Applying Work and Organizational Psychology in the Field of Labor Relations: Exploratory Study in Trade Unions in the Basque Country

Ci a ion: Ulacia, Imanol, Kla a Smi h-E xebe ia, and Angel Belda ain-Du andegui. 2022. Applying Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology in he Field o Labo Rela ions: Explo a o y S udy in T ade Unions in he Basque Coun y. Social Sciences 11: 570. h ps:// doi.o g/10.3390/socsci11120570 Academic Edi o : Nigel Pa on Recei ed: 3 No embe 2022 Accep ed: 29 No embe 2022 Published: 2 Decembe 2022 Publishe ’s No e: MDPI s ays neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps and ins i u ional a il- ia ions. Copy igh : © 2022 by he au ho s. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land. This a icle is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms and condi ions o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps:// c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/ 4.0/). $ € £¥ social sciences A icle Applying Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology in he Field o Labo Rela ions: Explo a o y S udy in T ade Unions in he Basque Coun y Imanol Ulacia 1, Kla a Smi h-E xebe ia 2,* and Angel Belda ain-Du andegui 1 1Depa men o Social Psychology, College o Psychology, Uni e si y o he Basque Coun y, 20018 San Sebas ian, Spain 2Depa men o Basic Psychological P ocesses and Thei De elopmen , College o Psychology, Uni e si y o he Basque Coun y, 20018 San Sebas ian, Spain *Co espondence: [email p o ec ed] Abs ac : His o ically, he ela ionship be ween wo k and o ganiza ional psychology and ade union o ganiza ions has been one o mu ual indi e ence and neglec . The aim o his s udy is o explo e whe he ade union membe s’ social ep esen a ions o o ganiza ional psychology a ec hei o ganiza ions’ engagemen wi h his discipline, condi ioning hei abili y o de i e bene i om i s indings. In a sample o 448 membe s o he ou main ade unions o he Basque Au onomous Communi y in Spain, social ep esen a ions o six concep s ela ing o Psychology o T ade Union Ac i i y we e explo ed using he ee associa ion echnique. Fo y- i e ca ego ies we e c ea ed and hei equency and pe cen ages we e calcula ed. In addi ion, he means o he ca ego ies sha ed by he ep esen a ions o wo di e en concep s we e c ossed and s a is ically es ed. Al hough some associa ions we e ound be ween he ep esen a ions o he wo se s o concep s, mos we e non-signi ican . These esul s highligh ha he s uc u e o he ep esen a ions o Psychology gi es only a pa ial explana ion o his lack o connec ion. The implica ions o he s udy and i s limi a ions a e discussed, and some ecommenda ions o u u e esea ch a e p oposed. Keywo ds: wo k and o ganiza ional psychology; labo ela ions; ade union o ganiza ions; limi a- ions; social ep esen a ions; Basque Coun y 1. In oduc ion In he ounda ional ex s o o ganiza ional psychology, Hugo Müns e be g and Wal e Dill Sco ecommended ha psychologis s should pay a en ion o he conce ns o ade unions (Zicka and Gibby 2007). E e since he ea lies days o his discipline, and despi e i s supposed neu ali y, o ganiza ional psychologis s ha e o en been po ayed as obli ious o hese conce ns—o e en, since hey ended o wo k in opposi ion o he ade unions, as se an s o powe (Ba i z 1960;Be gman and Jean 2016;B ie 2000;Ca ie e 2020;Dubno 1957;Fullaga 1984;Ga cía-Ramos e al. 2013;Go don and Bu 1981;Go don and Nu ick 1981;Huszczo e al. 1984;Le kowi z 2003;Logan 2006;Lo 2014;McDonald and Bubna- Li ic 2012;Rosen and S agne 1980;Shos ak 1964;Thiel 2019;Zicka 2001,2004). In ac , i is gene ally ag eed in he li e a u e ha he ela ionship be ween o ganiza ional psychology and he wo ld o wo k and wo ke s has been cha ac e ized by indi e ence and neglec (Be gman and Jean 2016;Ca ie e 2020;Lo 2014;Thiel 2019). Howe e , he e a e some excep ions o his ule (Aye s 1944;Be gman and Jean 2016;Ha - ley and Kelly 1986;Ha ley and S ephenson 1992;Ko nhause 1947; Ko nhause e al. 1956 ; Ma in and Sinclai 2001;Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. 2012;Redman and Snape 2005;S agne 1948,1956,1981;S inglhambe e al. 2013;Te ick and Ba ling 1995), since ce ain spe- ci ic p oblems such as membe s’ commi men o hei ade union and hei pa icipa ion ha e been app oached qui e p o i ably om he pe spec i e o o ganiza ional psychology Soc. Sci. 2022,11, 570. