SIOP Income and Employment: Income and Employment of SIOP Members in 2000
David A. Katkowski and Gina J. Medsker
Human Resources Research Organization
Click here for the complete Salary Survey
referred to throughout the following article. To access the
survey (a pdf file), you must have Acrobat 4. You can get Acrobat 4 here.
The Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO) conducted the 2000 Income and Employment Survey of the membership of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology on behalf of the SIOP Executive Committee and as a service to the SIOP membership. We would like to acknowledge the support of
Jim Miller and Questar, Inc., Lee Hakel and staff in the SIOP Administrative Office, and
Nancy Tippins, SIOP president.
The 2000 survey was conducted during the first quarter of 2001 (i.e., the data were collected in 2001, but reflect income and conditions in 2000). Similar surveys were conducted in 1998, 1995, 1989, and 1983 reflecting conditions in 1997, 1994, 1988, and 1982, respectively. The 2000 survey was designed to be as similar as possible to past surveys to make replication of analyses easier; however, many new variables were added to expand information available to SIOP members. The 2000 survey was mailed on February 10, 2001 to all SIOP Members, Associate Members, and Fellows with addresses on record (n = 3,156). Reminder cards were mailed on February 27.
As of March 15, 2001, 1,115 surveys were returned, yielding a response rate of 35.3%. Data from 24 respondents were excluded because they were retired. This response rate was the lowest in all the years the survey has been conducted. The response rate has steadily declined from its high in 1988 (72.8%), with the next lowest response rate (43.6%) obtained in 1997. 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. Another possible cause may have been the addition of several items and increased length of this years survey. Our attempt to obtain more information from each respondent may have resulted in obtaining information from fewer total respondents. Yet another factor was a shorter amount of time between survey mailing and the cutoff date for survey return. We believed information would be of greater value if published earlier in 2001, so we were striving to complete analyses and writing in time for publication in the current issue, but this gave respondents less time to reply. Please note that space limitations make it impossible to present all the information gathered from the survey in this publication. Additional analyses from the 2000 survey will be presented on the SIOP Web site at
www.siop.org. Please address correspondence to either author at
HumRRO, 66 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 400, Alexandria, VA 22314 or at dkatkowski@humrro.org
or gmedsker@humrro.org.
Results
Demographic and Background Variables
Table 1 contains an analysis of the sample for several background variables. The trend of an increasing percentage of female respondents continued in 2001, as in prior years. There was little change in SIOP membership type, employment status, or location, relative to previous survey samples. As would be expected as the field matures and the baby boom generation ages, the proportion of respondents who received their doctorates 25 or more years ago has been increasing. Among respondents, 88% had a doctorate, 12% had a masters, and less than 1% had a bachelors degree. These percentages are similar to those for all SIOP members: 10.3% are Associate Members whose highest degree is a masters, and 89.8% are Members or Fellows whose highest degree is a doctorate. In addition, 87.4% of respondents were APA members; 93.3% considered Division 14 their primary APA division; and 41.4% were APS members.
Table 1. Characteristics of Samples Across Time (Cross-Sectional)
_________________________________________________________
1982 1988
1994 1997
2000
_________________________________________________________
Gender
Men
84% 79%
71% 67%
65%
Women
16% 21%
29% 33%
35%
Type of SIOP Membership
Associate
n/a
10% 6%
7% 10%
Member
n/a
82% 86%
86% 83%
Fellow
n/a
8% 9%
7% 7%
Employment Status
Employed Full-Time
n/a
87% 89%
86% 86%
Employed Part-Time
n/a
5% 3%
8%
9%
Location
Metro New York
14%
14% 11%
10% 11%
Elsewhere
86%
86% 89%
90% 89%
Years Since Doctoral Degree
02
n/a
n/a 8%
11% 2%
24
n/a
n/a 12%
13% 14%
59
23%
24% 19%
18% 19%
1014
19%
22% 18%
14% 15%
1519
14% 18%
14% 14%
13%
2024
n/a
n/a
14% 12%
25 or more
n/a
n/a
15% 19%
25%
Degree
Doctorate
n/a
n/a
n/a 92%
88%
Masters
n/a
n/a
n/a 7%
12%
Bachelors
n/a
n/a
n/a 0.3%
0.2%
Note. n/a indicates that data are not available.
