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),
