Human Relations DOI: 10.

1177/0018726704047143 Volume 57(9): 12051230 Copyright 2004 The Tavistock Institute SAGE Publications London, Thousand Oaks CA, New Delhi www.sagepublications.com

Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated model
Joseph C. Rode

A B S T R AC T

Research indicates that job satisfaction is signicantly related to life satisfaction. However, previous studies have not included variables that may confound the relationship. Furthermore, the vast majority of studies have relied on cross-sectional data. I tested a comprehensive model that examined the relationship between job and life satisfaction and a broad personality construct called core selfevaluations, as well as nonwork satisfaction and environmental variables, using a nationally representative (US), longitudinal data set. Results indicated that core self-evaluations was signicantly related to both job satisfaction and life satisfaction over time, and that the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction was not signicant after taking into account the effects of core self-evaluations and nonwork satisfaction. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

KEYWORDS

job life nonwork personality satisfaction

Results of more than three decades of research have led researchers to conclude that job satisfaction is signicantly related to, or spills over into, overall attitudes towards life, or life satisfaction (see Rain et al., 1991 and Tait et al., 1989 for reviews). We would expect the two to be related because of the amount of time spent at work by full-time employees, and also
1205

1206

Human Relations 57(9)

because, for most people, work is a central life activity (Dubin, 1956). Empirical studies have consistently reported moderate correlations between job and life satisfaction, an average of .31 or .44 when corrected for attenuation (Tait et al., 1989). However, the relationship is more complex than these numbers imply, and at least three theoretical perspectives could account for the observed zero-order correlations between job and life satisfaction. The rst perspective, sometimes referred to as the bottom-up perspective (Brief et al., 1993; Diener, 1984), proposes that job satisfaction has a casual inuence on life satisfaction because it is part of life satisfaction (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Cambell et al., 1976; Rice et al., 1985). Life satisfaction is conceptualized, in part, as the result of satisfaction with various life domains such as work, family, health, etc., and the effects of environmental conditions on life satisfaction are assumed to be largely mediated by satisfaction with life domains. Research indicates that satisfaction with work and nonwork domains accounts for about 50 percent of the variance in life satisfaction (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Cambell et al., 1976; Hart, 1999; Near et al., 1984). The second perspective argues that the causal relationship between the two variables is top-down (Diener, 1984), or that life satisfaction inuences job satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993; Schmitt & Bedeian, 1982). The inuence of life satisfaction on job satisfaction represents a dispositional effect (Staw et al., 1986), whereby the positive affect associated with life satisfaction results in the recall of a greater number of positive job events and more positive interpretations of job conditions, which leads to higher job satisfaction (Bower, 1981; Judge & Hulin, 1993). Probably the strongest empirical support for this perspective comes from Judge and Watanabe (1993) who found that life satisfaction had a stronger relationship to job satisfaction over a 5-year period than job satisfaction had on life satisfaction over the same period. The third perspective has not been previously explicated, but is suggested by the results of previous studies. It may be that much of the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction is spurious, resulting from common inuences. The literature presents two possibilities. First, research following the bottom-up tradition indicates that job satisfaction and satisfaction with nonwork domains are inuenced by many of the same environmental variables (e.g. job income), and as a result, satisfaction with nonwork domains may confound the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction. In fact, the percent of variance in life satisfaction uniquely attributed to job satisfaction often falls to 5 percent or lower (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976; Hart, 1999; Near et al., 1984) when the effects of satisfaction in nonwork domains are controlled.

