2006 Income and Employment Survey Results for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

The survey’s purpose was to collect information on income levels of industrial and organizational psychologists in SIOP in 2006 and on employment and background variables that would help interpret income data. Survey instructions were e-mailed on January 22, 2007 to all Members, Associates, International Affilitates, and Fellows with active e-mail addresses on record (n = 3,304; active e-mail addresses are not available for 18 members, and the survey did not reach over 100 members because of e-mail, mailbox, or Internet issues). The survey was electronically available until February 19; 1,129 individuals responded. This was the second SIOP income survey to be administered electronically. The 34.2% response rate was the same as that for the 2003 survey but lower than the rates of 35.3% in 2000, 43.6% in 1997, 58.3% in 1994, 72.8% in 1988, and 48.0% in 1982. Declining response rates in recent years are a problem with survey administration in general, and this may explain some of the decline for this survey.

Results

Summary
Key findings for unweighted 2006 data are as follows:

Median incomes for the sample were higher than in 2003
Median primary income for women was 15.0% lower and mean income 20.4% lower than that for men
Median primary income was highest for those 55 and older
Mean and median incomes for owners were higher than for nonowners
The highest median incomes were in Manhattan, other New York metro, San Francisco/San Jose metro, and Boston metro areas
The two biggest employer types were universities or colleges (39.0%) and private sector consulting organizations (22.9%)
The pharmaceutical industry had the highest median income as compared to other industries
There were significant differences between incomes in psychology and business departments for assistant professors, associate professors, and full professors
Incomes were significantly higher for academicians in business or management departments as compared to psychology departments
The mean amount contributed by an employer to defined contribution plans was 7.0% of income; the median was 6.0%
The mean amount to be provided by an employer through defined benefit plans was 44.1% of income; the median was 50.0%
The most prevalent type of bonus was an individual performance bonus
The largest bonuses were for group, department, or unit performance, with a mean of 58.9% of primary income and a median of 6.0%
The largest pay raises were for a higher level job at a new employer, with a mean of 29.7% of primary income and a median of 25.0%

Sample Characteristics
For the unweighted sample, percentages of respondents by type of employer (53.6% private sector, 34.3% academic, 7.0% public sector, and 5.2% other) were similar to those in the SIOP membership population in order of size (47.9% private sector, 41.0% academic, 6.6% public sector, and 4.5% other), but the academic population seemed to be somewhat underrepresented and the private sector overrepresented. Table 1 compares the 2006 sample to previous survey samples on several background variables. The percentage of women has been increasing since 1982. Percentages by type of SIOP membership on the 2006 survey were similar to those for the 2003 survey, as well as to types of membership within SIOP as a whole (12.3% Associates, 80.7% Members or International Affiliates, and 7.0% Fellows). Several sample characteristics were similar to the 2003 survey but different from previous surveys. For example, percentages of the sample working part time (3.2% in 2006 and 5.0% in 2003) and respondents living in metro New York City (7.6% in 2006 and 7.0% in 2003) were lower in 2003 and 2006 surveys than in the 1997 and 2000 surveys. Surveys from 1994 to 2000 had an increasing proportion of respondents who received their doctorates 25 or more years ago (15.0% in 1994, 19.0% in 1997, and 25.0% in 2000). The 2006 and 2003 surveys reverse this trend and instead have higher percentages of respondents who received their doctorates within the last 5 to 9 years. The percentage that received their highest degree since 1997 was also higher for 2006 respondents (51.9%) than for the SIOP membership (37.4%). Percentages with doctorates (87.0%) and master’s degrees (13.0%), however, were identical for 2006 and 2003 respondents and for the SIOP membership.

Sample weighting. Given differences in the 2006 sample relative to previous samples and the SIOP membership, we ran analyses with the 2006 data, as well as with 2006 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 is available for the current SIOP membership population. It was selected as the weighting variable as it is significant (p < .05) and highly correlated with 2006 primary income in the unweighted sample (r = .42). In addition, the 2006 sample differed considerably from the current SIOP membership population on this variable. Years since highest degree was also highly correlated with other variables that were highly related to 2006 primary income (correlations for years since highest degree are .87 with age, .89 with years work experience in industrial and organizational psychology, .67 with academic rank, .65 with years with 2006 employer, .57 with academic tenure, .42 with being an owner, and .41 with nonacademic job level). Although the survey sample also differed from the SIOP membership on employment sector, employment sector was not as highly related to income (r = .25, p < .001) as years since highest degree. Though several other variables have larger or similar correlations with income as years since highest degree, we did not have data on them for the SIOP membership population and could not use them to weight the data.

