Research Library

The digital revolution has produced a wide range of new tools for making quick and cheap inferences about human potential and predicting future work performance. However, there is little scientific research on many of these new assessment methods, which leaves human resources managers with no evidence to evaluate how useful they actually are.

This paper argues that as a field, industrial and organizational psychology (I-O) is failing at its central purpose of providing evidence-based solutions to real-world management problems.

This paper examines the role of positive humor in the workplace through a meta-analysis of 49 different studies.

This study examines how pre-employment assessment length affects the rate at which job applicants opt out of the assessment phase. To evaluate the tradeoff between reliability and attrition, the authors used data from 69 selection systems and over 220,000 job seekers.

This study examines the emergence of star performers—a few individuals who contribute the majority of output—and what it means for business.

This study is the first to empirically assess the value of discretion in hiring. The results were consistently worse job outcomes where managers exercised more discretion.

This study examines the “illusion of validity”—the confidence humans have that we make accurate judgments even though the data proves we don’t.

This study examines the implicit beliefs that keep organizations from adopting tools to help them make hiring decisions—aids like tests, personality assessments, and other performance predictors.