Talk:Two-factor theory

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correction needed

This sentence in the text is not true: While the Motivator-Hygiene concept is still well regarded, satisfaction and dissatisfaction are no longer considered to exist on separate scales.

In fact there has even been confirmation from neuroscience that this is true: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAEINhBXY6E&feature=BFa&list=SP4D6134DA073F7129 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.85.247.201 (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

two factor

where was the main idea of this theory concocted. it is rediculous to persume that this man should be on this site because of a theory he made. i could make a thepry right now saying that i believe people that develope theories that become popular should have more knowledge of the given topic, that theorys cannot just be pulled out of no where because an itellectual thinks this is how life is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.25.3 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding where the theory was "concocted": "The theory was based around interviews with 203 American accountants & engineers...". Read the article.

Regarding the rest of your post: many articles about Two Factor Theory have been published in highly respected, peer reviewed journals, some of which are listed under the references section. Herzberg (and others) have also done studies to back up the theory with empirical evidence. However, there are criticisms of the theory, which, rightly, are listed under the "Criticisms" heading. - Flangiel 04:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

Oakraiders3184 changed:

"found that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction acted independently of each other"

to

"found that job liking and job disliking acted independently of each other"

I have reverted this because "job satisfaction" and "job dissatisfaction" are the actual terms used in the literature. -Flangiel 15:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)2010[reply]

Merge hygiene factors

Proposal: Merge hygiene factors to two-factor theory

Rationale: As far as I know, the term hygiene factors is only used with motivation-hygiene theory. I can't see having a separate article. --Pnm (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, they should be merged. They belong to the same theory. Mdelken (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge. Unless someone can show Herzberg citing the term (and some theory about such factors) from some earlier source, it starts with his two-factor model, has not become independently notable, and should therefore be discussed in the articles about two-factor and Herzberg. Yakushima (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Abuse?

The phrase "Nicole Crampton at 18724 Aurora Colorado" which appears early in the article seems unconnected. Going back over previous versions of the article, it appears that the original quote was "Please rape me" and then the name and possible address cited above. Could this be a possible spam attempt that was only partially corrected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.120.13.96 (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]