running head: siop income survey 2012 income and employment survey

Running head: SIOP INCOME SURVEY

2012 Income and Employment Survey Results for

the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Charu Khanna, Gina J. Medsker, and Ryan Ginter

Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO)

Authors’ Notes

The Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) developed and analyzed the

2012 Income and Employment Survey of the membership of the Society for Industrial and

Organizational Psychology (SIOP) as a service to SIOP. We would like to acknowledge the

support of David Reeves and Debbie Melnick at Sirota Survey Intelligence, who programmed

and administered the online survey, and of Larry Nader and Jenny Baker in the SIOP

Administrative Office. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Professional

Practice Committee members Tracy Kantrowitz, Joy Oliver, Karina Hui-Walowitz, Dennis

Doverspike, Gary Carter, Maya Yankelevich, Mike Trusty, Amy DuVernet, Kyle Morgan, and

Eric Dunleavy, who reviewed drafts of the survey or this report. A shorter version of this report

is available in the July 2013 issue of The Industrial Psychologist (TIP) at www.siop.org. Please

address correspondence to the first author at HumRRO, 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 700,

Alexandria, VA 22314 or at [email protected].

Abstract

Data on 2012 income and employment of SIOP members were collected in January 2013

by sending an electronic link to the survey via e-mail to 4,073 members. The response rate was

32.3%, compared to 29.1% in 2009, and 34.2% in both 2006 and 2003. Mean and median

income levels for industrial and organizational psychologists for the overall sample were

generally higher than in 2009. The proportion of respondents with master’s degrees is the highest

so far, at 16.7% of respondents, as compared to 83.3% with doctoral degrees. As in 2009, we

weighted the 2012 sample to have the same percentages by year since highest degree as the SIOP

membership population to better reflect SIOP membership. Results based on both unweighted

and weighted data are presented for 2012 income from one’s primary employer by type of

degree, gender, age, years since highest degree, geographic location, type of employer, job level,

and ownership status. Results on certifications and clearances, starting salaries for new master’s

and doctoral graduates, retirement benefits, bonuses, pay raises, and supplementary income are

also presented. Given the growing proportion of respondents with master’s degrees, we present

results for them where sample sizes are large enough. We also attempt to gauge the impact of the

recession, through analyses on job losses, salary reduction, salary freezes, furloughs, or working

at jobs below qualifications. Correlations for demographic and job variables with 2012 income

are presented, as well as results from separate regression equations for academics and

practitioners.

SIOP Income Survey i

July 1, 2013 Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO)

Table of Contents Results ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Sample Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 2

Sample weighting. ................................................................................................................... 3

Income Levels ................................................................................................................................. 4

Highest degree obtained. ......................................................................................................... 4

Gender ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Age .......................................................................................................................................... 7

Years since highest degree. ..................................................................................................... 7

Geographic location of employment ....................................................................................... 8

Type of principal employment. ............................................................................................... 9

Type of academic employment. ............................................................................................ 10

Academic titles by department type. ...................................................................................... 10

Practitioner job titles .............................................................................................................. 10

Status as a partner, principal, or owner. ................................................................................ 11

Certifications and clearances ................................................................................................ 12

Starting salaries. .................................................................................................................... 12

Retirement, Bonus, and Raise Information ................................................................................... 14

Retirement plans ................................................................................................................... 14

Bonuses and stock options .................................................................................................... 15

Pay raises .............................................................................................................................. 16

Supplementary income .......................................................................................................... 17

SIOP Income Survey ii


Impact of the Recession ................................................................................................................ 18

Job loss. ................................................................................................................................. 18

Salary reduction ..................................................................................................................... 19

Salary freeze. ......................................................................................................................... 19

Furlough ................................................................................................................................ 20

Working at a job below qualifications .................................................................................. 20

Regression Analyses ................................................................................................................. 20

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 22

SIOP Income Survey iii


List of Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of Samples Across Time (Cross-Sectional) ............................................24

Table 2. Demographic Comparison of Median Primary Incomes for Selected Subgroups

by Year ..........................................................................................................................26

Table 3. Significant Correlations with 2012 Primary Income .......................................................28

Table 4. Regression Analysis for Variables Related to 2012 Income ...........................................30

Table 5. Mean Primary Income by Geographical Location ...........................................................40

Table 6. Median Incomes by First Two Digits of Zip Code ..........................................................41

Table 7. ANOVAs for Academic Titles by Department Type ......................................................48

Table 8. Certifications ....................................................................................................................55

Table 9. Starting Salaries in 2012 (Unweighted) ...........................................................................56

Table 10. Starting Salaries in 2012 (Weighted) .............................................................................57

Table 11. Starting Salaries in 2011 (Unweighted) .........................................................................58

Table 12. Starting Salaries in 2011 (Weighted) .............................................................................59

Table 13. Bonus as a Percentage of Salary by Bonus Type (Unweighted) ...................................60

Table 14. Bonus as a Percentage of Salary by Bonus Type (Weighted) .......................................61

Table 15. Impact of Recession .......................................................................................................71

SIOP Income Survey iv


List of Figures

Figure 1. Descriptive statistics representing 2012 primary income by gender and highest

degree (based on unweighted data). ............................................................................. 33

Figure 2. Descriptive statistics representing 2012 primary income by gender and highest

degree (based on weighted data). ................................................................................. 34

Figure 3. Descriptive statistics representing 2012 primary income as a function of years

since obtaining a doctorate ........................................................................................... 36

Figure 4. Descriptive statistics representing 2012 primary income as a function of years

since obtaining a master’s degree ................................................................................. 38

Figure 5. 2012 median primary income as a function of location ................................................ 39

Figure 6. 2012 median primary income by type of primary employer ......................................... 42

Figure 7. 2012 primary income by type of university or college department and highest

degree offered ............................................................................................................... 44

Figure 8. 2012 primary income by type of university or college department and academic

title ................................................................................................................................ 47

Figure 9. 2012 primary income in private sector, nonprofit, and government organizations

by job level for doctoral degree respondents ................................................................ 50

Figure 10. 2012 primary income in private sector, nonprofit, and government

organizations by job level, for master’s degree respondents ........................................ 52

Figure 11. 2012 primary income by ownership level ................................................................... 54

Figure 12. 2012 pay raises as a percentage of base salary by type of pay raise, for

doctoral degree respondents ......................................................................................... 63

SIOP Income Survey v


Figure 13. 2012 pay raises as a percentage of base salary by type of pay raise, for

master’s degree respondents ......................................................................................... 65

Figure 14. 2012 supplementary income by type for academics .................................................... 68

Figure 15. 2012 supplementary income by type for practitioners ................................................ 70

SIOP Income Survey 1


2012 Income and Employment Survey Results For

The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

The survey’s purpose was to collect information on 2012 income levels of industrial and

organizational psychologists in SIOP. (2012 income data were collected in early 2013). We also

gathered employment and background variables that would help interpret income data. Survey

instructions were e-mailed on January 7, 2013, to all members, associate members, international

members, and fellows with active e-mail addresses on record (n=4,073; approximately 60 emails

did not go through). The survey was electronically available until February 4, 2013. The number

of individuals who responded was 1,298. After data cleaning and deleting cases for respondents

who did not provide 2012 income, 1,225 cases remained. We used data from the 1,120

respondents who indicated that they worked full-time for further analyses related to income (and

data from all 1,225 cases for the analyses on the impact of the recession). This was the fourth

SIOP income survey to be administered electronically. The response rate was 32.3%, compared

to 29.1% in 2009, and 34.2% in both 2006 and 2003.

Results

Summary

Key findings for unweighted 2012 data are as follows:

Median incomes for the 2012 sample were generally higher than in 2009.

Median income for women was 12.1% lower than that for men. However, men tended

to have more years of experience and had earned their highest degrees earlier than

women.

Median income was highest for the over-55 age group.



Median incomes for owners were higher than for non-owners.

The highest median incomes were in Manhattan, followed by Other New York, San

Francisco/San Jose, and Washington, DC, metro areas.

Median incomes for academics were significantly higher in business departments than

in psychology departments.

Median incomes for academics were significantly higher in departments that offered

doctoral degrees than in those that offered master’s or bachelor’s degrees.

The median contribution of an employer to defined contribution plans was 6.0% of

income.

The median amount to be provided by an employer through defined benefit plans was

50.0% of income.

45.1% of doctoral respondents in 2012 reported receiving a bonus. The most

frequently awarded bonus was for individual performance, with a median of 4.0% of

primary income.

60.9% of doctoral respondents reported receiving a pay raise in 2012. More than

three-quarters of raises awarded were for the same job and employer, with a median

increase of 3.0% of primary income.

Descriptive statistics indicate that there were a greater number of job losses and

salary reductions due to the recession in 2010 and 2011 than in 2012.

Sample Characteristics

For the unweighted sample, percentages of respondents by type of employer (52.8%

private sector (including self-employed), 34.3% academia, 7.8% public sector, and 5.1% non-

profits) were similar to those in the SIOP membership population when ranked by sector size



(45.9% private sector (including self-employed), 40.0% academia, 6.2% public sector, and 2.9%

non-profits). However, the private sector was somewhat overrepresented and academia

somewhat underrepresented in the survey sample. Table 1 compares the 2012 sample to previous

survey samples on several background variables. Percentages by type of SIOP membership on

the 2012 survey were similar to those for the 2009 survey, as well as to types of membership

within SIOP as a whole (15.1% of SIOP members are associates, 78.5% are members or

international affiliates, and 6.3% are fellows).

Table 1 indicates a couple of different trends in samples before and after 2003. For

example, percentages of the sample working part-time and respondents living in the New York

City metro area fell in 2003, and have maintained approximately the same proportion since then.

In addition, percentages of respondents with master’s degrees have been gradually increasing

over the years. These figures are similar to those in the current SIOP membership population—

83.1% of SIOP members have doctorates and 16.8% have master’s degrees.

Sample weighting. About half the SIOP membership (49.4%) earned their highest degrees

in or before 1999 (as compared to 40.3% for the survey sample), and about a quarter (25.5%) in

or before 1989 (as compared to 17.9% of the survey sample). Given these differences, we ran

analyses with the 2012 data, as well as with 2012 data weighted to have similar percentages by

years since highest degree as in the current SIOP membership (using simulated replication with

the weight command in SPSS).