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/socsci11120570 h ps://www.mdpi.com/jou nal/socsci Soc. Sci. 2022,11, 570 2 o 13 (Chawla e al. 2018;Fullaga e al. 2004;Fulle and Hes e 2001;G een and Aue 2013; Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. 2020;Sjöbe g and S e ke 2001;Te ick e al. 2007;Zacha ewicz e al. 2016). None heless, he o e all imp ession is ha he e has been li le connec ion be ween hese wo ields. Gi en ha wo k is a undamen al elemen in mos people’s li es, he lack o a en ion paid by psychology in gene al, and o ganiza ional psychology in pa icula , o he e o s made by unions o imp o e and s eng hen he wo kplace is an omission ha mus be emedied (Lo 2014). This omission is e en mo e s iking i we ake in o accoun he ac ha o o he social sciences in e es ed in he s udy o wo k, such as sociology o economics, union o ganiza ions a e a majo opic o s udy (Zicka 2004). This lack o a en ion has had impo an consequences bo h o o ganiza ional psy- chology and o he unions: o example, he impo e ishmen o he analysis o labo ela ions, he loss o social ele ance, and so on (Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. 2001). Nume ous in- es iga ions ha e sough o es ablish why wo appa en ly ela ed disciplines, which would bo h be expec ed o bene i om mu ual coope a ion, ha e emained a such a dis ance om one ano he (Huszczo e al. 1984;Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. 2003;Rosen and S agne 1980; Zicka 2004). Among he easons p oposed a e he g ea e willingness o psychologis s o wo k wi h managemen , o he nega i e a i udes among union o ganiza ions owa ds he applica ion o psychology o he wo kplace. Bu , as se e al au ho s ha e poin ed ou (Lo 2014;Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. 2001), achie ing g ea e coope a ion would open up many oppo uni ies bo h o he psychology o o ganiza ions and o ade unions. Fo his coope a ion o lou ish, o ganiza ional psychology mus be able o demon- s a e i s use ulness o he union membe s. Any a emp o do so should s a wi h a igo ous analysis o he o igin and main enance o he dis ance be ween he wo. This analysis cons i u es he i s s ep o he subsequen design o ac ions ha allow a ap- p ochemen . In ac , o e he yea s, many oices ha e called o he c ea ion o a genuine “o ganiza ional psychology o ade unions” (Ca ie e 2020), bu o he momen no such en i y has eme ged. Ea ly s udies (Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. 2001,2003) ound ha ade union membe s’ social ep esen a ions o o ganiza ional psychology cons i u ed a ba ie ha p e en ed hei o ganiza ions om bene i ing om he knowledge, me hods, and echniques o he discipline. Hence, he aim o ou esea ch is o explo e whe he his si ua ion con inues o p e ail oday. O he ac o s in labo ela ions, such as manage s and employe s, ha e ound he applica ion o o ganiza ional psychology o be especially ui ul. In his sense, a co e ques ion migh be whe he o no psychology can u n ou o be equally use ul o ade unionis s. In he p esen s udy o a sample o wo ke s om he ou main unions in he Basque Coun y, we analyze he social ep esen a ions (Mosco ici 1986) o psychology in he wo k- place, he ep esen a ions o he ac i i y o ade unions, and he ela ionship be ween he wo. The heo y o social ep esen a ions can be conside ed a psychosocial ame- wo k o concep s and ideas o he s udy o psychosocial phenomena in mode n socie ies. Acco ding o his heo y, psychosocial phenomena and p ocesses can only be p ope ly unde s ood i hey a e seen as embedded in his o ical, cul u al, and mac o-social condi- ions ( Mosco ici and Faucheux 1972 ). Mosco ici himsel de ines social ep esen a ions as a sys em o alues, ideas, and p ac ices wi h a double unc ion. Fi s , o es ablish an o de ha enables indi iduals o o ien hemsel es and o con ol he social wo ld in which hey li e; second, o acili a e communica ion among he membe s o a communi y by p o iding hem wi h a code o name and classi y he a ious aspec s o hei wo ld and hei indi idual and g oup his o y (Mosco ici 1973). Se e al au ho s (Ibáñez 1988;Valencia and Eche a ía 2012) ha e p oposed ha social ep esen a ions guide he posi ion ha an indi idual akes is-à- is he ep esen ed objec and de e mine hei beha io s owa ds i ; i so, explo ing a g oup’s social ep esen a- ions o a