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1207

The second possibility is suggested by Judge et al. (1997) who proposed a broad personality construct called core self-evaluations, which they developed specically to explicate the process by which disposition may inuence both job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Unlike earlier top-down theories, Judge et al. proposed that life satisfaction is not a dispositional variable per se, but that it is inuenced by disposition, as is job satisfaction. Empirical research has found core self-evaluations to be related to both job and life satisfaction, suggesting that it may be at least partially responsible for the bivariate relationship between the two constructs (Heller et al., 2002; Judge et al., 1998). To date, the possible confounding effects of both core selfevaluations and satisfaction with nonwork domains on the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction have not been simultaneously taken into account. Irrespective of the underlying theoretical perspective, the vast majority of the empirical research on job and life satisfaction has utilized a crosssectional design. Although the use of longitudinal data in a non-experimental study does not necessarily establish causality, it does provide stronger support for causal relationships than can be inferred from analysis of crosssectional data (Menard, 1991). This is particularly relevant to studies of job and life satisfaction, given that the perspectives described earlier are based on differing causal assumptions. In this study, I tested a comprehensive model that enabled me to examine the relationship between job and life satisfaction over time, while taking into account the possible confounding inuences of nonwork satisfaction, personality (i.e. core self-evaluations), and a set of environmental and demographic variables. I tested the model using a nationally representative, longitudinal sample of US workers.

Theoretical model and hypotheses

My model integrates the bottom-up perspective and Judge et al.s (1997) dispositional perspective. Following bottom-up theorists, I propose that satisfaction with specic life domains (i.e. work and nonwork in this study), mediates the relationship between environmental conditions and life satisfaction (e.g. Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976; Rice et al., 1985). I also propose that core self-evaluations is related to both domain satisfactions and life satisfaction as shown in Figure 1. I incorporated the dispositional view proposed by Judge et al. over the dispositional proposition that life satisfaction inuences job satisfaction for two reasons. First, Judge et al.s approach offered greater conceptual congruence with the bottom-up approach which forms the basis of my model. Second, a growing

1208

Human Relations 57(9)

body of research supports the idea that life satisfaction is not dispositional in and of itself, but that it is inuenced by disposition (Brief et al., 1993; Diener et al., 1999). For simplicity, I do not explicitly address the indirect relationships contained in the model, but I do take into account these mediated effects in the structural equation modeling analysis described later.

Relationships between domain satisfactions and life satisfaction

Research indicates that life satisfaction can be viewed as the result, in part, of satisfaction with various life domains (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976). This notion is based on the assumption that individuals evaluate the details of experience when making overall satisfaction judgments (Rice et al., 1985). For example, evaluations of ones job are based on how one evaluates ones pay, supervisor support, working conditions, etc. relative to desired levels of these variables. The direction of inuence is assumed to be from the specic to the general, in this case from satisfaction with specic life domains (e.g. work) to overall life satisfaction. From this perspective, satisfaction with a life domain represents the aggregate evaluations of the domains salient aspects that are taken into account when making overall life satisfaction evaluations. Empirically, satisfaction with major life domains (e.g. family, work, health, and leisure) explains about 50 percent of the variance in overall life satisfaction (e.g. Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976; Hart, 1999), with the remaining 50 percent presumably the result of measurement

Controls Working Conditions Nonworking Conditions Demographics

Job Satisfaction + + Life Satisfaction +

Core SelfEvaluations

+ + Nonwork Satisfaction

Figure 1

Hypothesized model

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1209

error and individual differences (e.g. personality). The effects of domain satisfactions on life satisfaction appear to be additive, with the most salient life domains explaining the most variance; there is little evidence of interaction effects between life domains (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976). For parsimony, I classied satisfaction with all nonwork domains as nonwork satisfaction. The hypotheses also consider the effects of core self-evaluations, which, as described below, is also proposed to be related to life satisfaction. Formally stated: Hypothesis 1: Job satisfaction is positively related to life satisfaction, controlling for nonwork satisfaction and core self-evaluations. Hypothesis 2: Nonwork satisfaction is positively related to life satisfaction, controlling for job satisfaction and core self-evaluations.