Years since highest degree is one of the five variables on which data are available for the

current SIOP membership population. It was selected as the weighting variable as it is

significantly correlated (r=.43, p<.001, two-tailed) with 2012 primary income and has the

highest correlation among all variables on which we have data for both the respondents as well



as the SIOP membership. (The other variables are SIOP membership status, highest degree

received, and employment sector.) Years since highest degree was also highly correlated with

other variables that were significantly related to 2012 primary income for which we do not have

SIOP membership data—.90 with years of work experience in industrial and organizational

psychology, .89 with age, .55 with academic job level, .54 with tenure, and .43 with practitioner

job level (all significant at p<.001, two-tailed).

Weighted results generally provide a better representation for the SIOP membership

population; however, we also present unweighted results for comparison. Weighting aligned the

distribution of respondents who received their highest degree after 1999 with the SIOP

population (49.4% in the SIOP membership, 40.3% in the unweighted survey data, and 49.4%

with weighted data).

Income Levels

Highest degree obtained. Respondents were asked to provide their 2011 and 2012 total

salary or personal income, not including bonuses or other variable pay, from their primary

employer. Table 2 presents unweighted data above the sample size in parentheses and weighted

data below the sample size. Median unweighted and weighted incomes for respondents with

doctoral and master’s degrees were higher in 2011 and 2012 than in 2009, with a single

exception: weighted 2011 income for those with a master’s degree was lower in 2011 than in

2009.

We asked respondents whether they had earned their degrees online; 48 responded “yes”.

Of these, 42 had received master’s degrees, and 9 had received doctoral degrees. Though most

online degrees were master’s degrees, they were not always the highest degree that the

respondent earned. In other words, several respondents who obtained an online master’s degree



also had a doctorate from a traditional “bricks and mortar” on-campus program. Only 12

respondents had an online degree as their highest degree: 9 of these were doctorates, and 3 were

master’s degrees. Since the highest degree earned (master’s vs. doctorate) is a significant

predictor of income, it confounds the relationship between an online versus a classroom degree

and other variables (such as income). Given these factors, we did not conduct further analyses on

online degrees.

Gender. For unweighted data, Table 2 shows that median primary income for women was

15.2% lower than that for men in 2011 and 12.1% lower in 2012. The income of women

respondents has consistently been lower than that of men. However, the gap is narrowing, and it

was the narrowest yet in this year’s survey. Since 1982, the gap between the median income for

men and women ranged from 22.0% in 1994 to 12.1% in 2012.

The mean unweighted primary income for women in both 2011 and 2012 ($105,740 and

$111,412, respectively) was significantly lower (t(1,078)=6.07, p<.001, two-tailed, unequal

variances and t(1,094)=5.93, p<.001, two-tailed, unequal variances, respectively) than the mean

primary income for men ($130,676 in 2011 and $135,896 in 2012). The mean income for women

was 19.1% lower than that for men in 2011 and 18.0% lower in 2012. In surveys since 1997 (the

year from which mean data are available), the difference between the mean incomes of men and

women ranged from 40.6% in 1997 to 18.0% in 2012.

Weighted medians (shown under the sample size for years from 2002 to 2012 in Table 2)

were higher for both men and women in 2011 and 2012 than unweighted medians. Weighted

mean incomes were also higher for both men ($138,480 in 2011 and $143,638 in 2012) and

women ($109,211 in 2011 and $114,843 in 2012) than unweighted means. Based on weighted



data, women’s median incomes were 18.4% lower than median incomes for men for 2011 and

14.6% lower for 2012, and their means were 21.1% lower for 2011 and 20.0% lower for 2012.

Some of these discrepancies in income may be explained by gender differences in other

areas. For instance, men were more likely to have doctoral degrees than women (47.6% vs.

35.8%, p<.05), as shown in Figures 1 (unweighted data) and 2 (weighted data). However, even at

the same degree level, mean income for men was significantly higher than that for women

(p<.001 for doctorates, p<.05 for masters). Men also tended to have earned their highest degrees

earlier than women and have greater experience in I-O psychology (both significant, p<.001). On

average, men had received their highest degree 14.8 years ago, as compared to 9.8 years for

women. The mean length of experience for men was 16.9 years and for women, 12.3 years.

When controlling for years since doctorate, with a single exception, median income for

men was between 2.0% and 11.0% higher than that for women. For the respondents with a

doctorate who received their degrees 20-24 years ago, women’s median income was 10.8%

higher than that for men. As compared to the men in this category, a larger proportion of women

had a greater number of years of experience, were sole proprietors, had higher job levels (among

practitioners), lived in metropolitan areas (with and a larger proportion in the New York metro

area), and worked at larger organizations. In addition, the number of women in this group was

about half the number of men, which may exaggerate differences. Thus, the specific composition

of this group on extent of experience, ownership, practitioner job level, and location (all

significantly positively correlated with income), are likely explanations for this anomaly.

When controlling for years of experience, median income for men was between 4.6% and

14.4% higher than that for women in all groupings till 30-35 years of experience. There were

only 4 women who had 36 or more years of experience, and about ten times as many men. Given



such a small sample size, we refrained from making comparisons between men and women who

have 36 or more years of experience.

Controlling for both years since doctorate and years of experience produces mixed

results. Men have higher median incomes for years 2-4, 10-14, 20-24 and 25 or more (ranging

from 1.2% higher to 11.2% higher). Women have higher median incomes for years 0-2, 5-9, and

15-19 (ranging from 0.5% higher to 13.6% higher). Thus, it seems that given equivalent amounts

of experience and years since earning their doctorate, some of the discrepancy between the

income of men and women disappears.

Age. As Table 2 shows, unweighted median primary income was highest for the over-55

age group among doctoral degree respondents. Unweighted median incomes for all age groups

were higher in 2011 and 2012 than what they had been in 2009, with one exception: for the 35-

39 age group, median income in 2011 was less than that in 2009. In comparing unweighted and

weighted medians by age for 2011 and 2012, half the weighted medians are higher than the

unweighted medians—for the 40-44, 50-54, and 55+ age groups. For the remaining age groups,

the weighted medians are about the same as the unweighted medians.

In the remainder of this report, results from analyses on income by job characteristics,

employer type, or location are only presented for 2012 income because we did not collect

descriptive data on these variables for 2011 and cannot assume that such characteristics were the

same for both 2012 and 2011.

Years since highest degree. Figures 3 and 4 show weighted 2012 incomes from the

primary employer for respondents with doctorates and master’s degrees, respectively, by the

number of years since they received their degree. For respondents with doctoral degrees, those

who received their degree 25 years ago or more had the highest median ($150,300) as well as the



highest mean income ($180,985). For respondents with master’s degrees, those who received

their degree 20-24 years ago had the highest median ($160,000) as well as the highest mean

income ($169,827). Tables accompanying the figures present unweighted and weighted data;

results are similar across datasets for both groups.

Geographic location of employment. Specific metro areas listed on the survey were

chosen because they are typically the highest paid in the US. With unweighted data, Manhattan

had the highest 2012 median income ($160,000) for respondents with doctorates, followed by

Other New York ($149,000), Washington, DC ($128,492), and San Francisco ($127,000) metro

areas. With weighting (Figure 5), medians for all areas went up, except for respondents from the

Philadelphia and San Diego metro areas. While Los Angeles/Orange County metro and Boston

metro areas were among the four areas with the top median incomes in 2009, they dropped to

eighth and ninth place, respectively, in the 2012 survey. More than three-fourths of respondents

from Canada are from metropolitan areas. As the number of cases in each city was too small to

report, they were merged into a single category. Mean values had a slightly different ranking.

Unweighted and weighted mean incomes are presented in Table 5.

There were too few master’s degree respondents from each city to report their data in

detail. Broadly, a little less than half (46.8%) of master’s degree respondents were from areas in

the US not listed separately in the survey. Among the metropolitan areas, the largest group

(16.4%) worked in Washington, DC. When locations were ranked by income, Manhattan

occupied top place (n=5), followed by Boston (n=2). Washington DC (n=28) was ranked seventh

when locations were ordered by income, and other areas in the US (n=80) occupied the ninth

place.



Analyzing the first two digits of the zip code provides additional information on income

by geographic location (see Table 6). Based on unweighted data, the zip codes with the three

highest median incomes for doctoral respondents are 14 and 10 in New York ($195,000 and

$152,000, respectively), and 98 and 99 in Washington and Alaska ($147,000). With weighted

data, the three highest incomes were in zip codes 70, 71, and 72 in Louisiana and Arkansas

($232,000), and in 14 and 10 in New York ($195,000 and $168,830, respectively).

Type of principal employment. Of respondents with doctorates, the two largest employers

were universities or colleges (40.2%, n=377) and private-sector consulting firms (22.2%,

n=208), together accounting for a little less than two-thirds of the respondents. Figure 6 presents

weighted data for doctoral degree respondents; unweighted and weighted data are shown in the

accompanying tables. With both unweighted and weighted data, independent consultants earned

the highest income, followed by respondents in pharmaceuticals, private sector healthcare, and

manufacturing. With weighting, the two biggest employer categories were still universities and

colleges (41.9%) and private-sector consulting organizations (20.9%). When considering all

respondents, regardless of degree, there was no difference between academics and practitioners

in number of hours worked. On average, full-time respondents in both categories worked 48.1

hours each week, with a median of 50.0 hours for both groups.

There were too few master’s degree respondents in each category to present their data in

detail. At a high level, over three-fourths (77.2%) of this sub-group worked in the private sector;

8.3% in the non-profit sector, and 7.7% in the government. There were 5.5% of academics with

master’s degrees, and 2.2% were self-employed. Of specific types of employers, consulting firms

employed the biggest proportion (36.8%) of respondents with master’s degrees, and the Federal

government employed 2.7%. When the income of master’s degree respondents was ranked by



type of employer, the Federal government (n=5) was the highest paying employer, while

consulting firms (n=67) occupied ninth place.

Type of academic employment. For those working in universities or colleges, the

unweighted mean income differed by the highest degree a department offered (bachelor’s

$87,628, n=40; master’s $100,091, n=102; doctorate $123,345, n=226; F(2,365)=11.57, p<.001).