scien i ic discipline is o pa icula in e es in he s udy o he g oup’s beha io (De Paolis 1990;González 1993). Soc. Sci. 2022,11, 570 3 o 13 Taking as a e e ence he s udy by Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. (2001) and ollowing he ecommenda ions se ou he e, his esea ch akes in o accoun wo aspec s: he p oximi y be ween he social ep esen a ions o psychology and ade union ac i i y, and he s uc u e o he ep esen a ion o psychology in he wo kplace. Rega ding he i s poin , ou s a ing hypo hesis is ha he e will be e y li le connec ion be ween he wo ep esen a ions. In wha conce ns he second poin , e ol ing a ound he s uc u e o he ep esen a ion o psychology—a i udes, in o ma ion, and ield (Mosco ici 1986)—we expec ed ha , by looking a how his s uc u e migh condi ion and na ow he a ailabili y o ep esen a ions, i could con ibu e o explain he discipline’s dis ance om he wo ld o he ade unions. 2. Ma e ials and Me hods 2.1. Pa icipan s The s udy pa icipan s comp ised 448 membe s o he ou main ade unions o he Basque Au onomous Communi y. A p esen , hese ou unions sha e 90.1% o he union delega es in he e i o y. A o al o 46% (n = 204) o he sample belonged o Eusko Langileen Elka asuna (ELA), 24.2% (n = 107) o Langile Abe zaleen Ba zo dea (LAB), 3.4% (n = 15) o Comisiones Ob e as (CCOO), and 26.4% (n = 117) o he Union Gene al de T abajado es (UGT). Mos o he wo ke s we e union delega es o ep esen a i es (40.9%; n = 191), ollowed by shop- loo wo ke s (24.3%; n = 152), middle manage s (13.8%; n = 61 ), execu i e commi ee s a (8.1%; n = 36), and o he s (2.9%; n = 13). Jus o e hal (51%) had been wo king in he union o ganiza ion o mo e han 10 yea s. Rega ding he sociodemog aphic cha ac e is ics o he sample, males accoun ed o 47.6% and emales 51.7% and he mean age was 44.1 yea s (SD = 9.8); wi h ega d o socioeconomic s a us, 57.8% de ined hemsel es as middle class, 23.3% lowe middle class, 4.3 lowe class, and 3.4% uppe middle class (11.3% did no speci y hei social class). Almos a hi d (31.8%) had comple ed uni e si y s udies, 17.8% had mas e ’s deg ees, 16% oca ional aining, and he es we e dis ibu ed e enly be ween p ima y educa ion, high school, and in e media e le el oca ional aining g adua es. Mos de ined hemsel es as le -wing (71.8%), 14.7% as ex eme le , 7.4% as cen e le , and 0.7% as cen e . The emaining 5.4% did no speci y hei poli ical ideology. 2.2. Ins umen s Based on he social ep esen a ion heo y (Mosco ici 1986), he in o ma ion was col- lec ed using he ee associa ion echnique. This is a popula me hod o ecalling social ep- esen a ions because i allows o ank and impo ance equency analysis ( Dany e al. 2015 ). I enables access o he la en dimensions ha s uc u e he seman ic uni e se o he objec being s udied, acco ding o Ab ic (2003), and i e eals aces om collec i e memo y (Flamen and Rouque e 2003) . This echnique wo ks as a s imulus ha comes spon a- neously o he pa icipan ’s mind and allows o he indi idual exp ession o hough s, images, o wo ds. Thus, some hing new can be c ea ed, which he esea che can la e p ocess, di ec , and u n use ul o he analysis (Ab ic 2003). Pa icipan s we e p esen ed wi h six e ms: Psychology, Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, Human Resou ce Man- agemen , Labo Rela ions, T ade Union Ac ion, and Social Dialogue. The i s h ee e ms (Psychology, Psychology o O ganiza ions, and Human Resou ce Managemen ) a e ela ed o he ield o Psychology and co e a con inuum ha goes om he gene al amewo k o he discipline (Psychology) o mo e speci ic con ex - ela ed applica ions (Human Resou ce Managemen ). The emaining h ee e ms a e di ec ly ela ed o he wo ld o he ade unions, o de ed om he leas o he mos gene al (Labo Rela ions, T ade Union Ac ion, and Social Dialogue). 