Relationships between core self-evaluations and satisfaction variables

Core self-evaluations are basic conclusions or bottom-line evaluations (Judge et al., 1997) people hold regarding their selves and their capabilities. Judge et al. proposed four criteria to determine the degree to which dispositional traits were indicative of core self-evaluations: (i) reference to the self, (ii) evaluation focus (i.e. the extent to which traits involve evaluations versus descriptions), (iii) fundamentality to more specic surface traits (Cattell, 1965), and (iv) breadth or scope (Allport, 1961). Judge et al. identied four existing constructs meeting these criteria: self-esteem, generalized selfefcacy, locus of control, and neuroticism. However, these were not proposed as comprehensive or exclusive measures of the construct. Judge et al. (1997) proposed that core self-evaluations affected the perception of objective conditions and events and the norms against which perceived conditions and events are appraised, which in turn inuenced satisfaction judgments. For example, persons who consider themselves to be fundamentally incompetent may experience little satisfaction with a given set of working conditions because they conclude their incompetence will eventually lead to failure, demotion, and disgrace when they do not perform up to expectations. Conversely, persons with high core self-evaluations may experience greater satisfaction with the same set of working conditions because they are more condent in their ability to take advantage of those conditions. Additional support for this notion comes from the nding that individuals with low self-esteem (which is considered an indicator of core

1210

Human Relations 57(9)

self-evaluations; Judge et al., 2002) tend to have unrealistically high performance level and inuence expectations of themselves, which leads to greater incidences of perceived failure and lower satisfaction (Brockner, 1988). Several studies provide empirical support for the proposed relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction (e.g. Judge et al., 1998, 2000). Judge et al. (1997) did not explicitly discuss nonwork life domains, but the same linking mechanisms should apply to satisfaction with nonwork life domains as well. The hypotheses reect the inclusion of a set of environmental and demographic control variables, which, as described later, have been associated with job and nonwork satisfaction. Formally stated: Hypothesis 3: Core self-evaluations is positively related to job satisfaction, controlling for environmental conditions and demographics. Hypothesis 4: Core self-evaluations is positively related to nonwork satisfaction, controlling for environmental conditions and demographics. Both Andrews and Withey (1976) and Campbell et al. (1976) proposed that the self qualies as a life domain in the same manner as work, family, health, etc. Campbell et al. (1976) found that a measure of personal competence, which they argued was closely related to satisfaction with the self, was signicantly related to life satisfaction after controlling for other life domains. Thus, to the extent that core self-evaluations represents satisfaction with the self, it should inuence overall life satisfaction evaluations in the same manner as satisfaction with other life domains (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976). Formally stated: Hypothesis 5: Core self-evaluations is positively related to life satisfaction, controlling for job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction.

Relationships between control variables and domain satisfactions

In an exhaustive study of the effects of working and nonworking conditions on overall life satisfaction, Campbell et al. (1976) concluded that both the realities of life and the perception of those realities inuenced overall life satisfaction, but that the effects were almost entirely mediated by satisfaction with life domains. Subsequent studies found that some environmental conditions are signicantly associated with both interdomain and crossdomain satisfaction (e.g. working conditions affecting nonwork satisfaction; Near et al., 1983, 1984), which may account for some of the observed correlations between job satisfaction and satisfaction in nonwork domains.

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1211

I do not explicitly address the theoretical mechanisms linking each of the control variables to job and nonwork satisfaction, as the effects of environmental and demographic variables were not the focus of the study (see Campbell et al., 1976; Diener et al., 1999; Rice et al., 1985; and Spector, 1997 for detailed discussions of the relationships between environmental conditions and satisfaction judgments), but I included these variables for two reasons. First, I wanted to provide a more comprehensive test of the bottomup causal ow assumption inherent in my model. Second, including these variables allowed me to assess the relationship between core self-evaluations and domain satisfactions, after controlling for the effects of a set of environmental conditions and demographics, which has not been done in previous studies involving core self-evaluations. I was limited to the measures included in the data set, which, admittedly, do not represent all the environmental conditions that could potentially inuence satisfaction judgments. Still, the variable set is reasonably comprehensive, compared with that utilized in similar studies examining the relationships between environmental conditions and satisfaction judgments (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976; Near et al., 1983, 1984).