In addition, the unweighted mean income of respondents working at business or management

departments ($141,803, n=150) was significantly (F(1,332)= 86.03, p<.001) higher than the

mean income of those in psychology departments ($91,216, n=184). Figure 7 presents weighted

mean and median incomes at psychology and business/management departments based on

highest degree offered. Tables accompanying Figure 7 present both unweighted and weighted

results. The unweighted mean income did not differ significantly (F(1,372)=.07, p=.79) for

private ($113,265 n=101) and public institutions ($111,602, n=273). There were only 10

respondents with a master’s degree in academia, so analyses for academia were only performed

for doctoral degree respondents.

Academic titles by department type. Figure 8 shows weighted 2012 income for psychology

and business/management departments for the five academic titles that had adequate sample sizes.

Tables accompanying Figure 8 present both unweighted and weighted results. Distinguished or

chaired professors had the highest median and mean income in both types of departments. There

were significant differences between incomes in psychology and business/management

departments for assistant professors, associate professors, full professors, and distinguished or

chaired professors. Table 7 presents the ANOVA results by department for each title.

Practitioner job titles. Figures 9 and 10 show weighted 2012 primary income by job level

for doctoral and master’s degree respondents, respectively, in the private, nonprofit, and



government sectors. Tables accompanying the figure show unweighted and weighted percentiles

and means.

For doctoral degree respondents, almost two-thirds of the weighted means and medians

are higher than unweighted means and medians. Senior vice-presidents had the highest mean and

median incomes in both unweighted and weighted data. To view this data in context, note that

83.9% of presidents and CEOs in this sub-sample work in organizations that have less than 15

employees, 9.7% work in organizations with 16 to 100 employees, and the largest organization

for which a respondent is president or CEO has 1,501 to 3,000 employees. Only 21.1% of the

senior vice-presidents, on the other hand, work in organizations with less than 15 employees,

47.4% work in organizations with over 3,000 employees, and the largest organization that a

respondent is senior vice-president of has more than 75,000 employees.

For master’s degree respondents (Figure 10), presidents/CEOs earned the highest mean

income with both unweighted ($206,200) and weighted ($166,262) data.

Status as a partner, principal, or owner. Overall, 4.5% of doctoral degree respondents

were sole proprietors or owners, 1.6% partners, 1.2% principals, 0.5% primary shareholders (i.e.,

owners of 20.0% or more of a corporation), and 1.2% were minority shareholders (i.e., owners of

less than 20.0% of a corporation). Owners had higher mean and median primary incomes than

non-owners for both unweighted and weighted data (see Figure 11). With weighting, both means

and medians increased for most types of owners as well as non-owners. (Only respondents in

private sector for-profit industries were asked about their ownership status; income data from

nonprofit and government respondents are presented for comparison.) There were too few

master’s degree respondents who were owners to report their data.



Certifications and Clearances. Overall, 74 respondents had obtained certifications; Table

8 shows the major categories of the responses. Over half the certifications (58.1%) were licenses

in psychology; 16.2% were HR professional certifications, such as Certified Human Resource

Professional (CHRP) and Organizational Design Certification; and 14.9% were non-HR and non-

psychology certifications, such as Project Management Professional and Lean Six Sigma Black

Belt. There was a significant difference in incomes of respondents with different certifications

(F=2.88; p<.05), with licensed psychologists earning the highest income. Most certifications

were earned by academics (25.7%); followed by respondents working at consulting firms

(13.5%). Senior consultants had about a quarter (24.3%) of the certifications. Of respondents

with certifications, 87.8% had doctoral degrees, while 12.2% had master’s degrees.

We asked respondents whether they had security clearances; 88 responded “yes” (7.3%

of all respondents). Of these, 84.1% had doctorates, and 15.9% had master’s degrees. Most

respondents with clearances worked in consulting firms (37.5%); followed by the Federal

government (15.9%); and universities or colleges (13.6%). Over half of the respondents with

clearances (56.5%) worked in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Although the median

income for those with a clearance was higher than for those without, this difference was not

significant, even when looking only at respondents in the Washington, DC area.

Starting salaries. Respondents who had hired new graduates in 2012 and 2011 reported

their starting salaries. Mean, median and percentile starting salaries are presented in Tables 9 and

11 (unweighted), and Tables 10 and 12 (weighted). Unweighted means and medians are as

follows:

Doctoral graduates in Industrial/Organizational Psychology: mean $81,815 and

median $78,000 (n=60).



Master’s degree graduates in Industrial/Organizational Psychology: mean $65,521

and median $64,000 (n=47).

Doctoral graduates in Human Resources/Organizational Behavior: mean $87,704 and

median $83,000 (n=10).

Master’s degree graduates in Human Resources/Organizational Behavior: mean $95,901

and median $80,000 (n=9).

The HR/OB results need to be interpreted with caution since sample sizes are small and

the respondents hiring these graduates have distinct characteristics. For instance, most master’s

degree graduates were hired into private sector organizations and about half their supervisors

were located in major metropolitan areas in the US, while most doctoral graduates were hired

into universities not in the metropolitan areas, with a third outside the US and Canada. When

converting from another currency, several factors, including the current conversion rate with the

US come into play, and a simple conversion may not truly be reflective of the purchasing power

of the income in that country. In such a small sample, these factors may exert a disproportionate

influence upon mean income levels. New HR/OB master’s graduates have considerably higher

salary average salaries in 2012 than in 2011. Again, sample sizes are very small, so we suggest

using these data with caution, if used at all.

The change in unweighted starting salaries from 2011 to 2012 was as follows:

Doctoral graduates in I-O: the mean increased by 1.7% and median increased by 3.8%.

Master’s degree graduates in I-O: the mean increased by 2.5% and median increased by

6.3%.

Doctoral graduates in HR/OB: mean increased by 12.1% and median increased by 9.6%.



Master’s degree graduates in HR/OB: mean decreased by 16.5% and median

decreased by 45.0%.

With unweighted data, new doctoral graduates in I-O had a mean salary 19.9% higher

and a median that was 17.9% higher than that for new master’s graduates in I-O. New doctoral

graduates in HR/OB had an unweighted median income 3.6% higher than new master’s

graduates. The mean salary for new HR/OB masters graduates was 9.3% higher than the mean

salary for new HR/OB doctoral graduates. As mentioned earlier, the distinct characteristics of

employers of HR/OB doctoral and master’s graduates as well as small sample sizes are likely

producing a disproportionate effect upon on HR/OB data.

For 19 respondents who self-reported that they had obtained a doctorate in the past year

and had a year or less of work experience in Industrial-Organizational psychology or a related

field, the 2012 unweighted mean primary income was $80,912 and median was $75,000. This

sub-sample was overwhelmingly tilted towards academia, with 15 respondents working at a

university or college, only one in the Federal government, and three in consulting firms. There

were very few cases in a comparable sub-group with a master’s degree, so their income is not

reported.

Retirement, Bonus, and Raise Information

Retirement plans. The survey asked about two types of plans that employers use to fund

retirement systems: defined contribution and defined benefit. In defined contribution plans,

employers typically annually contribute a specified amount of money or percent of salary into a

retirement account, and it is invested until an employee retires. In the US, 401k and 403b plans

are defined contribution plans. With a defined benefit plan, an employer typically agrees to pay

the employee a certain amount or percentage of salary once the employee retires.



For 2012, 81.6% (n=765) of doctoral respondents indicated that their employer offers a

defined contribution plan, while 29.1% (n=273) indicated that their employer provides a defined

benefit plan. For 480 respondents who reported the percentage of income that their employer

contributed to a defined contribution plan in 2012, the unweighted mean amount contributed was

6.4% and median was 6.0%; the weighted mean was 6.6% and median was 6.0%. For 43

doctoral respondents who reported the percentage of final salary that their employer will provide

after they retire through a defined benefit plan, the unweighted mean amount was 45.3% and

median was 50.0%; the weighted mean was 46.8% and median was 54.1%.

Bonuses and stock options. Overall, 45.1% of doctoral respondents in 2012 reported

receiving a bonus. The percentage of respondents in each sector who reported receiving a bonus

in 2012 was:

Private sector: 76.8%

Nonprofit: 58.1%

Government and military: 45.8%

University or college: 13.5%

Self-employed: 7.5%

Bonuses organized in order of the frequency with which they were offered were as

follows (Note that some individuals received more than one type of bonus.):

Individual bonus: 31.7%

Organizational bonus: 26.0%

Group, department, or unit performance bonus: 14.2%

Retention bonus: 2.0%

Special project bonus: 1.9%



Signing or recruiting bonus: 1.5%

Exercising stock options: 0.7%

Obtaining a certification: 0.1%

Other reasons: 2.0%

To examine bonus size (as a percent of reported 2012 primary income) by type, we

examined data from 218 respondents with doctoral degrees who reported that they received only

a single type of bonus. (There was a significant difference in the size of the bonus for doctoral

and master’s degree respondents; however, there were too few of the latter to report their data.)

Means, medians, and percentiles for doctoral degree respondents are presented in Table 14 and

15. Median bonuses for unweighted data were:

Individual performance bonus: 4.0% (n=107)

Group, department, or unit performance bonus: 5.0% (n=7)

Organizational performance bonus: 7.3% (n=62)

Special project bonus: 10.1% (n=7)

Retention bonus: 8.8% (n=7)

Sign-on or recruiting bonus: 8.0% (n=7)

Other bonuses: 3.0% (n=13)

Too few respondents (n<5) reported receiving a bonus in the form of stock options or for

receiving a degree or a certification, so their data are not described.

Pay raises. A little less than two-thirds (60.9%) of respondents with doctoral degrees

reported receiving a pay raise in 2012. As this survey pertains to 2012 income data, only pay

raises that occurred in 2012 were included in the analyses. (Data from respondents who received

pay raises in 2013 or did not know when their pay raise became effective were not included.) As



Figure 12 shows, the average size of each type of pay raise for those with doctoral degrees (as a

percent of base salary before the raise) was:

A promotion with the same employer: 10.1% mean and 9.6% median (n=72)

unweighted; 10.2% mean and 9.7% median (n=68) weighted.

An increase in responsibility with the same employer: 10.1% mean and 8.0% median

(n=17) unweighted; 10.2% mean and 8.0% median (n=15) weighted.

The same job at the same employer: 4.0% mean and 3.0% median (n=417)

unweighted; 3.9% mean and 3.0% median (n=418) weighted.

There were too few respondents (n<5) who received pay raises for a similar job at a new

employer, a higher level job at a new employer, a transfer to another job or location at the same

employer, or for other reasons, to summarize their data.