Income Levels
Highest degree obtained. The median income for respondents with doctorates was $83,000 in 1999 and $90,000 in 2000 (see Table 2). Twenty-five percent earned $116,000 or more in 1999 and $125,000 or more in 2000; 10% earned $175,000 or more in 1999 and $200,000 or more in 2000. The median income for those with a masters degree also increased from $58,000 in 1999 to $67,000 in 2000. In contrast to results for those with doctorates, this was the first survey in which median salary for those with a masters had increased since the 1994 survey. Compared to those with a doctorate, those with a masters had a 4% higher median income in 1982, but this changed to a 14% lower median income for those with a masters in 1988, 16% lower in 1994, 31% lower in 1997, 30% lower in 1999, and 29% lower in 2000.
Table 2. Demographic Comparison of Median Primary Incomes
for Selected Subgroups by Year
________________________________________________________________
1982 1988
1994 1997
1999 2000
________________________________________________________________
Degree
Doctorate $42,850
$60,000 $71,000 $80,000
$83,000 $90,000
(844) (1,448)
(1,124) (1,231)
(882) (905)
Masters 43,000
51,500 59,500
55,000 58,000
67,000
(96)
(171) (104)
(99) (117)
(126)
Age*
<35
$33,000 $45,000
$50,000 $60,000 $62,000
$70,000
(148) (132)
(168) (236)
(163) (170)
3539
40,000 55,000
61,000 70,000
75,000 80,000
(193) (280)
(227) (178)
(136) (141)
4044
45,500 60,000
75,000 80,000
78,000 82,000
(152) (329)
(216) (162)
(95) (100)
4549
50,000 65,000
84,000 100,000
95,000 99,500
(92)
(262) (247)
(210) (141)
(140)
5054
53,000 65,000
85,000 91,500
91,000 100,500
(91)
(144) (140)
(196) (140)
(144)
55+
n/a
n/a
n/a 92,000
100,000 100,000
(242) (189)
(192)
Gender**
Men
$44,250 $62,000
$75,000 $83,000 $85,000
$93,000
(811) (1290)
(954) (858)
(637) (653)
Women 36,000
50,000 58,500
65,000 70,000 77,000
(150) (342)
(394) (428)
(341) (357)
Note. Numbers in parentheses are sample sizes. *Includes only respondents with a doctorate.
**Includes all respondents regardless of degree.
When the 1999 median incomes were adjusted using the Consumer Price Indexes (CPI) for 1988 and 1999 (see SIOP Web site for table), the adjusted 1999 median income was worth less for both those with doctorates ($58,937) and masters degrees ($41,185) than the actual 1988 income ($60,000 and $51,500, respectively). This suggests that the 1999 median incomes provided less purchasing power than the 1988 median incomes. The 2000 adjusted median income for those with doctorates ($61,829) was 3.1% higher than actual income in 1988, but for those with masters degrees, it was 10.6% lower ($46,028).
___________________________________________
Masters
Doctorate
_____________________________________________________________
Men
Women
Men
Women
N:
64
59
585
295
% of sample:
52%
48%
66%
34%
Percentiles:
90%
$185,000
$105,000
$225,000 $152,600
75%
85,750
85,000 135,000
105,000
50%
70,000
65,000
95,000
80,000
25%
52,250
47,000
70,000
60,000
10%
44,000
34,000
51,000
45,000
Mean ($)
86,765
70,763 147,848
93,685
5% Trimmed
Mean ($)
81,302
66,564 110,724
85,532
Note. Extreme values are not presented in the figure.
Figure 1. Descriptive statistics representing 2000 annual income by gender and highest degree obtained.
Age differences. Table 2 shows that median income was highest in 1999 for the 55 and older age group and highest for those 5054 in 2000. The median income for those 5054 was 44% higher than the median for those under 35 in 2000, 47% higher in 1999, 53% higher in 1997, 70% higher in 1994, 44% higher in 1988, and 61% higher in 1982.
Gender differences. The mean primary income for females in both 1999 and 2000 ($78,276 and $89,613, respectively) was significantly (p < .001) lower than the mean income for males ($131,345 and $141,801, respectively). In addition, the median income for females was 18% lower than the median income for males in 1999 ($70,000 vs. $85,000, respectively), and 17% lower than the median income for males in 2000 ($77,000 vs. $93,000, respectively). This result was similar to previous years: The median income for females was 19% lower than that for males in 1982 and 1988 and 22% lower in 1994 and 1997. Thus, the overall wage gap does not appear to have decreased.