Methods
The data for the study came from the rst and second waves of the Americans Changing Lives (ACL) survey, which were collected by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan (House, 1997). Data were collected in two waves, 3 years apart, from the same cohort. The survey was designed to provide a wide range of data on sociological, psychological, and medical aspects of Americans daily lives.

Sample
The study population for the survey included the US household population, aged 25 or older, exclusive of residents of Alaska or Hawaii. Residents residing in households on military bases, in group quarters, or in institutions were excluded. The survey design specied a two to one oversampling of interviewees 60 years of age or older and of African Americans aged 2559, and a four to one oversampling of African Americans 60 years of age or older. The overall response rate for wave 1 was 67 percent. The attrition rate for the follow-up survey was 20.7 percent. Subsequent analysis revealed no signicant differences in response rates across demographic variables, except that Blacks had a slightly higher response rate than the overall sample (71

1212

Human Relations 57(9)

percent; House, 1997). Trained interviewers conducted both surveys in the interviewees place of residence. All cases were anonymous, identied with only a random identication number. Because I wanted to focus on full-time employees, I excluded interviewees who were unemployed during either survey administration, or who had worked fewer than 1500 hours in the year preceding either administration. I also deleted 15 cases that showed strong evidence of containing response sets (details available from the author) for a nal n = 892. To compensate for the oversampling of African Americans and people over 60 years old, each case was assigned a weight based on the sampling methodology employed: non-Blacks between 25 and 60 years old received a sampling weight of 4; non-Blacks over 60 years old and Blacks between 25 and 60 years old received a sampling weight of 2; and Blacks over 60 years old received a sampling weight of 1. After applying this weighting scheme to the data set (sample size was set to n = 892 for all statistical analyses described later), the nal sample was fairly representative of the overall US workforce at the time, within three percentage points of the overall workforce in terms of occupational categories, gender, ethnicity and marital status.

Measures
Measures available in this data set were not always as extensive as I would have liked. However, possible measurement limitations not withstanding, the ACL database provided the opportunity to examine a large, random national data set, whose results could generalize to the population in much the same way that presidential polls normally predict voting behavior. These data also had two data collection points (referred to hereafter as Time 1 and Time 2), thereby permitting longitudinal analyses, which is very rare in this eld and an important focus of this study. Unless otherwise noted, all multiple item measures were modeled as latent variables in the structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses described later, with each item serving as an indicator of the latent construct. Overall life satisfaction I used two items ( = .75) as indicators of overall life attitudes for Time 2 data. The rst item was, overall, how satised would you say you are with your life these days?, rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (completely satised) to 7 (completely dissatised). This item is practically identical to the single life satisfaction item used by Campbell et al. (1976). The second item, overall, how happy would you say you are these days?, measured on