There was a significant difference between pay raises for doctoral and master’s degree

respondents, so their data are presented separately Figure 13. Overall, about three-quarters (75.8%)

of master’s degree respondents said they received a pay raise. As with doctoral degree respondents,

more pay raises were awarded from the same employer for the same job than for any other reason.

The highest pay raises were from the same employer for the same job, but with a significant increase

in responsibility. There were too few respondents in other pay raise categories to report their data.

Supplementary Income. The survey asked for the amount of supplementary income (in

addition to salary from the primary employer) received in 2012 for work in I-O psychology or a

related field. Figure 14 presents results for academics, while Figure 15 shows results for

practitioners. Tables accompanying the figures present both unweighted and weighted data. For

practitioners, there were too few respondents who earned supplementary income for speaking,

product or test development, or other reasons to present their data.



There were too few master’s degree respondents who earned supplementary income to

report their data in detail. However, there was not a significant difference between doctoral and

master’s degree respondents on supplementary income.

Impact of the Recession

A new section in this survey attempted to gauge the impact of the recession on the

income and employment of SIOP members. We asked respondents (all 1,225 who had provided

an income) if they had experienced job losses, salary reductions, salary freezes, furloughs, or

working at a job below their qualifications due to the recession (Table 13). Overall, 35.5% of

respondents had experienced at least one of these situations between January 2010 and

December 2012 (the period since the last income survey). Asked whether their organizations had

laid off employees, 37.0% said yes; 50.3% said no; and 12.7% said they did not know. We

obtained additional details on the timing and extent of these effects of the recession. Results of

analyses on these variables are described below.

Job loss. Overall, 2.6% of respondents (n=32) said that they had lost their job due to the

recession. Of the 30 respondents who provided the time period they were without a job, just over

a third (36.7%) lost their job in 2010; over a third (36.7%) in 2011; and a little over a quarter

(26.7%) in 2012. On average, unemployment after a job loss lasted 4.0 months, with a median of

2.5 months. The shortest period that a respondent who lost a job because of the recession

remained unemployed was 1 month; while the longest period was 17 months. 23.3% of those

who lost jobs found employment in 2010; 40.0% in 2011; and 36.7% in 2012. Since the last time

period for which respondents could enter data was December 2012 and 10% of the respondents

chose this option, it is possible that some of them were still unemployed. There were also

respondents who indicated that they could not find a job. In summary, descriptive statistics



indicated that there were more job losses due to the recession in 2010 and 2011 than in 2012, and

that more of those who had lost a job due to the recession found employment in 2011 and 2012

than in 2010. The highest number of job losses occurred in consulting organizations.

Salary reduction. Of all respondents, 3.8% (n=46) said they experienced a salary reduction

between January 2010 and December 2012. The number of people experiencing a salary reduction

decreased from 2.1% of the survey respondents (n=25) in 2010 to 1.6% (n=19) in 2011 and 1.1%

(n=14) in 2012. The mean, median and range by which salaries were reduced for each year were:

2010: Mean 21.7% and median 20.0%, ranging from 0.5% to 75.0%.

2011: Mean 19.5% and median 20.0%, ranging from 0.1 to 60.0%.

2012: Mean 15.2% and median 11.5%, ranging from 2.0% to 50.0%.

Of all types of industries, the greatest number of salary reductions (42.9%) occurred in

consulting firms, followed by universities or colleges (26.2%).

Salary freeze. Of all respondents, 16.3% (n=200) experienced a salary freeze between

January 2010 and December 2012. Of these, 75.5% of salary freezes began in 2010, 16.0% in

2011, and 8.6% in 2012. Of all the freezes applied, 6.4% ended in 2010 and 19.2% ended in

2011. For 2012, data are challenging to interpret. At least 30.8% of salary freezes ended in 2012,

and at least 6.4% had not entered any end date for the freeze. Thus, at a minimum, over half of

all freezes applied (56.4%) have been lifted. However, since December 2012 was the final period

for which respondents could enter data, it is possible that the salaries of those who chose this

option (39.1%) may still be continuing. This question needs further refining. Nevertheless, while

more salary freezes ended in 2012 than in 2011 and 2010, 45.5% of those who had had their

salaries frozen during this 3-year period still had them frozen at the beginning of December

2012. On average, salary freezes lasted 22 months, with a median of 24 months. The shortest



salary freeze between January 2010 and December 2012 lasted 1 month, and the longest, 35

months. Almost half (46.8%) of the salary freezes occurred in universities and colleges, followed

by the federal government (14.7%) and consulting firms (10.9%).

Furlough. Of those who answered the recession questions, 4.3% said they had experienced a

furlough. About two-thirds (67.9%) of furloughs occurred in universities or colleges.

Working at a job below qualifications. Overall, 5.3% of all respondents said that they

were working at a job below their qualifications due to the recession. Over half of these

respondents were in consulting firms (32.3%) or universities or colleges (21.5%).

Regression Analyses

We analyzed the relationships of personal and employment characteristics to income from

the primary employer using unweighted data in separate regression equations for respondents

working in universities or colleges and those working for non-academic employers. This was done

because we collected data on several different variables for each group (e.g., type of academic

department for those in academia, appropriate job levels for the two groups, and ownership status for

practitioners). The equation for the academic sample accounted for more variance in 2012 income

from the primary employer (R2=.69, R2adj=.66, F(36,310)=19.42, p<.001) than the equation for the

practitioner sample (R2=.50, R2adj=.46, F(48,584)=11.97, p<.001).

For the academic sample, coefficients were significantly positive (p<.05) for working in a

business/management department or an industrial relations department (compared to a psychology

department); years since obtaining one’s highest degree; being a SIOP Fellow (compared to a

SIOP member); being a distinguished/chaired professor or an assistant/associate dean or a dean

(compared to an assistant professor); working in the Los Angeles/Orange County metro area

(compared to areas not listed on the survey that are in the US); and number of employees



supervised. Coefficients were significantly negative related to income (p<.05) for working in

departments where the highest degree offered was either a bachelor’s or a master’s (compared to a

doctorate), years of work experience in I-O psychology, and number of years worked for the

current employer.

In the equation for practitioners, coefficients were significantly positive (p<.05) for years

of work experience in I-O psychology or a related field; years since highest degree; having a

doctorate (compared to a master’s degree); number of hours worked per week for the primary

employer; working in Manhattan or Other New York metro area (compared to areas not listed on

the survey that are in the US); being a vice president, senior vice president, or a president/CEO;

and being a SIOP Fellow (compared to a SIOP member). Considering Division 14 to be one’s

primary division in APA had significant negative coefficients (p<.05) with income.

While the R2 for the equation for academics was only slightly lower than that in 2009

(R2=.72, R2adj =.68, F(34,278)=20.54, p<.001), there were a few unexpected results. For instance,

for the academic sample, the number of years of work experience in I-O psychology had a

significant negative coefficient with income. We explored the possibility that the high degree of

intercorrelation among some of the variables included in the regression equation (years since

highest degree and years of work experience r=.90; years since highest degree and age r=.89;

and years of work experience and age r=.87) led to this result. With age and years since highest

degree removed from the equation for academics, we found that the number of years of work

experience was not related to income in the regression equation. Another seemingly unexpected

finding in the academic sample, that type of degree was not significant, has a clearer explanation.

Only 2.9% of this sample did not have a doctoral degree, so there was little variance on this

variable.



For practitioners, considering Division 14 to be one’s primary APA division was

negatively related to income. Again, lack of variance might account for this. Out of the

practitioners who answered the question, 9.3% said they were not APA members, 86.8% said

Division 14 was their primary APA division, and only 3.9% said Division 14 was not their

primary APA division. The other unexpected finding for practitioners is that no specific

employer industry was significantly related to income.

Discussion

The 2012 survey was the fourth SIOP Income and Employment Survey to be

administered via the Internet. The 2012 response rate (32.3%) was a little higher than that for the

previous survey (29.1%). The proportion of female respondents in this survey (44.5%) is about

the same as the previous survey. The percent of respondents with a master’s as their highest

degree has been increasing over the years and was the highest yet in this administration, at 16.7%

in 2012, compared to 7.0% on the 1997 survey. Because the distribution of respondents by years

since highest degree varied from the SIOP population, we weighted the responses by this

variable and presented both unweighted and weighted results. Comparing weighted medians, we

found that primary income for those with doctorates increased for each year in which it has been

measured since 2002. However, for those with a master’s as the highest degree, median income

dipped in 2008, 2009, and 2011, before rising again in 2012.

The 18.4% lower weighted median income for women than men in 2012 suggests that

there continues to be a wage gap between women and men. However, gender was not

statistically significant (p<.05) in the regression equations for academics and practitioners that

included gender with other independent variables. This is consistent with findings from the 2001,

2006, and 2009 surveys (gender was significant in a regression equation based on the 1998 and



2003 surveys). In-depth analyses suggested that with equivalent amounts of experience and years

since earning their doctorate, some of the discrepancy between incomes of men and women

disappears. In addition, the difference between incomes for men and women has been narrowing

over the years, and it was the lowest so far in this year’s survey.

Analyses indicated that licensed psychologists earned more than those who had other

kinds of certifications. There was not a significant difference between those who had security

clearances and those who did not. Analyses on the impact of the recession indicated that

respondents in Washington, DC, experienced a higher proportion of salary freezes than

respondents in other areas. There are some indications that there were more job losses and salary

reductions in 2010 and 2011 than in 2012.

For academics, regression results suggest that such factors as type of department, years

since highest degree, SIOP membership status, job level, location, number of employees

supervised, and highest degree offered by the department were significant predictors of primary

income. For practitioners, such factors as years of work experience, years since highest degree;

type of degree, number of hours worked, location, job level, and SIOP membership status were

significant predictors of income.