Some of the discrepancy in primary income may be explained by gender differences observed in other areas. For instance, male respondents had a higher average number of years since obtaining their doctorate (18.8) than females (11.2). Male respondents were also more likely to hold doctorates than female respondents (90% versus 83%,
p < .01). However, even at the same degree level, males had higher mean and median incomes than females (See Figure 1 for 2000; Web site shows 1999 figure. The figures present the 5% trimmed mean. This is the arithmetic mean of a distribution of numbers calculated when the highest and lowest 5% of the values have been eliminated from a distribution to reduce the effect of extreme values on the mean.)
Years since doctorate. Figure 2 displays the 2000 annual income for SIOP Members with doctorates by the number of years since they received their degree. Respondents who received doctorates 25 or more years ago had the highest median in 1999 and 2000 ($105,000 and $111,000, respectively). The results in 1999 displayed a similar pattern to those in 2000 (see 1999 figure on Web site).
______________________________________________________________________________
<2
24 59
1014 1519
2024 25+
_______________________________________________________________________________
N:
15
133
176
132
117
119
213
% of Total: 2%
15% 19%
15%
13%
13%
24%
Percentile
90%
$87,000 $100,000 $150,000
$174,400 $221,000
$250,000 $327,800
75%
72,000 85,000
102,250 120,000
139,500 140,000
175,000
50%
65,000 68,000
80,000 90,000
101,000 100,000
111,000
25%
43,000 54,500
60,000 63,250
80,500 75,000
80,000
10%
19,400 45,000
45,000 50,000
56,800 54,000
57,400
Mean ($): 59,000
73,098 89,335
120,121 129,009
135,681 203,385
5% Trimmed
Mean ($): 59,111
70,019 84,494
97,082 112,881
118,515 140,422
______________________________________________________________________________
Note. Extreme values are not presented in the figure.
Figure 2. Descriptive statistics representing 2000 annual income by years
since obtaining the doctoral degree.
Geographic location of employment. The specific metro areas listed on the survey were chosen because they are typically the highest paid areas in the U.S. As on previous SIOP surveys, respondents in the total New York metro area (Manhattan and other metro New York areas combined) received higher mean incomes in both 1999 and 2000 ($132,267 and $171,972, respectively) than respondents employed in all other locations combined ($110,469 and $116,908, respectively). In 1999, the mean incomes in Manhattan ($144,195) and the San Francisco/San Jose metro areas ($135,645) were higher than for any other location and exceeded the total sample mean ($112,760) by 27.9% and 20.3%, respectively. In 2000, the mean incomes for both Manhattan ($154,279) and other New York metro areas ($183,677) were higher than that of all other locations and exceeded the total sample mean ($122,687) by 25.6% and 49.7%, respectively. In contrast to the situation for mean incomes, Boston respondents had the highest median income in both 1999 and 2000 (see Figure 3 for 2000; see Figure on Web site for 1999), followed by the San Francisco/San Jose and other New York metro areas. For both years, median incomes in each of the metro areas listed exceeded the median income for all other areas combined.
Note. Doctoral respondents only.
Sample sizes are in parentheses.
Figure
3.
2000 median incomes for doctorates as a function of location.
Type of principal employment. A majority (59%) of respondents with doctorates identified their principal employer as a consulting firm (n = 223), a doctorate-granting academic department
(n = 184), or a nondoctorate-granting academic department (n = 148). This was similar to 1997. In 1999 (see Figure 4), those who worked for an energy production company earned the highest median income, followed by respondents who worked for an information technology/computer organization. In 2000 (see Figure 5), those who worked for an information technology/computer organization earned the highest median income, followed by respondents who worked for either energy production or other industries not specified in the survey. In 1999, respondents who were self-employed (other than consulting) earned the lowest median income, and, in 2000, respondents employed in nondoctorate-granting academic departments earned the lowest median income.
Note. Doctoral respondents only.
Sample sizes are in parentheses.
Figure 4. 1999
median income for doctorates as a function of principal employer.
_________________________________________________________________
Note. Doctoral respondents only.
Sample sizes are in parentheses.
Figure 5. 2000 median income for doctorates as a function of principal
employer.
Respondents who worked in academia had a substantially lower median income than those who worked in an applied setting in both 1999 ($69,000 vs. $90,500, respectively) and 2000 ($73,000 vs. 100,000, respectively). The median starting salaries for newly graduated doctorates in academia were $51,000 in 1999 and $60,000 in 2000 and in an applied setting they were $57,000 in 1999 and $60,000 in 2000. In both years, respondents with doctorates employed in academic business departments reported higher median incomes ($81,000 in 1999 and $87,000 in 2000) than respondents employed in psychology departments ($60,000 in 1999 and $61,000 in 2000). Similar results hold for both academic institutions with a doctoral program in ones specialty area ($100,000 in 1999 and $110,000 in 2000 for business departments vs. $66,000 in 1999 and 70,000 in 2000 for psychology departments) and those without ($72,000 in 1999 and $80,000 in 2000 for business departments vs. $48,000 in 1999 and $50,000 in 2000 for psychology departments).