2.3. P ocedu e Be o e he da a collec ion s age, he coo dina o s o each ade union o ganiza ion we e con ac ed and in o med o he objec i es o he s udy. A e ob aining hei app o al, he e alua ion p o ocol was sen o all he wo ke s o each union ia hese coo dina o s. In Soc. Sci. 2022,11, 570 4 o 13 o de o esol e possible doub s, he e-mail add ess o he main in es iga o was p o ided. All he pa icipan s we e in o med o he objec i es o he s udy and pa icipa ed olun a ily h ough an elec onic su ey. The in o ma ion was ga he ed anonymously ia an elec onic su ey c ea ed and dis ibu ed by he union coo dina o s ia he online pla o m Su io. The ole played by he union coo dina o s was me ely ha o acili a ing ou access o a ne wo k o po en ial pa icipan s by sha ing ou Su io ques ionnai e link wi h he communi y o people a ilia ed wi h he unions. The e o e, we can claim ha hey had no u he in ol emen in he collec ion p ocedu e since he Su io sys em sen he answe ed ques ionnai es o us di ec ly, wi hou he media ion o ade union coo dina o s. The s udy was app o ed by he E hics Commi ee o Resea ch wi h Human Beings o he Uni e si y o he Basque Coun y, a e which he da a we e collec ed in acco dance wi h he commi ee’s guidelines and he da a p o ec ion law. 3. Resul s The six e ms e alua ed h ough ee associa ion we e subjec ed o a sys ema ic and objec i e con en analysis o hei mani es seman ic meanings in he p onounced hemes. The esul s we e ead and coded in o de o iden i y seman ic app oxima ions be ween hem, and we g ouped seman ic meanings in o he smalles numbe o ca ego ies possible. We ollowed he ules o homogenei y (g ouping only seman ically cohe en con en s), exhaus i i y (going in dep h h ough he en i e ex , by using e e y hing a he han only a pa ), and exclusi i y (ensu ing ha a speci ic piece o con en canno be g ouped in o wo di e en ca ego ies). Addi ionally, we also paid a en ion o objec i i y—we collabo a ed among pee esea che s and checked i di e en codi ie s d ew simila conclusions—and o whe he ou codes we e pe inen and adequa e o no —i hey we e adap ed o ou con en , hypo hesis, and objec i es. Fu he , we c ea ed uni s o codi ica ion and eg- is a ion e en i some o he seman ic con en s ha we adop ed had al eady been de- sc ibed as ca ego ies in a p e ious s udy o ep esen a ions o psychology in ade unions ( Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. 2001 ), while o he s we e in e ed and ag eed upon by he h ee au- ho s o e he cou se o a se ies o mee ings. Unlike Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. (2001), we had o wo k mo e wi h ph ases, o wha Be elson (1952) desc ibed as hemes seen as a s a emen abou a subjec , han wi h indi idual wo ds, e en i we a e awa e ha he la e can p o ide mo e linguis ic p ecision. This was due o he sample we ob ained in which pa icipan s gene ally esponded wi h longe sen ences. In his sense, we decided o use all he ca ego ies obse ed in he da a in o de o be exhaus i e, e en i some o he elemen s did no seem o be pe inen o ou objec i es. Table 1p esen s desc ip ions o each o he ca ego ies iden i ied h ough con en analysis. We bo e in mind se e al ules o in e ou ca ego ies (Ba din 2011): mu ual exclusion, in e nal homogenei y, pe inence (adap a ion o ou da a and heo e ical app oach), objec i i y, and ideli y (once he a iables we e de ined, and an index was c ea ed, a ious codi ie s wo ked sepa a ely wi h he same ma e ial, and hey codi ied he da a in he same way). Table 1. Desc ip ions o he ca ego ies iden i ied h ough F ee Associa ion. Ca ego y/Theme Desc ip ion 1. Analyzing Emphasis on he wo k o he expe : asking ques ions, p ocessing da a, and seeking answe s ha allow he unde s anding o a phenomenon. 2. Assembly Explici e e ences o he union, wha i s ands o , i s ideology and i s o ms o mobiliza ion, and s a egies o exe ing in luence. 3. Help Posi i e pe cep ion o a se ice ha a specialis o p o essional o e s, emphasizing i s benign unc ion. 4. Science A me hod o echnique ha enjoys scien i ic legi imacy. 5. Communica ion In e pe sonal in e ac ions wi hou con lic . Communica ion in i s mos basic and simple sense. Soc. Sci. 2022,11, 570 5 o 13 Table 1. Con . Ca ego y/Theme Desc ip ion 6. Conduc Obse ing he way people beha e and ac . 7. Con lic Disag eemen s, igh s, and in e g oup ensions. 8. People managemen Aspec s ela ed o he managemen o pe sonnel, which ange om adminis a i e issues such as selec ion-hi ing p ocesses, sala ies, acancies, e i emen s, e c., o socializa ion, ca ee plans, adequacy o employees’ oles and job cha ac e is ics. 9. Illness Dys unc ional aspec s, wi hou e e ing o help, ea men , o imp o emen . 10. P o essional compe ence The p o essional’s way o ac ing as a se ies o asks and s ages, emphasizing he wo k hey pe o m o he aining hey may ha e had. I es ablishes he expe ’s legi imacy. 