Table 1

Characteristics of Samples Across Time (Cross-Sectional)

1988 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 Weighted

2006 Weighted

2009 Weighted

2012 Weighted

Gender

Men 79% 71% 67% 65% 58% 58% 54% 56% 63% 62% 58% 59%

Women 21% 29% 33% 35% 42% 42% 46% 45% 37% 38% 42% 41%

SIOP Membership Type

Associate 10% 6% 7% 10% 12% 14% 14% 15% 9% 12% 12% 14%

Member 82% 86% 86% 83% 82% 80% 80% 79% 81% 79% 79% 77%

Fellow 8% 9% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 10% 9% 9% 9%

Employment Status

Full Time 87% 89% 86% 86% 95% 97% 95% 95% 94% 97% 95% 94%

Part Time 5% 3% 8% 9% 5% 3% 5% 5% 6% 3% 5% 6%

Location

New York Area 14% 11% 10% 11% 7% 8% 7% 6% 8% 9% 7% 7%

Elsewhere 86% 89% 90% 89% 93% 92% 93% 94% 92% 91% 93% 93%



1988 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2003 Weighted

2006 Weighted

2009 Weighted

2012 Weighted

Years Since Doctorate

0-<2 n/a 8% 11% 2% 11% 8% 9% 9% 6% 5% 6% 7%

2-4 n/a 12% 13% 14% 19% 20% 16% 17% 12% 14% 13% 13%

5-9 24% 19% 18% 19% 25% 24% 22% 22% 20% 20% 19% 18%

10-14 22% 18% 14% 15% 13% 16% 18% 15% 15% 15% 16% 15%

15-19 18% 14% 14% 13% 10% 10% 10% 14% 12% 12% 12% 13%

20-24 n/a 14% 12% 14% 8% 7% 9% 7% 12% 11% 10% 9%

25 or more n/a 15% 19% 25% 14% 15% 16% 18% 23% 23% 24% 25%

Degree

Doctorate n/a n/a 92% 88% 87% 87% 86% 83% 90% 89% 87% 85%

Master’s n/a n/a 7% 12% 13% 13% 14% 17% 10% 11% 13% 15%

Note. “n/a” indicates that data are not available. Statistics include both those with master’s and doctorates, except for years since doctorate and the doctorate category in the degree variable, which only include those with doctorates. Doctorate includes those with Ph.D., Psy.D., J.D., Ed.D., and DBA. Master’s includes those who have nearly completed doctorates, but had not yet graduated at the time of the survey. Weighting in the last four columns is based on years since highest degree in the SIOP membership population. 1982 data were excluded due to space constraints. These are in reports in previous TIP issues, available on the SIOP website.



26

Table 2

Demographic Comparison of Median Primary Incomes for Selected Subgroups by Year

1999 2000 2002 2003 2005 2006 2008 2009 2011 2012

Degree

Doctorate $83,000 $90,000 $83,750a $87,714a $92,000a $98,500a $102,000a $105,000a $110,000 $113,200

(882) (905) (904) (922) (931) (942) (869) (904) (921) (938)

$93,000 $96,295 $99,000 $103,000 $110,000 $112,728 $115,000 $119,568

Master’s $58,000 $67,000 $60,000a $65,000a $68,000a $72,000a $72,000a $74,500a $75,000 $80,750

(117) (126) (131) (133) (139) (141) (141) (148) (175) (182)

$67,096 $68,000 $72,000 $79,855 $75,918 $77,591 $76,015 $82,382

Genderb

Men $85,000 $93,000 $86,250a $92,000a $95,000a $100,000a $108,000a $110,000a $110,800 $113,800

(637) (653) (605) (609) (626) (626) (556) (569) (613) (624)

$96,000 $100,000 $102,664 $125,062 $115,000 $119,000 $119,903 $120,677

Women $70,000 $77,000 $72,000a $76,000a $78,000a $85,000a $90,000a $92,000a $94,000 $100,000

(341) (357) (428) (444) (436) (449) (451) (480) (475) (490)

$80,000 $83,400 $81,452 $88,471 $94,000 $95,000 $97,798 $103,000



27

1999 2000 2002 2003 2005 2006 2008 2009 2011 2012

Agec

<35 $62,000 $70,000 $60,753a $70,000a $72,000a $80,000a $78,500a $83,000a $84,000 $89,000

(163) (170) (194) (208) (205) (209) (204) (221) (205) (220)

$62,930 $70,000 $72,000 $80,000 $79,570 $83,427 $84,000 $88,954

35-39 $75,000 $80,000 $76,250a $80,300a $90,000a $95,000a $98,500a $104,000a $100,000 $110,000

(136) (141) (208) (209) (198) (200) (168) (169) (163) (169)

$79,139 $83,000 $90,000 $95,000 $99,220 $104,000 $100,000 $110,000

40-44 $78,000 $82,000 $85,000a $89,600a $91,759a $97,000a $108,000a $110,000a $120,000 $129,000

(95) (100) (137) (141) (139) (141) (149) (155) (151) (151)

$86,000 $89,694 $96,000 $100,000 $108,000 $110,000 $125,000 $130,220

45-49 $95,000 $99,500 $95,500a $100,000a $100,000a $105,000a $125,000a $116,500a $128,000 $130,000

(141) (140) (91) (90) (105) (107) (89) (95) (118) (122)

$96,000 $100,000 $99,318 $102,126 $125,000 $116,500 $128,000 $130,000

50-54 $91,000 $100,500 $110,000a $112,500a $108,000a $115,000a $118,000a $125,000a $132,000 $134,000

(140) (144) (121) (120) (103) (104) (79) (79) (78) (77)

$115,497 $118,112 $109,854 $120,000 $120,000 $126,143 $133,811 $137,320

55+ $100,000 $100,000 $110,659a $110,000a $129,500a $131,306a $140,000a $140,000a $139,700 $148,350

(189) (192) (143) (144) (170) (170) (168) (173) (188) (185)

$111,000 $110,000 $135,000 $134,940 $140,095 $144,000 $143,000 $150,000 aThe top row contains income based on unweighted data; numbers in parentheses in the second row are sample sizes; numbers under sample sizes are based on weighting by years since highest degree in the SIOP membership population. 1982 data were excluded due to space constraints; these are available online. bIncludes all respondents regardless of degree. cIncludes only respondents with a doctorate.



28

Table 3

Significant Correlations with 2012 Primary Income

Variable Pearson r

Age (n=1,105) .39

Gender (Female=0, Male=1; n=1,114)a .17

Highest Degree Obtained (n=1,120) .20

Years Since Highest Degree (n=1,117) .43

Years of Work Experience in I-O Psychology or a Related Field (n=1,105) .45

SIOP Associate Member (n=1,078)a, b -.16

SIOP Fellow (n=1,079)a, b .30

Weeks Employed at Primary Employer in 2012 (n=1,091) .12

Average Number of Hours Worked Per Week at 2012 Employer (n=1,110) .20

Years Worked for 2012 Employer (n=980) .19

Years Worked at Current Position at the Same Grade, Rank, or Level (n=1,019) .20

Worked for Same Primary Employer in 2011 and 2012 (n=1,117)a -.07

Ownership Status (n=506)a .30

Number of Employees Supervised (n=1,079) .17

Worked in Manhattan (n=1,077)a, c .20

Worked in Other New York Metro Area (n=1,077)a, c .09

Worked in the US, But Not in Areas Listed (n=1,077)a, c -.10

Have a Professional License or Certification (n=83)a -.33

Lay-offs in Organization (n=1,078)a -.10

Worked at a University or College (n=1,120)a, d -.13

Worked in a Psychology Department (n=387)a, e -.36

Worked in a Business or Management Department/School (n=380)a, e .44

Worked in an Other Department (Not Psychology, Business or Industrial Relations) (n=387)a, e -.12

Highest Degree Department Offered was Bachelor’s (n=376)a -.16

Highest Degree Department Offered was Master’s (n=376)a -.15

Highest Degree Department Offered was Doctorate (n=376)a .24

Had Tenure (n=384)a .34

Academic Rank (Assistant Professor=1, Associate Professor=2, Full Professor=3, Department Chair=4, Distinguished or Chaired Professor=5, Assistant Dean, Associate Dean, or Dean=6, Director=7; n=368) .46

Assistant Professor (n=387)a, f -.33



29

Variable Pearson r

Professor (n=387)a, f .11

Distinguished Professor (n=387)a, f .47

Department Chair (n=387)a, f .11

Worked in the Public Sector/Government (n=1,120)a, d -.06

Was Self-Employed (n=1,120)a, d .17

Worked in the Private Sector (n=1,120)a, d .11

Worked in Manufacturing (n=1,120)a, g .12

Worked in the Private Sector—Other Category (n=1,120)a, g .07

Practitioner Job Level (Entry Level Consultant, Researcher, or Practitioner=1, Consultant, Researcher, or Practitioner=2, Senior Consultant, Researcher, or Practitioner=3, Supervisor=4, Manager or Director=5, Vice President=6, Senior Vice President=7, President or CEO=8; n=717) .51

Entry-Level Consultant, Researcher, or Practitioner (n=729)a, h -.21

Consultant, Researcher, or Practitioner (n=729)a, h -.20

Senior Consultant, Researcher, or Practitioner (n=729)a, h -.11

Vice President (n=729)a, h .25

Senior Vice President (n=729)a, h .27

President or CEO (n=717)a, h .24 Note. All correlations shown are significant, p<.05. These results are based on unweighted data. aInterpret as point biserial correlation, with 0=“no” and 1=“yes,” unless otherwise indicated. bSIOP member status correlation was not significant. cOther locations did not have significant correlations. dOther sectors (i.e., nonprofit) did not have significant correlations. eOther characteristics of departments (i.e., industrial relations department) did not have significant correlations. fOther academic ranks did not have significant correlations. gOther types of employers did not have significant correlations. hOther job levels did not have significant correlations.