Supplementary income. Of respondents with doctorates, 38.1% earned supplemental income from one or more sources other than their principal employer in 2000 (see Figure 6). The median supplemental income for these respondents was $10,000; 10% of these respondents earned $80,800 or more in supplemental income. Consulting was the most frequent source of additional income, but the other category of supplementary income resulted in the highest median and mean income.
____________________________________________________________
Teaching
Consulting
Speaking Writing
Other
Total
______________________________________________________________________________________
N:
120
214
39
81
52
345
Percentile:
90%
$24,900
$77,000
$10,000
$19,400 $95,800
$80,008
75%
14,000
30,000
7,000
9,500
45,000
34,000
50%
6,000
10,000
2,000
3,000
18,000
10,000
25%
4,000
3,000
1,000
1,000
4,000
3,500
10%
2,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
Mean ($):
13,291
27,462
12,769
7,877 41,096
31,145
5% Trimmed
Mean ($):
9,204
18,787
4,303
5,318 28,534
21,293
____________________________________________________________________________________
Note. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. Doctoral respondents only.
Figure 6. Descriptive statistics representing the sources of and amount
earned in supplementary income for 2000.
Starting salary for new PhDs. The median starting salary for individuals with new doctorates employed by SIOP members in 1999 was $55,000 and, in 2000, it was $60,000 (see Figure 7). Ten percent of those hired with new doctorates were paid $80,000 or more in 1999 and $85,000 or more in 2000. The median starting salary for individuals with masters degrees was $44,000 in 1999 and $45,000 in 2000. Ten percent of those hired with new masters degrees earned $60,000 in 1999 and $65,000 in 2000. The median starting salary for individuals with masters degrees increased by 2.3%, whereas the median starting salary for those with new doctorates increased 9.0% between 1999 and 2000. It is not known whether these individuals with new degrees were employed in the field prior to receiving their degree.
__________________________________________________________
1999
2000
___________________________________________________________________________________
N:
197
194
Percentile:
90%
$80,000
$85,000
75%
65,000
71,250
50%
55,000
60,000
25%
48,000
52,000
10%
40,000
44,000
Mean ($):
57,706
62,835
5% Trimmed
Mean ($):
57,036
62,320
Note. Extreme values are not presented in the figure.
_________________________________________________________
Figure 7. Starting salaries for newly hired PhDs by year of employment.
Number of employees supervised. Almost half of respondents (47.3%) reported having no subordinates, while others reporting having as many as 2,000. The mean and median numbers of subordinates were 6.9 and 1.0, respectively. Figure 8 shows that there is some relationship between number of employees supervised and salary for both 1999 and 2000. In both years, those who supervised more than 25 employees had the highest median income ($110,000 in 1999 and $125,000 in 2000), and those who did not supervise any employees earned the lowest median income ($70,000 in 1999 and $75,500 in 2000).
Note.
Doctoral respondents only.
Sample sizes are in parentheses.
Figure 8. 1999
and 2000 median incomes for doctorates as a function of number of subordinates.
Retirement and Bonus Information
Retirement plans. Two types of plans employers use to fund retirement systems are defined contribution and defined benefit plans. In defined contribution plans, employers contribute a specified amount of money or percent of salary into a plan during a year, and it is invested until an employee retires. The amount the employee receives when retired depends on how much it has increased over the years from the way it was invested. In the United States, 401k and 403b plans are defined contributions plans. Employees can have the funds in these plans placed in such investments as mutual and money market funds. A defined benefit plan is what is commonly known as a pension. With a defined benefit plan, an employer agrees to pay a certain amount of salary once the employee is retired, such as a percentage of an employees final year of salary. The specific amount is not based on how it was invested over the years before retirement. Defined contribution plans have been on the increase and defined benefit plans on the decrease in the United States in recent years. Among SIOP survey respondents, over three times as many respondents were covered by defined contribution plans as compared to defined benefit plans. As shown in Figure 9, the mean percentage of salary contributed by the employer of respondents with defined contribution plans was 8.7%, and the median was 6.0%. For respondents with defined benefit plans, the mean and median percentages of salary to be received during retirement were 40.7% and 50.0%, respectively.