11. Manipula ion Dis us owa ds possible hidden in en ions, decep ion, lack o se iousness o sc uples, s essing he supe icial and a i icial na u e o he ac ion. 12. Imp o emen Posi i e changes ela ed o well-being and quali y o li e. In gene al, i indica es a change o he be e o bene i in some hing speci ic. 13. Mind Men al p ocesses and ope a ions and ways o easoning o people. 14. Necessa y Use ul and posi i e cha ac e o he p oposal, emphasizing ha some imes i can espond o a need, bu main aining a gene al one wi hou men ioning conc e e o speci ic de ails, o wha i can be add essed o . 15. Nego ia ion E o o ind a solu ion o con lic s h ough nego ia ion and/o media ion p ocesses, ocusing on he cons uc i e side o he p ocess. 16. Opp ession Employees as ic ims: ocus on he e i ica ion o he nega i e e ec o his opp ession. 17. O ganiza ion S uc u e o he company and he wo k p ocess: way o wo king in he company, s a egies, conc e e ac ions o comple e he asks, wo k en i onmen whe e hese ope a ions a e desc ibed, wi hou e alua ing hei pe o mance le els. 18. Pe sonali y Indi idual a ibu es, in acco dance wi h he idea ha wha is mos impo an in psychology is he s udy o indi idual subjec i i y. 19. Claiming igh s Ob aining, de ending o expanding igh s ha allow he sa is ac ion o di e se needs. 20. Pe o mance Impo ance o he quan i a i e objec i es o p o i abili y and esul s ob ained, acco ding o an appa en ly a ional logic o cos -bene i . 21. Pessimism Speci ic dys unc ions o he sys em e lec ing doub s and a ce ain discom o ha ca ies he possibili y o ailu e wi hin he company o he wo kplace. 22. Solida i y Ha monious ela ionships be ween co-wo ke s, highligh ing cohesion and complici y among equals. 23. Union The ela ionship exis ing be ween wo ke s and he en i y o ype o o ganiza ion (company o union) in which hey wo k, need o union be ween wo ke s and he o ganiza ion, o he bene i s o his si ua ion desc ibed as ha mony o “social peace” (be ween wo ke s and o ganiza ion in he company o union). 24. Con ol Rules o ollow, sa e y issues, p o ocol and obliga ions wi hin he company o union. 25. Human beings Remembe ing ha indi iduals wi hin o ganiza ions a e no jus employees o wo ke s bu a e also human beings. 26. Remo e Some hing emo ed om he wo ld o he pa icipan , o is oo di icul o be assimila ed and achie ed. 27. Mo i a ion Indi idual mo i a ional ac o s ha allow o enhance pe o mance. 28. In e es Posi i i y in he ace o a no el p oposal ha allows us o imagine new possibili ies ha ha e no ye been speci ied o clea ly seen. 29. Di e si y Di e en ways o ac ing and poin s o iew, bu wi hou con lic o di e gence. 30. Skills Indi idual skills ha would be use ul in e e yday wo k. 31. Unexplo ed Some hing al eady known and alid, bu li le o poo ly used. Soc. Sci. 2022,11, 570 6 o 13 Table 1. Con . Ca ego y/Theme Desc ip ion 32. My goal Each indi idual has hei own goals, in e es s and p io i ies, wi hou wo ying whe he he company akes hem in o accoun o no . 33. Collec i e La ge social en i ies, as well as class and social mo emen s ha a ec he way people ac and a e. Emphasis on he social, cul u al, and collec i e. 34. Emo ions Emo ional s a es o eac ions o people in he company o union. 35. No esponse Unanswe ed. 36. Sel -de elopmen Imp o emen depends on he indi idual de eloping hei own sel -knowledge. 37. Wo k eam G oups o people who wo k oge he o sol e challenges in he wo kplace and/o union. 38. Coun e weigh The union i sel is explici ly men ioned as a decisi e ac o o social change, as an al e na i e, solu ion, esou ce; i s s eng hs and posi i e a ibu es a e highligh ed. 39. E hics Mo al alues gene ally ecognized and p esen ed as a cha ac e is ic o he union. 40. Leade ship Who makes decisions and how decisions a e made, g oup ep esen a ion oles, who leads, and ai s ypically a ibu ed o leade s (e.g., cha isma). 41. Capi al The o he (e.g., he boss, he employe ) ep esen ed as a class in i sel , including he idea o a dominan and an agonis ic class ha has he powe o impose i s c i e ia and in e es s. 42. Sel ishness Discou ses agains indi idual mobili y ha build a dicho omy be ween a g oup solida i y o which hey would aspi e and an en i onmen o compe i ion o all agains all. 43. Skep icism The p oposals a e no con incing; hey elici dis us , and a e c i icized and de alued, wi hou going in o de ails. 44. Pa icipa ion Impo ance o an en i onmen ha allows e e yone o make p oposals and ake pa in decisions. 