With the weighting, we found percentages on several sample characteristics were closer to sample characteristics for surveys before 2003 (see last column in Table 1). Weighted results generally provide a better representation for the SIOP membership population; however, unweighted results are also presented for comparison. Weighting substantially changed the percentage of respondents who received their highest degree after 1997 (37.4% in the SIOP membership population, 51.9% with unweighted data, and 38.3% with weighted data). Weighting marginally reduced the disparity between the sample and the SIOP membership population in the sector of employment: for academia (41.0% in the SIOP membership; 34.3% unweighted, and 36.3% weighted); the private sector (47.9% in the SIOP population, 53.6% unweighted, and 51.6% weighted); the public sector (6.6% in the SIOP population, 7.0% unweighted, and 6.9% weighted); and other sectors (4.5% in the SIOP population, 5.2% unweighted, and 5.3% weighted). As Table 1 shows, the percentages for the types of SIOP membership as well as for type of degree were similar in the SIOP membership population and in unweighted data; weighting only slightly changed these percentages.

Income Levels
Highest degree obtained. Respondents were asked to provide their 2006 and 2005 total salary or personal income, not including bonuses or other variable pay, from their primary employer. As shown in Table 2, the median incomes for respondents with doctorates and master’s degrees were higher for 2006 and 2005 than for 2003. This is in line with the upward trend for median income survey data prior to 2002 for those with doctorates and reverses the drop in 2003 and 2002 data for this group. For those with a master’s, median income dipped in 1997, 2002, and 2003, relative to the prior survey.

Gender. For unweighted data, Table 2 shows that median primary income for women was 15.0% lower than that for men in 2006 and 17.9% lower in 2005. On prior surveys, the median income for women was 17.4% lower than that for men in 2003, 17.2% lower in 2000, 21.7% lower in 1997, 22.0% lower in 1994, 19.4% lower in 1988, and 18.6% lower in 1982. The mean primary income for women in both 2006 and 2005 ($95,270 and $90,447, respectively) was significantly (t(1073) = 6.51, p < .001, two-tailed, unequal variances, and t(972) = 5.18, p < .001, two-tailed, unequal variances, respectively) lower than the mean primary income for men ($120,416 in 2006 and $112,923 in 2005). The mean income for women was 20.4% lower in 2006 than that for men, 14.7% lower in 2005, 23.6% lower in 2003, and 36.8% lower in 2000. Weighted medians (shown under the sample size for years from 2002 to 2006 in Table 2) were higher for both men and women in 2006 and 2005 than unweighted medians. Mean weighted incomes were also higher for both men ($125,062 in 2006 and $118,972 in 2005) and women ($99,662 in 2006 and $96,006 in 2005) than unweighted means. However, based on weighted data, women’s median incomes were still 20.0% lower than median incomes for men for 2006 and 20.7% lower for 2005, and their means were 20.3% lower for 2006 and 19.3% lower for 2005.

Age. As Table 2 shows, unweighted median primary income was highest for the 55+ group in both 2006 and 2005. Unweighted median incomes for all age groups were higher in 2006 and 2005 than what they had been in 2003, except for respondents from 45–49 and 50–54. In comparing unweighted and weighted medians by age for 2006 and 2005, there is no clear pattern—some weighted medians are lower, some are the same, and some are higher than 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 2006 income because we did not collect descriptive data on these variables for 2005 and cannot assume that such characteristics were the same for both 2005 and 2006.)

Years since doctorate. Figure 1 shows weighted 2006 incomes from the primary employer for respondents with doctorates by the number of years since they received their degree. Respondents who received doctorates 25 years ago or more had the highest mean and the highest median income. Since the highest degree for 87.0% of the sample was the doctorate, this variable would be the same as the variable used to weight the data (years since highest degree) for most of the sample, so results are fairly similar for weighted and unweighted data.