30

Table 4

Regression Analysis for Variables Related to 2012 Primary Income

Variables

Academic Sample (n=394)

Practitioner Sample (n=714 )

B SE B B SE B

Age 387 421 .08 -896 516 -.13

Gender ((Female=0, Male=1) 7,148 3,858 .06 3,236 5,029 .02

Highest Degree Obtained (Master’s=0, Doctorate=1)

16,360 12,522 .05 34,557 8,966 .19*

Years Since Highest Degree 1,810 557 .38* 1,246 622 .16*

Years of Experience in I-O Psychology -997 403 -.20* 2,592 653 .32*

SIOP Associate Membera -3,651 9,534 -.02 13,838 9,066 .07

SIOP Fellowa 44,377 7,360 .27* 37,152 14,950 .08*

Division 14 is Primary Division 5,404 4,835 .04 -16,187 7,300 -.07*

Weeks Employed at Primary Employer in 2012

205 226 .03 312 318 .03

Average Hours Worked Per Week for Primary Employer

261 195 .05 1,275 279 .15*

Years With Primary Employer -1,089 363 -.20* 9.5 451 .00

Number of Employees Supervised 410 193 .08* 264 176 .05

Worked in Manhattan, NYb 15,585 13,541 .04 86,590 13,140 .20*

Worked in Other NY City Areab 7,802 11,378 .03 31,364 13,577 .07*

Worked in San Franciscob -22,402 24,987 -.03 10,801 13,157 .03

Worked in Los Angeles/Orange Countyb 36,687 12,468 .10* 23,686 16,014 .05

Worked in Minneapolis/St. Paul 4,557 11,589 .01 1,153 10,995 .00

Worked in Washington, DCb 178 1,005 .01 917 750 .04

Worked in Bostonb 9,970 26,080 .01 36,508 22,203 .05

Worked in Chicago 11,176 9,850 .04 928 10,906 .00

Worked in Philadelphiab 2,014 11,541 .01 -15,860 38,452 -.01

Worked in San Diegob 19,757 12,863 -.05 5,942 16,800 .01

Worked in Canadab 12,201 7,268 .06 -7,392 20,453 -.01

Worked Outside the US and Canadab -7,483 7,382 -.04 -10,526 11,813 -.03

Worked in Business/Management Departmentc

54,126 4,161 .48* n/a n/a n/a

Worked in Industrial Relations Departmentc 75,070 28,040 .10* n/a n/a n/a

Worked in Other Departmentc 12,678 6,635 .07 n/a n/a n/a



31

Variables



B SE B B SE B

Highest Degree Offered: Bachelor’sd -25,335 6,187 -.15* n/a n/a n/a

Highest Degree Offered: Master’sd -32,460 4,469 -.26* n/a n/a n/a

Had Tenure 13,294 7,268 .12 n/a n/a n/a

Instructor, Lecturer or Similare -16,723 21,738 -.03 n/a n/a n/a

Associate Professore 303 7,560 .00 n/a n/a n/a

Professore 4,859 8,118 .04 n/a n/a n/a

Department Chaire 398 10,237 .00 n/a n/a n/a

Distinguished or Chaired Professore 42,582 11,161 .19* n/a n/a n/a

Deane 31,711 15,281 .07* n/a n/a n/a

Entry-Level Consultant, Researcher, or Practitionerf

n/a n/a n/a -11,288 11,385 -.03

Consultant, Researcher, or Practitionerf n/a n/a n/a -4,551 6,803 -.02

Supervisorf n/a n/a n/a -8,334 9,985 -.03

Manager of HR or OB Areaf n/a n/a n/a -5,794 8,293 -.03

Manager of Non-HR or OB Areaf n/a n/a n/a -2,722 12,958 -.01

Vice Presidentf n/a n/a n/a 48,953 11,704 .14*

Senior Vice Presidentf n/a n/a n/a 71,669 16,068 .15*

President or Chief Executive Officerf n/a n/a n/a 32,554 12,296 .09*

Independent Consultingg n/a n/a n/a 8,232 10,924 .03

Manufacturingg n/a n/a n/a 19,973 11,031 .06

Retailg n/a n/a n/a 1,110 12,373 .00

Banking, Finance and Insuranceg n/a n/a n/a -2,027 10,750 -.01

Information Technology/Computersg n/a n/a n/a -8,447 12,961 -.02

Transportationg n/a n/a n/a -25,241 16,260 -.05

Energyg n/a n/a n/a 8,438 17,406 .02

Pharmaceuticalsg n/a n/a n/a 13,813 19,497 .02

Private Sector Healthcare n/a n/a n/a -4,955 20,175 -.01

Other Private Sectorg n/a n/a n/a 11,422 9,927 .04

Nonprofit Research/Consultingg n/a n/a n/a -21,549 14,313 -.05

Other Not-for-Profit n/a n/a n/a -7,905 11,903 -.02

Militaryg n/a n/a n/a -10,303 15,013 -.02

Federal Governmentg n/a n/a n/a -14,506 11,517 -.04



32

Variables



B SE B B SE B

Local Governmentg n/a n/a n/a -36,006 19,389 -.06

Other Government n/a n/a n/a -24,600 19355 -.04 Note. “n/a” indicates the variable was not in the regression because it was not applicable for the sample. These results are based on unweighted data. For dichotomous variables, 0=“no” and 1= “yes” unless other labels are noted. For the academic sample, R2=.69, R2

adj=.66, F(36,310)=19.42, p<.001; for the practitioner sample, R2=.50, R2adj=.46, F(48,584)=11.97, p<.001.

aDummy-coded variables with SIOP Member as the comparison group for SIOP Associate Member and SIOP Fellow. bDummy-coded variables with Worked in Other US City Not Listed as the comparison group. cDummy-coded variables with Psychology Department as the comparison group. dDummy-coded variables with Highest Degree Offered: Doctorate as the comparison group. eDummy-coded variables with Assistant Professor as the comparison group. fDummy-coded variables with Senior Consultant, Researcher or Practitioner as the comparison group. gDummy-coded variables with Consulting Organization as the comparison group; those working in a University or College were not included as a comparison group in the practitioner equation. *p<.05.



33

Master’s Doctorate

Men Women Men Women

n: 87 93 537 397

Percentile:

90th $162,400 $123,000 $225,600 $180,060

75th 104,000 101,500 165,374 137,029

50th 87,000 78,000 120,000 104,868 25th 65,000 59,000 92,500 83,000

10th 52,400 48,028 73,600 65,000

Mean: 101,003 83,562 141,549 117,936 Note. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. Figure 1. Descriptive statistics representing 2012 primary income by gender and highest degree (based on unweighted data).



34


Men Women Men Women

n: 83 83 569 370

Percentile:

90th $175,592 $127,975 $250,000 $185,937

75th 115,461 104,000 172,356 142,000

50th 88,000 80,156 128,000 108,219 25th 67,729 62,000 95,018 84,176

10th 55,000 49,518 75,000 66,605

Mean: 105,609 85,828 149,157 121,324 Note. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. Figure 2. Descriptive statistics representing 2012 primary income by gender and highest degree (based on weighted data).



35

-Maximum -75th percentile -Median -25th percentile -Minimum



36

Unweighted Data

<2 2-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25+

n: 83 161 201 141 128 64 158

Percentile:

90th $117,800 $136,600 $170,600 $194,280 $251,000 $223,750 $316,045

75th 96,000 110,000 139,000 160,000 181,875 174,500 211,250

50th 80,000 91,000 110,000 125,800 139,500 141,500 150,300 25th 70,312 76,000 92,059 100,160 99,125 105,250 112,750

10th 57,600 62,200 68,400 80,120 72,000 79,000 92,000

Mean: 86,553 95,743 120,546 131,788 152,738 149,730 180,985

Weighted Data

<2 2-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25+

n: 63 127 174 150 123 83 223

Percentile:

90th $118,247 $137,002 $171,757 $194,300 $252,468 $230,462 $315,000

75th 95,948 110,000 139,000 160,000 181,106 178,618 214,247

50th 80,103 90,790 110,000 125,846 139,412 141,016 151,257 25th 70,384 76,000 92,142 100,319 97,384 105,045 113,000

10th 57,667 62,034 69,242 80,316 72,000 83,587 92,162

Mean: 86,560 95,466 120,586 131,967 152,624 151,874 181,952Note. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. Figure 3. Descriptive statistics representing 2012 primary income as a function of years since obtaining a doctorate.



37



38

Unweighted Data

<2 2-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25+

n: 18 42 66 21 14 8 12

Percentile:

90th $74,600 $89,400 $117,900 $136,000 $399,000 a $222,200

75th 65,000 75,250 99,351 113,000 172,500 $208,000 138,500

50th 51,611 64,500 86,000 96,659 130,000 160,000 91,000 25th 48,956 54,500 69,750 75,000 104,000 124,654 72,000

10th 34,000 42,900 57,100 71,550 72,164 a 65,600

Mean: 56,881 64,862 88,434 97,659 162,881 169,827 110,333

Weighted Data

<2 2-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25+

n: 14 34 57 23 13 9 19

Percentile:

90th $82,062 $89,524 $119,904 $136,103 $419,262 a $236,000

75th 65,000 73,829 102,295 114,171 170,960 $192,771 136,341

50th 52,062 64,056 86,965 96,667 128,374 160,000 86,504 25th 48,970 54,308 70,000 75,000 104,458 120,000 70,000

10th 34,000 43,359 57,776 71,910 74,816 a 65,000

Mean: 56,877 64,547 89,174 97,837 163,020 165,002 111,411Note. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. Data represent respondents for whom a master’s is the highest degree. aNot enough cases to report these percentiles. Figure 4. Descriptive statistics representing 2012 primary income as a function of years since obtaining a master’s degree.



39

Note. Doctoral respondents only. Based on weighted data. Sample sizes by location are in parentheses. Figure 5. 2012 median primary income as a function of location.



40

Table 5

Mean Primary Income by Geographical Location

Geographical Location Unweighted

Mean Number of

Respondents

Weighted Mean

Number of Respondents

Manhattan, NY $223,239 27 $253,498 28

Other New York Metro Area $167,081 33 $174,633 36 San Francisco/San Jose, CA, Metro Area $153,885

24 $156,428 24

Los Angeles/Orange Co, CA, Metro Area $150,197

19 $161,595 19

Washington, DC, Metro Area $136,865 102 $142,519 102

Boston, MA, Metro Area $136,847 8 $155,632 8 Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, Metro Area $136,387

38 $141,905 37

Canada $128,521 32 $137,062 33

Outside the U.S. or Canada $125,841 42 $131,862 41

Philadelphia, PA, Metro Area $123,677 12 $119,232 13

Other U.S. $123,435 510 $129,905 512

Chicago, IL, Metro Area $122,626 41 $121,472 38

San Diego, CA, Metro Area $122,451 18 $122,037 19 Note. Doctoral respondents only.