45. Public adminis a ion Ins i u ional and adminis a i e en i ies loca ed ou side he business wo ld, bu which in luence decisions ega ding he dis ibu ion o economic aid ha is nego ia ed be ween ade union and business ep esen a i es. Table 2p esen s he equencies (in pe cen ages) o he ca ego ies men ioned by he pa icipan s in ela ion o each o he six concep s e alua ed h ough ee associa ion: Psychology, Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, Human Resou ce Managemen , Labo Rela ions, T ade Union Ac ion, and Social Dialogue. Table 2. Pe cen ages o each ca ego y in each o he concep s e alua ed h ough ee associa ion. Psych. WOP HRM LR TUA SD 1. Analyzing 23.4% 14.2% 1.6% 2% 1.1% 2.7% 2. Assembly 1.3% 0.2% 6.5% 26.1% 15.6% 3. Help 12.3% 4.7% 1.3% 2% 5.3% 1.3% 4. Science 15.6% 5.6% – 0.4% – – 5. Communica ion 13.8% 20.7% 9.3% 27.8% 4.9% 19.6% 6. Conduc 20.5% 13.6% 0.2% 1.5% 3.3% 0.7% 7. Con lic – 1.6% 2.4% 11.9% 27.8% 7.4% 8. People managemen 2.7% 8.4% 38.3% 13.1% 2.9% 1.1% 9. Illness 3.1% 1.8% – – – – 10. P o essional compe ence 22.5% 20.3% 3.5% 1.3% 1.1% 0.4% 11. Manipula ion 1.6% 1.6% 4.9% 1.3% 0.2% 27.1% Soc. Sci. 2022,11, 570 7 o 13 Table 2. Con . Psych. WOP HRM LR TUA SD 12. Imp o emen 11.2% 10.8% 6.2% 6.4% 17.4% 6.7% 13. Mind 35% 10.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.4% 1.3% 14. Necessa y 10.4% 9.1% 6.9% 7.8% 19.6% 9.1% 15. Nego ia ion 0.7% 3.1% 2.9% 14.7% 13.2% 38.6% 16. Opp ession 0.4% 2% 12.7% 9.4% 2.2% 11.8% 17. O ganiza ion 1.6% 51.7% 43.9% 36.1% 38.5% 13.1% 18. Pe sonali y 5.1% 1.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% – 19. Claiming igh s 0.4% 1.6% 2.4% 8.7% 38.2% 8.9% 20. Pe o mance 0.2% 3.2% 17.3% 4% 4% 1.7% 21. Pessimism 3.3% 2.5% 6.7% 6.9% 3.8% 8.3% 22. Solida i y 0.4% 2.2% 0.9% 7.5% 4.7% – 23. Union – 3.5% 1.3% 11.8% 5.6% 5.8% 24. Con ol 3.1% 4.5% 8.3% 9.1% 3.7% 3.2% 25. Human beings 22.1% 12.7% 23% 6.2% 2.5% 1.1% 26. Remo e 2% 4.4% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 27. Mo i a ion 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.4% 1.8% 0.4% 28. In e es 1.1% 2% 0.2% 0.9% 1.1% 2.7% 29. Di e si y 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 1.6% 30. Skills 4.2% 2.7% 3.4% 1.1% 2% 0.4% 31. Unexplo ed 1.1% 3.3% 2.6% 1.3% 1.3% 3.1% 32. My goal 1.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% – 16.1% 33. Collec i e 5.5% 11.2% 12.7% 23.6% 35.3% – 34. Emo ions 11.4% 3.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% – 35. No esponse 0.7% – – 0.2% – – 36. Sel -de elopmen 4.5% 0.4% – – – – 37. Wo k eam 0.7% 7.8% 4.9% 3.5% 2% – 38. Coun e weigh 0.9% 0.4% 0.4% 0.9% 13.6% 2.2% 39. E hics 0.4% 0.7% 0.9% 0.4% 3.3% 1.1% 40. Leade ship 0.4% 2.5% 3.3% 3.1% 2.6% 5.5% 41. Capi al 0.4% 5.1% 9.2% 17.8% 2.7% 16.3% 42. Sel ishness 0.4% 0.7% 3.5% 1.8% 0.2% 0.2% 43. Skep icism 0.6% 1.1% 0.9% 0.9% 0.2% 9.3% 44. Pa icipa ion – 1.1% 0.4% 1.3% 1.3% 3.6% 45. Public adminis a ion 0.2% – 0.4% 1.6% 0.4% 22.3% No e. Psycho = Psychology; WOP = Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology; HRM = Human Resou ce Managemen ; LR = Labo Rela ions; TUA. = T ade Anion Ac ion; SD = Social Dialogue. In o de o es ou s a ing hypo hesis, ha is, he exis ence o a poo connec ion be ween he ep esen a ions o Psychology and T ade Union Ac ion, he equencies o he ca ego ies o each o he concep s ela ed o he wo ep esen a ions we e c ossed, h ough Chi-squa e es s wi h con inui y co ec ion, in con ingency ables. To do so, each o hese ca ego ies was dicho omized (1 = p esence; 0 = absence). Soc. Sci. 2022,11, 570 8 o 13 In ela ion o he concep o Psychology, ce ain a iables we e ound o be in e de- penden . Fi s , signi ican ela ionships we e ound be ween he social ep esen a ion o Psychology and Labo Rela ions, since bo h we e pe cei ed as Necessa y in simila p opo - ions ( χ2 (1, 448) = 25.722, p< 0.001). Second, albei o a lesse ex en , he e we e signi ican ela ionships be ween he social ep esen a ions o hese wo a iables, since hey we e ep esen ed as Con ol ( χ2 (1, 448) = 4.366, p> 0.05), Emo ions ( χ2 (1, 448) = 4.464, p< 0.05 ), and Pe o mance ( χ2 (1, 448) = 5.495, p< 0.01). Rega ding he ela ionships be ween he social ep esen a ions o Psychology and T ade Union Ac ion, signi ican associa ions we e obse ed in