______________________________________________________
Defined Contribution
Defined Benefit
(As a % of Current Income)
(As a % of Final Income)
N:
684
196
Percentile:
90%
13.3%
70.0%
75%
10.0
57.6
50%
6.0
50.0
25%
4.4
13.5
10%
2.5
5.0
Mean (%):
8.7
40.7
5% Trimmed
Mean ($):
6.8
39.8
Note. Extreme values are not presented in the figure. Includes all respondents. Defined benefit plan percentages are based on ones salary at the time of quitting or retirement (final salary), while defined contribution plan percentages are based on ones current salary.
______________________________________________________
Figure 9. Descriptive statistics representing types of and percentages of
2000 salary contribution to retirement plans.
Sizes and types of bonuses. Close to half of those with doctorates (41.8%) and masters degrees (46.6%) received some type of bonus in 2000. For those with doctorates, the mean bonus, in terms of percent of total income for primary job, was 16.5% and the median was 10.0%. Those with masters degrees had a median equal to those with doctorates (10.0%), but the mean percent was smaller (12.9%). The largest proportion for both those with doctorates and masters degrees was for individual performance bonuses (31% and 29%, respectively). Organizational (30% for masters degrees and 25% for doctorates) and group performance (15% for masters degrees and 10% for doctorates) bonuses were the second and third most prevalent types of bonuses received. Less than 5% of the sample reported receiving a special project, signing, retention, or stock option exercise bonus. (Respondents could report more than one type of bonus).
Correlation and Regression Analysis with Annual Income
Fifty-two variables were correlated with 2000 income from the primary employer. Over half (30) of the correlations were significant (see table on Web site). A simultaneous regression analysis was conducted in order to determine which of the job, organizational, and personal background characteristics measured on the survey accounted for variance in 2000 income from the primary employer. Dummy variables were used for employment locations, type of primary employer, and job titles. Some variables were omitted from the regression analysis because they had too much missing data (e.g.,
n = 769 for APS membership vs. 1,048 for most variables) or did not have a significant correlation with 2000 income (e.g., years with present employer). Four variables were not entered in the regression because they were the comparison groups for four sets of dummy variables.
Of 38 variables entered simultaneously in the regression, 12 were significantly (p < .05) related to 2000 income from the primary employer and 36.8% of the variation in income levels was accounted for (R2adj
= .34). Although gender had been significantly correlated with 2000 income, it was not significantly related in the regression results. On average, controlling for all other variables, owners made $72,804 more than those who were not owners; an additional hour of work per week was associated with $1,857 higher income; an additional employee supervised was related to $256 in income; each additional year since first graduate degree was associated with $2,190 higher income; those who worked in Manhattan, New York, other New York metro areas, and Los Angeles/Orange County, California made $58,631, $55,906, and $44,225 more, respectively, than the all other locations category; those who worked in psychology departments with a doctoral program in their specialty area made $42,213 less than those who worked in consulting organizations; those who worked in psychology departments without a doctoral program in their specialty are made $33,781 less than those who worked in consulting organizations; those who worked in industry made $28,022 more while those who worked as individual consultants made $57,159 less than those who worked for consulting organizations; those who had jobs best described as mid-level practitioner/researcher/consultant, full professor (tenured), and manager or director/vice president made $36,335, $31,630, and $28,883 less, respectively, than senior practitioners/consultants/researchers; those who were SIOP Fellows made $45,726 more than those who were SIOP Members.
Discussion
Among changes in results from this years survey relative to the 1997 survey was the increase in the proportion of respondents with masters degrees and decrease in the proportion with doctorates. We have observed increasing numbers of masters degree programs and job candidates in the I-O psychology market in recent years, so this finding corresponds with those observations. It would have been our preference to include masters level SIOP Associate Members in most, if not all, of the analyses; however, the sample size was too small. In upcoming surveys, an attempt will be made to gather and present more information for this educational level.
Over one-third of the variance in 2000 income was accounted for by variables in the regression equation. As found with 1997 survey results, firm ownership (e.g., partner, principal, sole proprietor, significant stockholder) was associated with higher income in 2000. Years since first graduate degree, SIOP Fellow status, and New York and San Francisco locations were also associated with higher 2000 income. In addition, new items on the survey, such as number of subordinates and average hours worked per week showed positive relationships with income level.
Click here for the complete Salary Survey
referred to throughout the following article. To access the
survey (a pdf file), you must have Acrobat 4. You can get Acrobat 4 here.
July 2001 Table of Contents | TIP Home
| SIOP Home
|