41

Table 6

Median Incomes by First Two Digits of Zip Code

First 2 Digits US Number of Median 2012 Median 2012 Zip Code Respondents Unweighted Weighted Salary Salary

01, 02, 03, & 05 (MA, NH, ME, & RI) 7 $110,000 $127,773 06 (CT) 16 $139,500 $133,822 07 & 08 (NJ) 14 $138,500 $141,659 10 (NY) 32 $152,000 $168,830 11 (NY) 4 $125,750 $116,000 12 & 13 (NY) 5 $109,000 $112,536 14 (NY) 3 $195,000 $195,000 15 (PA) 16 $106,273 $115,354 16, 17 & 18 (PA) 8 $102,725 $114,415 19 (PA & DE) 8 $136,500 $141,133 20 & 21 (DC & MD) 45 $130,000 $134,735 22 (VA) 48 $128,420 $138,377 23 (VA) 9 $108,000 $113,534 24 & 25 (VA & WV) 6 $84,931 $90,727 27 (NC) 12 $102,750 $110,016 28 & 29 (NC & SC) 22 $114,000 $113,000 30 & 31 (GA) 38 $135,000 $145,272 32 (FL) 23 $99,913 $107,470 33 (FL) 25 $90,000 $96,820 35 & 36 (AL) 7 $145,828 $185,129 37 (TN) 11 $97,000 $97,000 38 & 39 (TN, MS, & GA) 11 $101,000 $106,448 40, 41, & 42 (KY) 8 $99,900 $103,800 43 (OH) 6 $104,434 $100,850 44 (OH) 11 $99,000 $124,181 45 (OH) 11 $92,000 $92,666 46 & 47 (IN) 11 $72,500 $73,102

Note. Doctoral degree respondents only.

First 2 Digits US Number of Median 2012 Median 2012 Zip Code Respondents Unweighted Weighted Salary Salary

48 & 49 (MI) 35 $109,672 $119,458 50, 51, & 52 (IA) 8 $91,306 $91,556 53 & 54 (WI) 5 $104,000 $119,427 55 (MN) 33 $120,000 $129,603 56, 57, 58, & 59 (MN, SD, ND, & MT) 6 $60,000 $60,000 60 (IL) 37 $110,000 $111,783 61 & 62 (IL) 10 $95,000 $100,830 63 (MO) 17 $101,000 $107,214 64 & 65 (MO) 4 $94,750 $99,236 66, 67, & 68 (KS & NE) 18 $101,250 $104,769 70, 71, & 72 (LA & AR) 11 $145,000 $232,000 73 & 74 (OK) 20 $91,559 $92,703 75 & 76 (TX) 20 $133,529 $135,847 77 (TX) 24 $97,660 $99,892 78 & 79 (TX) 8 $119,500 $121,945 80 (CO) 13 $105,000 $121,422 82, 83, 84, & 89 (WY, ID, UT, & NV) 4 $61,500 $66,945 85, 86, & 87 (AZ & NM) 9 $110,000 $110,000 90 (CA) 6 $143,500 $149,812 91 (CA) 5 $120,000 $123,578 92 (CA) 19 $100,000 $99,443 93 & 94 (CA) 24 $115,000 $115,000 95 & 96 (CA & APO) 10 $105,500 $107,934 97 (OR) 6 $113,500 $138,000 98 & 99 (WA & AK) 16 $147,500 $155,000


July 1, 2013 Human Resources Research O

42

Note. Doctoral respondents only. Based on weighted data. Sample sizes by type of employer are in parentheses. Figure 6. 2012 median primary income by type of primary employer.



43



44

Unweighted Data

Psychology Business or Management

Highest Degree Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate

n: 24 32 128 14 62 74

Percentile:

90th $125,500 $96,100 $160,000 $155,171 $191,000 $255,000

75th 89,250 79,250 115,500 119,015 136,500 195,350

50th 72,000 65,000 85,324 94,050 104,434 154,750 25th 61,500 57,000 70,000 73,965 92,356 123,750

10th 51,117 53,000 63,900 71,000 83,300 100,000

Mean: 80,073 68,481 98,989 101,312 118,281 169,172

Weighted Data

Psychology Business or Management

Highest Degree Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate

n: 25 33 136 13 65 79

Percentile:

90th $125,935 $97,000 $172,200 $154,752 $211,846 $315,000

75th 92,000 84,326 124,056 113,000 144,267 224,092

50th 73,832 66,900 93,000 93,998 107,000 160,000 25th 63,732 58,834 72,000 75,175 94,549 128,000

10th 54,610 53,000 66,806 71,047 84,166 99,586

Mean: 83,457 71,106 106,175 100,323 123,198 179,405 Note. Doctoral respondents only. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. Figure 7. 2012 primary income by type of university or college department and highest degree offered.



45




46

Unweighted Data

Psychology

Assistant Professor

Associate Professor Professor

Department Chair

Distinguished or Chaired Professor

n: 63 50 48 10 8 Percentile:

90th $84,360 $112,300 $171,200 $255,200 a 75th 75,000 90,625 136,000 144,500 $234,488 50th 68,500 78,000 103,773 115,000 146,580 25th 61,000 66,250 84,250 104,450 102,000 10th 53,493 60,000 66,488 85,850 a Mean: 68,070 83,004 110,982 131,710 159,601

Business or Management

Assistant Professor


Department Chair


n: 53 40 27 11 15 Percentile:

90th $155,700 $195,475 $229,200 $219,000 $331,270

75th 135,500 157,375 185,000 193,164 315,000

50th 104,000 134,746 128,000 143,000 232,000

25th 85,500 104,217 106,000 99,500 203,000

10th 75,400 90,698 91,100 74,400 153,600 Mean: 109,983 136,238 147,201 145,455 241,830



47

Weighted Data

Psychology

Assistant Professor


Department Chair


n: 52 53 62 11 10 Percentile:

90th $84,694 $113,000 $170,341 $266,000 249,596 75th 75,000 93,079 138,000 190,794 247,651 50th 69,652 78,848 105,000 120,153 176,592 25th 61,871 67,686 87,776 109,623 121,302 10th 54,019 60,000 66,885 86,551 82,196 Mean: 68,470 83,911 112,045 147,980 171,573

Business or Management

Assistant Professor


Department Chair


n: 43 41 37 12 20 Percentile:

90th $159,557 $194,685 $229,806 $214,179 $335,062

75th 135,969 157,124 185,000 193,407 316,112

50th 104,181 122,656 128,000 143,000 233,525

25th 84,939 104,252 107,054 107,607 209,259

10th 75,313 91,681 93,567 70,000 160,000 Mean: 110,153 134,568 151,906 146,828 249,574

Note. Doctoral respondents only. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data, as titled. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. aNot enough cases to report these percentiles. Figure 8. 2012 primary income by type of university or college department and academic title.



48

Table 7

ANOVAs for Academic Titles by Department Type

Unweighted Weighted df F p df F p

Academia Title

Assistant Professor

1

114 84.79 .000

1

93 67.28 .000

Associate Professor

1

88 53.57 .000

1 93

52.38 .000

Professors

1

73 10.75 .002

1 97

15.17 .000

Distinguished or Chaired Professors

1

21 9.06 .007

1

28 11.06 .002



49




50

Unweighted Data

Entry- Consultant, Senior First-Line Manager/ Manager/ Vice Senior President

Level Researcher, Level Supervisor Director Director President Vice or CEO

Practitioner HR/IO Non-HR/IO President

n: 17 99 169 46 105 23 40 19 31

Percentiles:

90th $98,000 $155,500 $165,000 $160,450 $203,600 $180,000 $278,500 $400,000 $390,000

75th 84,000 116,000 135,250 141,000 166,415 160,000 243,750 340,000 250,000

50th 77,368 96,000 110,000 121,250 140,000 133,200 202,500 222,000 196,000

25th 71,406 80,600 95,000 103,625 120,000 112,000 172,000 182,500 125,000

10th 51,000 75,000 88,000 88,500 105,058 97,000 160,500 137,000 60,000

Mean: 77,408 117,449 121,390 122,400 148,642 137,648 215,750 265,763 208,831

Weighted Data

Entry- Consultant, Senior First-Line Manager/ Manager/ Vice Senior President

Level Researcher, Level Supervisor Director Director President Vice or CEO

Practitioner HR/IO Non-HR/IO President

n: 13 93 160 42 102 24 42 23 37 Percentiles:

90th $103,127 $170,000 $177,191 $159,721 $209,079 $180,000 $274,536 $400,000 $400,000

75th 84,451 130,000 139,000 142,474 167,554 170,000 225,000 346,583 250,000

50th 77,845 99,514 113,874 123,000 140,000 139,509 200,000 217,500 198,096

25th 71,871 83,389 97,555 104,000 120,000 119,224 172,000 175,500 125,000

10th 52,546 75,000 90,000 89,531 106,605 100,232 160,584 134,985 89,552 Mean: 77,369 125,254 126,283 123,237 149,006 142,461 212,587 264,165 215,465

Note. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. Figure 9. 2012 primary income in private sector, nonprofit, and government organizations by job level for doctoral degree respondents.



51



52

Unweighted Data

Entry- Consultant, Senior First-Line Manager/ Manager/ Vice President

Level Researcher, Level Supervisor Director Director President or CEO

Practitioner HR/IO Non-HR/IO

n: 26 57 40 10 16 7 5 5

Percentiles:

90th $72,900 $98,508 $159,000 $148,750 $186,500 a a a

75th 65,721 88,500 112,168 118,375 160,500 $138,616 a a

50th 55,500 72,570 95,500 103,500 103,187 112,000 $150,000 $120,000

25th 48,956 59,000 84,250 79,125 79,000 63,000 a a

10th 39,600 50,844 70,069 52,500 65,750 a a a

Mean: 56,654 74,431 107,147 100,550 116,962 102,374 159,800 206,200

Weighted Data

Entry- Consultant, Senior First-Line Manager/ Manager/ Vice President

Level Researcher, Level Supervisor Director Director President or CEO

Practitioner HR/IO Non-HR/IO

n: 21 49 39 11 15 7 4 6

Percentiles:

90th $74,208 $99,425 $159,345 $150,000 $188,587 a a a

75th 67,231 88,628 112,396 118,042 166,566 $141,231 a $275,346

50th 55,976 72,013 95,994 104,000 109,465 114,437 a 166,262

25th 48,970 60,060 82,648 86,868 80,307 64,041 a 101,746

10th 40,778 51,345 69,457 63,832 72,513 a a a

Mean: 57,069 74,636 107,211 104,308 120,136 105,551 a 166,262 Note. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. There were too few Senior Vice Presidents to present their data. aNot enough cases to report these percentiles. Figure 10. 2012 primary income in private sector, nonprofit, and government organizations by job level, for master’s degree respondents.