Geographic location of employment. Specific metro areas listed on the survey were chosen because they are typically the highest paid in the U.S. With unweighted data, Manhattan had the highest 2006 median income ($143,000), followed by other New York metro ($132,600), San Francisco/ San Jose metro ($128,000), and Boston metro ($121,500) areas. With weighting (Figure 2), medians for all areas went up, except for respondents from Canada, which went down slightly. Based on either unweighted or weighted data, the four areas with the top medians in 2006 were also among those with the top medians in 2003: Manhattan, other New York metro, Boston metro, and San Francisco/San Jose metro areas.

Type of principal employment. Of respondents with doctorates, over half the respondents in the unweighted sample indicated that their principal employer was either a university or college (39.0%, n = 370) or private-sector consulting organization (22.9%, n = 217). In the unweighted data, the employer type with the highest median income was pharmaceuticals, followed by individual/self-employed consulting, other private sector, energy production, and information technology/computers. With weighting, the two biggest employer categories were still universities and colleges (40.5%) and private-sector consulting organizations (21.0%). Based on weighted data (see Figure 3), pharmaceuticals still had the highest median income, followed by other private sector, retail, energy production, and manufacturing, but individual consulting, which was in second place in unweighted data, dropped to eighth place, and information technology dropped to sixth 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 $70,482, n = 30; master’s $86,049, n = 116; doctorate $105,014, n = 217; F(3,362) = 7.39, p < .001). In addition, the unweighted mean income in business or management departments ($118,877, n = 146) was significantly higher (F(1,331) = 70.1, p < .001) than the unweighted mean in psychology departments ($77,871, n = 187). For weighted data, mean and median incomes at psychology and business or management departments based on the highest degree offered were:

Psychology department, highest degree bachelor’s: mean $73,492, median $64,369, (n = 23)
Psychology department, highest degree master’s: mean $64,042, median $58,558, (n = 43)
Psychology department, highest degree doctorate: mean $95,982, median $75,000, (n = 114)
Business department, highest degree master’s: mean $100,490, median $93,201, (n = 58)
Business department, highest degree doctorate: mean $131,511, median $126,340 (n = 82)

Too few respondents (n < 5) reported working at business or management departments with bachelor’s as the highest degree so their data are not disclosed.

The unweighted mean income did not differ significantly by accreditation status (accredited $96,755, n = 334; not accredited $82,919, n = 29; F(1,361) = 2.20, p = .14). The unweighted mean income also did not differ significantly (F(1,367) = .06, p = .81) for private ($97,011, n = 95) and public institutions ($95,640, n = 274).

Academic titles by department type. Figure 4 shows weighted 2006 income for psychology and business/management departments for the five academic titles that had adequate sample sizes. Distinguished or chaired professors had the highest primary incomes compared to other ranks across departments. There were significant differences between incomes in psychology and business/management departments for assistant professors (F(1,102) = 120.88, p < .001 unweighted and F(1,70) = 78.72, p < .001 weighted), associate professors (F(1,93) = 77.09, p < .001 unweighted and F(1,89) = 71.45, p < .001 weighted), and full professors (F(1,66) = 13.76, p < .001 unweighted and F(1,86) = 16.19, p < .001 weighted). Income for department chairs in psychology as compared to department chairs in business was marginally significant with unweighted data (F(1,15) = 4.27, p = .056) and not significant with weighted data (F(1,18) = 1.97, p = .18). Income for distinguished and chaired professors was not significantly different for unweighted data (F(1,26) = .32, p = .58) but was significantly different when weighted (F(1,31) = 5.47, p < .05). Tables with Figure 4 (see next page) present both weighted and unweighted results.

Nonacademic job titles. Figure 5 shows weighted 2006 primary income by job level for those in private sector, nonprofit, and government organizations. Tables with the figure show weighted and unweighted results. Weighted results are higher than unweighted data, with the exception of means and medians for entry and president/CEO levels, the mean for consultant, practitioner or researcher, and the median for senior consultant, practitioner or researcher.