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1213

a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (very happy) to 3 (not too happy), has been used extensively in studies of subjective well-being, which is conceptually and empirically very similar to life satisfaction (Diener, 1984). I recoded both items so that higher scores corresponded to higher life satisfaction. Descriptive statistics were calculated based on the average of the standardized values of both items, because of the differing response formats. Job satisfaction I measured job satisfaction with two items ( = .78 and .79, at Time 1 and Time 2, respectively): how satised are you with your job? and how much do you enjoy your work? each recoded so that the rating scale ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Descriptive statistics were calculated using the average of the two items. Nonwork satisfaction I created a composite measure of nonwork attitudes consisting of ve items related to satisfaction with various nonwork domains, including health, marriage, family, nances, and home, all rated on either a 5- or 7-point scale, with 1 = completely satised. Although nances are linked to ones job through job income, satisfaction with nances was included in the nonwork domain because it is inuenced by contextual factors beyond job income (e.g. spousal income, investment activity, material desires, current and future perceived nancial demands, etc.), which fall within the realm of nonwork life. I do consider the inuence of job salary on both job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction in the SEM models described later. I modeled nonwork satisfaction as a formative variable in the SEM analyses because the individual items were not intended to measure the same underlying construct, but were designed to measure separate aspects of nonwork life. I was interested in the variance contributed by the items in total, which is best accomplished by utilizing a single composite (i.e. observed) variable in SEM analyses (Kline, 1998). I did not attempt to model error variance in the SEM analyses, nor did I calculate internal reliability statistics because these analyses assume the underlying construct to be unidimensional, which was not the case here, given that the items focused on differing, and largely unrelated, aspects of nonwork life. This consolidation methodology is similar to that utilized in other studies employing general nonwork satisfaction constructs (e.g. Hart, 1999; Near et al., 1984). I recoded the items so that higher scores indicated higher satisfaction, and I standardized the scores before averaging the items, because of the differing

1214

Human Relations 57(9)

response formats. The resulting composite variable was used in all subsequent analyses. Core self-evaluations Core self-evaluations measures contained within the survey included the following: 3 items from Rosenbergs (1965) 10-item self-esteem scale, 3 items from Pearlin and Schoolers (1978) 7-item mastery scale (described below), and 5 items from Eysenck and Eysencks (1968) 12-item neuroticism scale. An example of a self-esteem item was I take a positive attitude toward myself. An example of a mastery item was there is really no way I can solve the problems I have. An example of a neuroticism item was are you a worrier?, with yes and no response categories. All mastery and self-esteem items were scored on a 4-point scale with 1 = strongly agree and 4 = strongly disagree. Items were recoded so that higher scores indicated higher mastery and self-esteem levels. All neuroticism items were worded such that a yes response indicated higher levels of neuroticism. In their original form, yes responses were assigned a value of 1, and no responses were assigned a value of 5. Also, in a few cases a neuroticism item had an original value of 3, indicating that the interviewee was unable to select yes or no and had verbally indicated that the correct response was maybe. These values were recoded with yes responses = 1, no responses = 0, and maybe responses = 1.5. Although not specically mentioned by Judge et al. (1997), mastery appears to t well with the core self-evaluations conceptualization in that it is both fundamental and wide in scope (it refers to the self in general) and contains a strong evaluative component. According to Pearlin et al. (1981: 340), mastery represents the extent to which people see themselves as being in control of the forces that importantly affect their lives. This denition is very similar to Rotters (1966) well-established locus of control concept, which Judge et al. (1997) specied as a potential measure of core selfevaluations. Moreover, the mastery construct was developed specically to complement self-esteem as a self-evaluations construct (Pearlin et al., 1981). Unfortunately, although the neuroticism scale showed adequate internal reliability ( = .69), the abbreviated self-esteem ( = .53) and mastery ( = .39) scales each had unacceptably low internal reliability coefcients. In an attempt to construct core self-evaluations measures with greater construct validity and higher levels of reliability, the items from all three scales were subjected to a common factor analysis with orthogonal rotation. Factors with eigenvalues > 1, before rotation, were retained. As shown in Table 1, the results indicated the presence of three separate underlying factors. The

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1215

one item that displayed similar loadings on both factors one and two was retained in factor two, because dropping the item would have signicantly reduced the internal reliability of the scale created from the items loading on factor two. The rst factor contained two items from the abbreviated self-esteem scale and two items from the abbreviated mastery scale. The four items loading onto this factor were averaged to create a new scale which demonstrated an acceptable internal reliability ( = .68). This new scale was labeled self-esteem and mastery. The second factor consisted of the ve neuroticism items. Unfortunately, the scale formed by the two items loading on the third factor did not display acceptable internal reliability ( = .45), so these items were dropped from further analysis. In the SEM analyses, core self-evaluations was modeled as a latent variable, with each of the two derived scales serving as indicators. This methodology is similar to that used in earlier studies (e.g. Judge et al., 1998, 2000) which have modeled core self-evaluations as a higher order factor. However, in this study core self-evaluations was modeled as a rst-order latent variable, because modeling higher order factors requires a minimum of three rst order factors (i.e. scales). Descriptive statistics for the two core

