The major premise of this article is that increased exposure to—and increased application of—theories, methods, and findings from the judgment and decision-making (JDM) field will aid industrial–organizational psychology and organizational behavior (IOOB) researchers and practitioners in studying workplace decisions. To this end, we first provide evidence of the lack of cross-fertilization between JDM and IOOB and then provide an overview of the JDM research literature. Next, with the aid of a panel of prominent IOOB scholars who share JDM interests, we discuss the philosophical and methodological traditions in IOOB and JDM, the areas in which IOOB has already been enriched by JDM as well as the areas in which it might be further enriched in the future, ways of increasing cross-fertilization from JDM to IOOB, and ways in which IOOB can in turn contribute to JDM. Through this focal article, we hope to spark conversation and ultimately engender more cross-fertilization between JDM and IOOB.

We are gratified by the large number of commentaries to our focal article (Dalal, Bonaccio, et al., 2010) that advocated greater integration of industrial–organizational psychology and organizational behavior (IOOB) with the field of judgment and decision making (JDM). The commentaries were uniformly constructive and civil. Our disagreements with the commentaries are mild and are limited primarily to the roles of external validity, internal validity, and laboratory experiments in IOOB. For the majority of our response, we attempt to build on the views expressed in the commentaries and to articulate some thoughts regarding the future. We structure our response according to the following themes: barriers to cross-fertilization between IOOB and JDM, areas of existing and potential JDM-to-IOOB cross-fertilization, areas of potential IOOB-to-JDM cross-fertilization, and ways to increase (and ideally institutionalize) cross-fertilization. We hope our focal article and our response to the commentaries will help to ignite exciting basic research and important practical applications associated with decision making in the workplace.

For over three-quarters of a century researchers and practitioners have analyzed rating scale data using methods that assume a dominance response process wherein an individual high on the trait assessed is assumed to answer positively with high probability. This approach derives from Likert's famous 1932 approach to the development and analysis of rating scales. In this paper, we argue that Likert scaling and related methods are misguided. Instead, we propose that methods that have evolved from Thurstone (1927, 1928, 1929) scaling provide a better representation of the choice process underlying rating scale judgments. These methods hypothesize an ideal point response process where the probability of endorsement is assumed to be directly related to the proximity of the statement to the individual's standing on the assessed trait. We review some research showing the superiority of ideal point methods for personality assessment and then describe several settings in which ideal point methods should provide tangible improvements over traditional approaches to assessment.