Status as a partner, principal, or owner. In the unweighted 2006 sample, 10.0% were sole proprietors or owners, 3.8% partners, 1.7% principals, 2.5% primary shareholders (i.e., owners of 20.0% or more of a corporation), and 4.0% were minority shareholders (i.e., owners of less than 20% of a corporation). These percentages were higher than the 4.0% sole proprietors or owners, 2.0% partners, 1.2% principals, and 1.3% primary shareholders in the unweighted 2003 sample. Overall, they amount to a 9.5% increase in ownership since 2003, even without considering other types of owners, such as minority stockholders, which was not a category in the 2003 survey. The table with Figure 6 shows that based on either unweighted or weighted data, mean and median primary incomes for all of these groups were higher than for non-owners. With weighting (see Figure 6), both means and medians decreased for sole proprietors and primary shareholders and increased for partners, minority shareholders, non-owners in private sector for-profit organizations, and those in not-for-profit organizations, academia and government. For principals, weighting the data decreased the mean and increased the median.

Starting salaries. With unweighted data from those who had hired new graduates in 2006 and reported the average salary of these new hires, the mean and median starting salary was:

Doctoral graduates in Industrial-Organizational Psychology: mean $74,491 and median $73,000 (n = 91)
Master’s degree graduates in Industrial-Organizational Psychology: mean $55,816 and median $55,000 (n = 72)
Doctoral graduates in Human Resources/Organizational Behavior: mean $88,042 and median $93,500 (n = 20)
Master’s degree graduates in Human Resources/Organizational Behavior: mean $55,615 and median $65,000 (n = 13)

For 29 respondents who self-reported that they had obtained a doctorate in the past year and worked in their current position 1 year or less, the 2006 unweighted mean primary income was $71,850 and median was $70,000. For nine respondents who self-reported that they had obtained a master’s degree in the past year and worked in their current position 1 year or less, the 2006 unweighted mean primary income was $44,417 and median was $47,000.

Retirement, Bonus, and Raise Information
Retirement plans. For 2006, 76.0% (n = 858) of respondents indicated that their employer offers a defined contribution plan, and 28.0% (n = 316) indicated that their employer provides a defined benefit plan. For 617 respondents who reported the percentage of income that their employer contributed to a defined contribution plan in 2006, the unweighted mean amount contributed was 7.0% and median was 6.0%; the weighted mean was 7.2% and median was 6.0%. For 84 respondents who reported the percentage of income that their employer will provide after they retire through a defined benefit plan, the unweighted mean amount to be provided was 44.1% and median was 50.0%; the weighted mean was 43.4% and median was 49.0%.

Bonuses and stock options. The percentage of respondents (grouped by sector) who reported receiving a bonus in 2006 was:

Private sector: 72.4%
Nonprofit: 58.7%
Government and military: 42.1% (though only 10.0% in local government and 16.7% in state government reported receiving a bonus)
Self-employed: 14%
University or college: 11.0%

Considering all bonuses awarded, with some respondents getting more than one bonus, the percentages of respondents who received a specific type of bonus in 2006 were:

68.3%: Individual bonus
63.4%: Organizational bonus
30.5%: Group, department, or unit performance bonus
5.1%: Special projects bonus
4.4%: Signing or recruiting bonus
4.2%: Retention bonus
3.3%: Other reasons
2.6%: Exercising stock options

To examine bonus size by type (as a percent of reported 2006 primary income), data from 231 respondents reporting the size of only a single type of bonus were used. The average size of each type of bonus was:

Group, department, or unit performance bonus: 58.9% mean and 6.0% median (n = 14) unweighted; 47.4% mean and 6.0% median (n = 13) weighted
Signing or recruiting bonus: 20.8% mean and 14.5% median (n = 8) unweighted; 22.2% mean and 21.6% median (n = 5) weighted
Organizational performance bonus: 15.8% mean and 7.5% median
(n = 82) unweighted; 18.6% mean and 9.2% median (n = 74) weighted
Individual performance bonus: 13.0% mean and 6.6% median (n = 95) unweighted; 13.6% mean and 6.2% median (n = 78) weighted
Other bonuses: 5.9% mean and 2.6% median (n = 12) unweighted; 5.7% mean and 2.0% median weighted (n = 9)
Retention bonus: 4.5% mean and 3.1% median (n = 8) unweighted; 4.7% mean and 3.4% median (n = 7) weighted
Special project bonus: 4.0% mean and 2.4% median (n = 6) unweighted

(Too few respondents (n < 5) reported receiving a bonus in the form of stock options, or for a special project [in weighted data only], receiving a degree, or employee referral, so their data are not reported.)

