Story of Psychology - Morton Hunt [408]
Anecdotes, of course, do not prove a hypothesis. The committee therefore examined a mass of research data and found that in controlled studies of motor skills, people who mentally rehearsed did perform distinctly better than people who did not. But physical practice alone yielded better results than mental practice alone, and a combination of the two yielded still better results in those skills where physical practice is difficult or costly and in those requiring planning and decision making rather than automatic responses. The committee concluded that the claims of sports psychologists as to the benefits of mental practice are exaggerated.25
While some sports psychologists continue to use these methods, the current emphasis seems to be more in the therapeutic mode: helping athletes think of themselves as winners, maintain focus during competition, heighten their own motivation, and cope with their intense feelings. Bob Rotella, well-known sports psychologist and author, is an exemplar, according to Gazzaniga and Heatherton: “He helps athletes train their minds to focus on their goals and teaches them to deal with their doubts, worries, and frustrations…For Rotella, this means that how athletes view themselves, their beliefs, and their performance expectations shape how they actually perform.”26
Improving the Fit Between Humans and Their Jobs
We have already seen two ways in which psychologists have improved the compatibility of humans and machines: through testing individuals for specific machine-handling aptitudes, and through designing equipment to suit human perceptions, responses, and movements. Two other approaches to heightening workers’ effectiveness consist of adapting their movements and modifying the work environment.
Early in the century, “efficiency experts” armed with stopwatches and tape measures analyzed and modified the actions needed for each task. They studied an employee’s movements to determine whether, say, he could pack books into a shipping carton faster while seated or standing, using one hand or two, with the books piled to the right, left, or in front of the carton.27 But such modifications, aimed solely at increasing output, often made industrial jobs more stressful and fatiguing, created worker hostility, and caused higher rates of errors and defects in the product.
During and after World War II, the increasing complexity of technology led to a new and larger concept, the “operator-machine system.” This went beyond applying the elements of human engineering; it called for adapting the environment of the workplace to human psychological capacities and needs by modifying lighting, noise, rest periods, communications, and other working conditions in ways that would lessen fatigue, improve job satisfaction and employee commitment, and lower absenteeism and turnover.
From the factory, industrial psychologists gradually moved into the office, testing managerial job applicants for leadership qualities, recommending changes in job requirements to prevent burnout, and suggesting modifications of the chain of command and internal communication to improve team functioning and team problem solving. What had been industrial psychology became, in the post–World War II era, industrial/ organizational (I/O) psychology, the specialty of 7 percent of all today’s psychologists.28 Some of them, trying to look like pure scientists, spend much of their time on research and theory, but most are concerned with understanding those aspects of people’s behavior in the world of work that will enable them to solve employment problems and improve efficiency;29 they act as if they were a hybrid of scientist and manager. A statement made several years ago by an I/O psychologist with United Brands Company is illuminating:
As a “practitioner,” I have focused on day-to-day organizational problems and opportunities: starting-up new plants, reorganizations, increasing teamwork, selecting and developing managers, improving morale, etc…. My interests have shifted from knowledge