he ca ego ies Necessa y ( χ2 (1, 448) = 35.105, p< 0.001), P o essional Compe- ence ( χ2 (1, 448) = 6.521, p< 0.01), and Beha io ( χ2 (1, 448) = 4.943, p< 0.05). As o he ela ionships be ween he ep esen a ions o Psychology and Social Dialogue, ou analyses showed signi ican associa ions in he ca ego ies Necessa y ( χ2 (1, 448) = 7.727, p< 0.01), Con ol (χ2(1, 448) = 10.361, p< 0.001), and Human Beings (χ2(1, 448) = 6.740, p< 0.01). Secondly, he e we e some signi ican ela ionships be ween Wo k and O ganiza- ional Psychology and he concep s associa ed wi h ade unions. Be ween Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology and Labo Rela ions, o ins ance, ela ionships in he ol- lowing ca ego ies s ood ou : Communica ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 6.154, p< 0.01); Con lic ( χ2 (1, 448) = 9.932, p< 0.01); Necessa y ( χ2 (1, 448) = 10.459, p< 0.001); O ganiza- ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 60.752, p< 0.001 ); Collec i e ( χ2 (1, 448) = 7.332, p< 0.01); Coun e - weigh (χ2(1, 448) = 13.194 , p< 0.001 ); Capi al ( χ2 (1, 448) = 22.009, p< 0.001); Pe o mance χ2(1, 448) = 19.201, p< 0.001); and Pa icipa ion (χ2(1, 448) = 31.434, p< 0.001). The ollowing signi ican associa ions we e ound be ween Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology and T ade Union Ac ion: Communica ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 7.072, p< 0.01); Nec- essa y ( χ2 (1, 448) = 35.497, p< 0.001); Nego ia ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 4.549, p< 0.05); Op- p ession ( χ2 (1, 448) = 8.769, p< 0.01); O ganiza ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 10.201, p< 0.001); Collec i e (χ2(1, 448) = 16.324 ,p< 0.001); Skills ( χ2 (1, 448) = 6.894, p< 0.01); and Wo k Team (χ2(1, 448) = 22.697, p< 0.001). The compa ison o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology and Social Dialogue iden- i ied he ollowing signi ican ela ionships: Con lic ( χ2 (1, 448) = 8.375, p< 0.01); Nec- essa y ( χ2 (1, 448) = 14.703, p< 0.001); O ganiza ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 17.465, p< 0.001); Claiming igh s ( χ 2 (1, 448) = 6.275, p< 0.01); Collec i e ( χ2 (1, 448) = 6.974, p< 0.01); Remo e (χ2(1, 448) = 6.013 ,p< 0.01); Mo i a ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 8.512, p< 0.01); and Skills (χ2(1, 448) = 40.308, p< 0.001). Finally, he con ingency ables compa ing Human Resou ce Managemen and T ade Union Ac ion showed se e al signi ican ela ionships. Speci ically, ela ionships we e ound be ween Human Resou ce Managemen and Labo Rela ions in he ollowing ca e- go ies: Imp o emen ( χ2 (1, 448) = 8.556, p< 0.01); Necessa y ( χ2 (1, 448) = 59.054, p< 0.001 ); Nego ia ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 8.105, p< 0.01); Opp ession ( χ2 (1, 448) = 8.967, p< 0.01); O ganiza- ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 20.113, p< 0.001); Human Being ( χ2 (1, 448) = 17.671, p< 0.001); Collec i e ( χ2 (1, 448) = 5.474, p< 0.01); Unexplo ed ( χ2 (1, 448) = 35.462, p< 0.001); and Wo k Team ( χ2 (1, 448) = 10.226, p< 0.001). Compa ing he concep s o Human Resou ce Managemen and T ade Union Ac ion, simila ends we e ound only in: Necessa y ( χ2(1, 448) = 33.818 , p< 0.001 ); O ganiza ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 26.424, p< 0.001); Pessimism ( χ2 (1, 448) = 5.458, p< 0.01 ); Human Beings ( χ2 (1, 448) = 4.646, p< 0.05); and Collec i e ( χ2 (1, 448) = 9.519, p< 0.01 ). Finally, signi ican ela ionships be ween Human Resou ce Managemen and Social Dialogue we e ound in he ollowing: Manipula ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 5.038, p< 0.01); Imp o emen ( χ2 (1, 448)=8.012, p< 0.01); Necessa y ( χ2 (1, 448) = 47.393, p< 0.001); Opp ession ( χ2 (1, 448) = 6.386, p< 0.01); O ganiza ion ( χ2 (1, 448) = 14.860, p< 0.001); Claiming igh s ( χ2 (1, 448) = 7.266, p< 0.01); Human Beings ( χ2 (1, 448) = 6.311, p< 0.01); Collec i e ( χ2 (1, 448) = 5.989, p< 0.01); E hics ( χ2 (1, 448) = 4.739, p< 0.05); and Sel ishness (χ2(1, 448) = 6.273, p< 0.01). In he es o he ca ego ies, he Chi-squa e es s in he con ingency ables indica e e y limi ed ela ionships be ween he ep esen a ions o Psychology and i s ela ed con- cep s (Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology and Human Resou ce