Pay raises. A majority of respondents (79.9%) reported receiving a pay raise in 2006. The average size of each type of pay raise (as a percent of base salary before the raise) was:

A higher level job at a new employer: 29.7% mean and 25.0% median (n = 6) unweighted; 28.0% mean and 25.0% median weighted (n = 5)
A job transfer to another job or location at the same employer: 14.7% mean and 10.0% median (n = 7) unweighted (weighted cases are too few (n < 5) to report on)
An increase in responsibility with the same employer: 14.6% mean and 11.7% median (n = 24) unweighted; 15.0% mean and 11.7% median (n = 22) weighted
A promotion with the same employer: 12.2% mean and 10.0% median (n = 95) unweighted; 11.9% mean and 10.0% median (n = 76) weighted
A job with similar responsibility at a new employer: 9.1% mean and 6.0% median (n = 8), unweighted; 8.6% mean and 6.7% median (n = 5) weighted
The same job at the same employer: 5.5% mean and 4.0% median (n = 684) unweighted; 5.4% mean and 4.0% median (n = 630) weighted

Regression Analyses
We analyzed the relationships of personal and employment characteristics with income from the primary employer using unweighted data in separate regression equations for respondents who worked in universities or colleges and for those working for nonacademic employers because we had collected data on several different variables for the two groups (e.g., type of academic department, job level, ownership status for non-academics). The equation for the academic sample accounted for more variance in 2006 income from the primary employer (R² = .77, R²_adj = .74, F(38,236) = 20.97, p < .001) than the equation for the nonacademic sample (R² = .55, R²_adj = .50, F(54,533) = 12.00, p < .001).

For the academic sample, number of years worked for the primary employer, working in Manhattan (compared to areas not listed on the survey that are in the U.S.), rank as a lecturer (compared to rank as an assistant professor), and working in departments whose highest offered degree was a bachelor’s or master’s (compared to those that offer a doctorate) had significant negative coefficients (p < .05). Coefficients were significantly positive (p < .05) for the academic sample for years since receiving a doctoral or master’s degree; weeks of annual employment with the primary employer; hours worked per week for the primary employer; number of employees supervised; status as a SIOP Fellow (compared to status as a SIOP Member); working in the Boston metro area (compared to areas not listed on the survey that are in the U.S.); rank as a distinguished or chaired professor, department chair, assistant dean or dean, deputy provost or provost (compared to rank as assistant professor); and working in a business/management or industrial relations department (compared to a psychology department).

In the equation for nonacademicians, age and working in the military or state government (compared to consulting organizations) had significant negative coefficients (p < .05). Coefficients were significantly positive (p < .05) for nonacademicians for years since obtaining a doctoral or master’s degree; hours worked per week for the primary employer; number of employees supervised; top degree obtained; working in Manhattan, another New York metro, or the Philadelphia metro area (compared to areas not listed on the survey that are in the U.S.); having retail as one’s primary employer (compared to a consulting organization); being a vice-president or senior vice-president (compared to a senior consultant, researcher or practitioner); and being some type of owner.

Discussion

The 2006 survey was the second SIOP income and employment survey to be administered via the Internet. The 2006 response rate was very similar to that for the 2003 survey, and the two samples were similar on several characteristics. However, the 2006 and 2003 samples were considerably different from samples prior to 2003 in terms of percentages of men and woman, and different from samples prior to 2003 and the SIOP membership on years since receiving one’s highest degree. Although mean and median incomes in 2005 and 2006 were higher than those in 2003, the sample was weighted in order to better reflect the SIOP membership population. The 2006 sample was weighted to have the same percentages by year since highest degree as in the SIOP membership population. As in the 2003 survey, separate regression equations for those employed in academia and for those employed in the private sector, nonprofit sector, and government were analyzed for 2006 data. Results suggest that factors influencing income may differ by the economic sector in which one is employed.

Authors’ Notes

The Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) developed and analyzed the 2006 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 Questar, who programmed and administered the online survey. We would also like to acknowledge the involvement of David Nershi and Larry Nader in the SIOP Administrative Office and Rob Silzer, Pauline Velez, Alana Cober, Maury Buster, and Van Latham, who reviewed drafts of the survey and this report." A more detailed version of this report will be available at www.siop.org in late June or early July. Please address correspondence to the first author at HumRRO, 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400, Alexandria, VA 22314 or at ckhanna@humrro.org.

2006 Income and Employment Survey Results forthe Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

2006 Income and Employment Survey Results for
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology