undergraduate advisors. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.

Bott

J. P.

Stuhlmacher

A. F.

Powaser

P. R.

(2006). The invisible pipeline: IO at the undergraduate level. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 44, 123–127.

Brill

J. C.

DeLucia

P. R.

Flach

J. M.

Kaber

D. B.

Youmans

R. J.

(2013). Invisible factors: Strategies for raising awareness of human factors among undergraduate students. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57. 447–451.

Culbertson

S. S.

(2011). The academic’s forum: IO coverage in general psychology classes. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 49 (2), 62–65.

Gardner-Bonneau

D. J.

(1984). Undergraduate human factors programs: The need, the problems, the outlook. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 28th Annual Meeting, 28, 170–172. doi: 10.1177/154193128402800217.

Gasser

Whitsett

Mosley

Sullivan

Rogers

Tan

(1998). IO psychology: What’s your line? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 35, 120–126. http://www.siop.org/tip/backissues/TIPApril98/Gasser.aspx

Green

T. D.

Perera

R. A.

Dance

L. A.

Myers

E. A.

(2010). Impact of presentation mode on recall of written text and numerical information: Hard copy versus electronic. North American Journal of Psychology, 12, 233–242.

Jeong

(2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. The Electronic Library, 30, 390–408.

10.

Johnson

E. J.

Morgan

B. L.

(2005). Advice on advising: Improving a comprehensive university’s program. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 15–18.

11.

Kottke

J. L.

Stone

N. J.

Shoenfelt

E. L.

(8, 2016). Undergraduates effectively learn from IO and HF informational brochure. Poster Presented at the 124th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Denver, CO.

12.

Margolin

S. J.

Driscoll

Toland

M. J.

Kegler

J. L.

(2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512–519.

13.

Martin

D. W.

Wogalter

M. S.

(1997). The exposure of undergraduate students to human factors/ergonomics instruction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41^st Annual Meeting, 41, 470–743. doi: 10.1177/1071181397041001103.

14.

Payne

S. C.

Pariyothorn

M. M.

(2007). IO psychology in introductory psychology textbooks: A survey of authors. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist (TIP), 44, 37–42.

15.

Ryan

A. M.

(2003). Defining ourselves: IO psychology’s identity quest. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41, 21–33.

16.

Shoenfelt

E. L.

Stone

N. J.

Kottke

J. L.

(2015). Industrial-organizational and human factors graduate program admission: Information for undergraduate advisors. Teaching of Psychology, 42, 79–82. doi: 10.1177/0098628314562683.

17.

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (2013, 8 16). SIOP Brochures Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/visibilitybrochure/siopbrochure.aspx

18.

Stone

N. J.

(1995). Is there a need for undergraduate human factors education and is it beneficial? In Stone

N. J.

Smolensky

M. W.

(co-chairs) panel, Undergraduate Human Factors Education: Could it Be Utilized and Marketed Better? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting, 39, 404–408. doi: 10.1177/154193129503900606.

19.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

20.

Thayer

P. W.

(1988). Some things non-I/O psychologists should know about I/O psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 26, 55–65. http://www.siop.org/tip/oct11/09culbertson.aspx

21.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, 12 19). Employment Projections—2012-2022. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecopro_12192013.htm