53




54

Unweighted Data

Sole

Proprietor Partner Principal

Primary Shareholder

Minority Shareholder

Private Sector

Non-Owner

Nonprofit/ University/ Government

n: 42 15 11 5 11 304 493 Percentiles

90th $385,000 $360,000 $384,000 a $241,000 $209,500 $175,600

75th 258,250 250,000 280,000 a 200,000 159,500 138,000

50th 183,000 165,000 205,000 $190,000 151,000 119,701 102,546

25th 118,750 112,000 130,000 a 130,000 968,09 78,511

10th 46,500 97,694 90,400 a 104,800 82,000 64,700

Mean: 209,851 191,574 212,091 181,800 161,727 139,187 114,401

Weighted Data

Sole

Proprietor Partner Principal

Primary Shareholder

Minority Shareholder

Private Sector

Non-Owner

Nonprofit/ University/ Government

n: 50 16 11 5 11 283 511

Percentiles

90th $400,000 $425,034 $399,873 a $240,847 $210,000 $191,571

75th 270,803 250,000 280,000 a 200,000 165,000 145,000

50th 196,021 165,000 201,000 $190,681 156,349 125,000 107,000

25th 122,888 113,980 135,810 a 130,000 100,000 82,651

10th 50,000 96,841 95,776 a 104,672 85,0000 67,000

Mean: 219,977 197,746 214,545 182,270 164,356 145,420 120,435

Note. Doctoral degree respondents only. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. aNot enough cases to report these percentiles. Figure 11. 2012 primary income by ownership level.



55

Table 8

Certifications

Certifications Number of Respondents

with Certifications Percent of Respondents

with Certifications License in Psychology 55 3.5%

Other HR Professional Certification 14 1.0% Other non-HR and non-Psychology Professional Certification

13 0.9%

Coaching Certification 7 0.2%

Other Psychology Certification 3 0.2% Other Certifications 2 0.2%



56

Table 9

Starting Salaries in 2012 (Unweighted)


Industrial-Organizational

Psychology

Human Resources/

Organizational Behavior


Psychology

Human Resources/


n: 47 9 60 10

Percentile:

90th $92,000 a $100,000 $150,000

75th 70,000 $144,000 90,000 127,500

50th 64,000 80,000 78,000 83,000 25th 50,000 57,557 72,000 64,000

10th 47,000 a 60,200 16,338

Mean: 65,521 95,901 81,815 87,704 aNot enough cases to report these percentiles.



57

Table 10

Starting Salaries in 2012 (Weighted)



Psychology

Human Resources/



Psychology

Human Resources/


n: 45 8 59 11

Percentile:

90th $89,966 a $100,000 $150,000

75th 68,786 $142,968 89,086 145,476

50th 61,592 78,873 76,000 85,728 25th 50,000 56,893 68,772 70,000

10th 47,325 a 56,629 27,150

Mean: 64,748 94,560 78,833 93,873 aNot enough cases to report these percentiles.



58

Table 11

Starting Salaries in 2011 (Unweighted)



Psychology

Human Resources/



Psychology

Human Resources/


n: 36 4 34 5

Percentile:

90th $85,000 a $108,500 a

75th 71,500 a 82,750 a

50th 60,000 a 75,000 $75,000 25th 52,625 a 70,000 a

10th 43,875 a 67,000 a

Mean: 63,910 a 80,437 77,091 aNot enough cases to report these percentiles.



59

Table 12

Starting Salaries in 2011 (Weighted)



Psychology

Human Resources/



Psychology

Human Resources/


n: 36 3 34 5

Percentile:

90th $84,604 a $108,025 a

75th 71,551 a 82,506 a

50th 60,000 a 75,012 $79,220 25th 52,500 a 70,048 a

10th 42,196 a 69,003 a

Mean: 62,940 a 80,661 86,719 aNot enough cases to report these percentiles.



60

Table 13

Bonus as a Percentage of Salary by Bonus Type (Unweighted)

Sign-On or Recruiting Retention

Individual Performance

Group, Unit, or Department Performance

Organizational Performance

Special Project Other

n: 7 7 107 7 62 7 13

Percentiles:

90th a a 23.7% a 34.2% a 65.6%

75th 8.7% 10.3% 11.9% 11.8% 21.5% 12.5% 7.7%

50th 8.0% 8.8% 4.0% 5.0% 7.3% 10.1% 3.0%

25th 3.4% 6.0% 2.0% 3.0% 2.4% 1.9% 1.7%

10th a a 1.0% a 1.3% a 0.4%

Mean: 8.3% 8.0% 9.4% 8.2% 12.7% 9.3% 12.0%

Note. Based on respondents who reported receiving only a single type of bonus. Doctoral respondents only. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. aNot enough cases to report these percentiles.



61

Table 14

Bonus as a Percentage of Salary by Bonus Type (Weighted)

Sign-On or Recruiting Retention

Individual Performance

Group, Unit, or Department Performance

Organizational Performance

Special Project Other

n: 6 6 104 6 59 7 15

Percentiles:

90th a a 25.4% a 37.6% a 55.4%

75th 8.7% 10.3% 12.6% 15.9% 21.7% 13.7% 7.5%

50th 7.9% 8.8% 4.1% 5.4% 8.0% 8.5% 2.9%

25th 3.3% 6.4% 2.0% 3.4% 2.5% 0.7% 1.6%

10th a a 1.0% a 1.3% a 0.5%

Mean: 7.9% 8.2% 10.1% 8.8% 13.3% 8.6% 10.8%

Note. Based on respondents who reported receiving only a single type of bonus. Doctoral respondents only. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. aNot enough cases to report these percentiles.



62



63

Unweighted Data

Same Employer for Same Job

Same Employer Increase in

Responsibility

Same Employer for a Promotion

n: 417 17 72

Percentile:

90th 7.0% 25.6% 17.5%

75th 4.3% 12.5% 12.9%

50th 3.0% 8.0% 9.6% 25th 2.5% 4.0% 5.7%

10th 1.6% 3.8% 4.0%

Mean: 4.0% 10.1% 10.1%

Weighted Data



Responsibility


n: 418 15 68

Percentile:

90th 7.0% 25.5% 17.7%

75th 4.1% 13.9% 13.0%

50th 3.0% 8.0% 9.7% 25th 2.4% 4.1% 5.7%

10th 1.5% 3.9% 4.0%

Mean: 3.9% 10.2% 10.2% Note. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. There was too little data to report for pay raises for a similar job at a new employer, a higher level job at a new employer, or a transfer. Figure 12. 2012 pay raises as a percentage of base salary by type of pay raise, for doctoral degree respondents.



64



65

Unweighted Data



Responsibility


n: 98 11 16

Percentile:

90th 10.0% 44.7% 25.0%

75th 6.1% 20.0% 14.4%

50th 3.9% 6.7% 7.9% 25th 3.0% 5.0% 4.3%

10th 2.0% 3.8% 3.0%

Mean: 5.1% 14.2% 10.7%

Weighted Data



Responsibility


n: 89 9 15

Percentile:

90th 10.0% a 25.0%

75th 6.0% 20.4% 13.8%

50th 3.9% 7.2% 7.6% 25th 3.0% 5.0% 4.0%

10th 2.0% a 3.0%

Mean: 5.1% 13.9% 10.0% Note. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. There was too little data to report for pay raises for a similar job at a new employer, a transfer, or other reasons. aNot enough cases to report these percentiles.

Figure 13. 2012 pay raises as a percentage of base salary by type of pay raise, for master’s degree respondents.



66



67

Unweighted Data

Extra Teaching

Consulting Speaking Writing Product or Test

Development

Internal Research

Grants

External Research Grants

Other Total

Supplementary Income

n: 91 117 27 40 5 47 30 17 198

Percentiles:

90th $39,000 $50,000 $26,000 $24,500 a $34,400 $38,500 $65,117 $70,847

75th 16,400 26,250 10,000 6,375 a 16,000 20,778 41,500 45,000

50th 10,000 10,000 4,000 2,400 $1,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 17,125

25th 5,000 4,250 1,000 850 a 5,000 7,125 3,000 9,000

10th 3,000 1,500 500 279 a 2,020 3,147 1,300 4,990

Mean: 17,451 20,218 9,059 7,216 1,200 13,966 16,363 22,034 30,377



68

Weighted Data

Extra Teaching

Consulting Speaking Writing Product or Test

Development

Internal Research

Grants

External Research Grants

Other Total


n: 97 131 33 53 5 45 34 19 214

Percentiles:

90th $40,000 $51,121 $25,000 $27,061 a $35,151 $40,000 $65,592 $79,000

75th 17,772 27,500 10,000 6,426 a 16,054 23,111 40,931 46,000

50th 11,000 10,000 6,537 3,000 $1,000 9,360 10,000 10,000 17,571

25th 5,000 4,803 1,000 876 a 5,000 7,500 3,463 9,000

10th 2,983 1,679 500 254 a 2,103 3,100 1,419 5,000

Mean: 17,066 22,252 9,589 8,251 1,348 13,851 17,053 23,688 32,587

Note. Doctoral respondents only. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. aNot enough cases to report these percentiles.

Figure 14. 2012 supplementary income by type for academics.



69



70

Teaching Consulting Writing Total


n: 52 27 11 84

Percentiles:

90th $25,000 $71,000 $50,000 $36,500

75th 11,500 15,000 5,000 15,000

50th 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,200

25th 3,125 2,500 500 3,000

10th 2,150 1,000 310 1,000

Mean: 10,474 20,848 8,423 14,907

Teaching Consulting Writing Total


n: 52 26 12 84

Percentiles:

90th $30,832 $75,000 $57,841 $40,000

75th 12,000 17,684 5,000 15,285

50th 5,000 7,527 5,000 5,000

25th 3,100 2,770 500 3,000

10th 2,165 1,000 300 1,114

Mean: 10,883 22,944 9,351 15,771

Note. Doctoral respondents only. The figure shows weighted data; tables present both unweighted and weighted data. There was too little data to report for income earned from speaking, product or test development, and other sources.

Figure 15. 2012 supplementary income by type for practitioners.



71

Table 15

Impact of Recession

Impact of Recession Number of

Respondents Affected

Percent of Respondents

Affected Salary freeze 200 16.3% Working at a job below qualifications

65 5.3%

Furlough 53 4.3% Salary reduction 46 3.8% Job loss 32 2.6%

running head: siop income survey 2012 income and employment survey

Documents