Managemen ) and he Soc. Sci. 2022,11, 570 9 o 13 concep s associa ed wi h T ade Unions (Labo Rela ions, T ade Union Ac ion, and Social Dialogue). The e o e, hese esul s con i m he exis ence o a weak connec ion be ween he wo ep esen a ions. As o he eason o his low le el o connec ion, analyzing he s uc u e o he ep esen a ion o Psychology and i s applica ions, only Human Resou ce Managemen elici ed nega i e a i udes, being linked o Opp ession and Con ol (Table 2). In o he wo ds, hese da a do no e lec a pa icula ly nega i e assessmen o Psychology o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, since bo h a e pe cei ed as Necessa y and as sou ces o Imp o emen wi h a es close o hose eco ded o T ade Union Ac ion. Rega ding in o ma ion, he e is a clea iden i ica ion o Psychology wi h scien i ic s udy (i.e., wi h Mind, Analyzing, P o essional Compe ence, Conduc , and Science). The iden i ica ion is mo e wi h he gene al scien i ic ield and less wi h he clinical ield, gi en he sca ce associa ion wi h Pe sonali y and Illness. This scien i ic componen is main ained in he case o Wo k and O ganiza ional Psychology, albei wi h less in ensi y, while i p ac ically disappea s in ela ion o Human Resou ce Managemen . Las ly, ega ding he o de ing and hie a chy o he componen s o he ep esen a ion o Psychology, he ield is domina ed by he analy ical/scien i ic componen (i.e., Mind, Beha io , P o essional Compe ence, Analyzing, and Science). 4. Discussion This s udy explo es whe he ade union membe s’ social ep esen a ions o o ganiza- ional psychology s ill unde mine hei o ganiza ions’ abili y o engage in his discipline and bene i om i s insigh s. The esul s sugges ha he connec ion be ween he social ep esen a ions o Psychology in he wo kplace and o T ade Union Ac ion is e y limi ed, since he in o ma ion used o cons uc hese ep esen a ions includes ew common ele- men s which migh indica e spaces o o e lap be ween he wo ields. The esul s coincide wi h hose o he ea lie s udy by Ma ínez-Iñigo e al. (2001). In he las wo decades, how- e e , he e has been a ce ain app ochemen . Elsewhe e du ing his pe iod, psychology has expanded in o new and di e se ields such as ma ke ing, spo s, business, and poli ics; pe haps his di e si ica ion has p oduced a b eak wi h he adi ional s e eo ype o he psychologis as a p ac i ione de o ed exclusi ely o men al p oblems (O dóñez 2018). Along hese lines, i seems ha he s uc u e o he ep esen a ion o psychology only pa ially explains i s lack o connec ion wi h ade union ac i i ies. Rega ding a i udes, hei iden i ica ion is s aigh o wa d since he linguis ic ca ego ies con ain a meaning which is ecognized as posi i e o nega i e by social consensus (A aya 2002). In his ega d, clea ly nega i e a i udes su ace mainly in he case o Human Resou ce Managemen —no , o example, in he cases o Psychology and O ganiza ions and Wo k Psychology. I is e y likely ha he engagemen o psychologis s o e he las wo decades in new a eas ou side men al illness is helping o e adica e some o he p ejudices ega ding he discipline in he gene al popula ion and, he e o e, among ade union membe s as well. All his indica es a p esen s a e o he ma e cha ac e ized by mo e ambi alen ep esen a ions o o ganiza ional psychology han nega i e ones. Tha said, ou esul s could be ead in he ligh o he con ex o he his o ical con lic o in e es be ween pe sonnel o human esou ce depa men s and unions ha emains p esen oday; as long as he applica ion o psychology is associa ed wi h hese depa men s, i s assessmen con inues o be nega i e. Rega ding in o ma ion, he e is a s ong iden i ica ion o Psychology wi h scien i ic s udy, and ha dly any associa ion wi h he clinical se ing. In addi ion, i seems ha ade unionis s’ social ep esen a ions o Psychology a e s ongly condi ioned by he mani es a ions closes o hei ac i i ies, and ha , as Psychology app oaches he wo kplace (i.e., in Human Resou ces Managemen ), i s assessmen is mo e nega i e and i s associa ion wi h objec i es o in e es s de ined by esponden s as un ela ed o union ac i i y inc eases. Any o he ype o in o ma ion would be di icul o jus i y bea ing in mind he his o ical absence o psychologis s wi hin union o ganiza ions (Ca ie e 2020). Mo eo e , he shi in human esou ces managemen , which has been called “psychologiza ion” (Goda d 2013),