Table 1

Results of core self-evaluations factor analysis Factor 1: Self-Esteem and Mastery 1 .60 .57 .52 .48 .40 .03 .12 .21 .35 .08 .30 1.61 14.67 Factor 2: Neuroticism Factor 3: Self-Esteem and Mastery 2 .14 .05 .10 .11 .04 .14 .05 .14 .03 .64 .38 .65 5.89

Item (original scale)

Think I am no good (self-esteem) Pushed around in life (mastery) Feel I am a failure (self-esteem) No way to solve problems (mastery) Often feel fed up (neuroticism) Am a nervous person (neuroticism) Am tense/high strung (neuroticism) Am a worrier (neuroticism) Mood goes up and down (neuroticism) Can do anything (mastery) Positive attitude toward self (self-esteem) Eigenvalue Percent variance explained

.12 .12 .09 .13 .38 .74 .53 .51 .38 .05 .25 1.51 13.69

Note: bold indicates the factor on which items were retained for subsequent scale development.

1216

Human Relations 57(9)

self-evaluation scales were calculated using the average of the items contained in each scale. Controls Most of the measures of environmental conditions were objective and quantitative (e.g. salary or household income), but one was perceptual and based on Likert scales (i.e. perceptions of workplace autonomy). Despite its perceptual underpinnings, autonomy has been shown to be empirically distinct from work attitudes (Glick et al., 1986). I measured autonomy with two items ( = .64 and = .69 in Time 1 and Time 2, respectively), which were similar to two of the items included in the widely used three-item scale developed by Hackman and Oldham (1975). The items were I have a lot of say about what happens in my work and I decide how to do my work rated on a 4-point agreement scale. Items were recoded so that higher scores corresponded to higher levels of autonomy. I included four other working conditions measures: annual salary (corrected for non-normal distributions with log transformations), average number of hours worked per week, selfemployment status (1 = self-employed, 0 = not self-employed), and an objective measure of job complexity derived by Roos and Treiman (1980) based on the three-digit 1970 US Census occupation code. Unfortunately, the data were classied by the 1980 Census occupation code for the follow-up survey, so no job complexity measure was available at Time 2. Nonworking conditions control variables were: (i) household size, measured as the number of individuals related to the interviewee currently living in the household; (ii) household income, measured as the midpoint values on an 8-point interval scale (which resulted in a normal distribution that did not require any transformation); (iii) social integration, measured as the arithmetic mean of the standardized values of three items related to frequency of attendance at formal social gatherings (ve categories), and participation in informal social gatherings with friends and relatives (six categories); (iv) health conditions, measured as a count of 10 chronic health conditions such as heart disease and arthritis; and (v) care hours, measured as the number of hours spent in the past year (indicated by the midpoint values of two separate 5-point interval scales) caring for non-household persons who either had signicant long-term health problems or who experienced serious injury, illness, or personal crises. Social integration was modeled as formative variable in the SEM analyses. I also controlled for demographic variables, including age, gender (1 = female, 0 = male), marital status (1 = married, 0 = not married), and ethnicity (1 = White, 0 = nonWhite).

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1217

Analysis
I tested the above model in two steps. First, I tested the measurement model using conrmatory factor analysis prior to estimation of the hypothesized models to prevent interpretational problems inherent in the simultaneous estimation of measurement and hypothesized models (Andersen & Gerbing, 1988). Second, I developed two structural models (described later) to test the direct relationships included in the hypothesized model. I estimated all models using covariance structural equation modeling (SEM) with AMOS 5, which is comparable (Hox, 1995) to other SEM programs (e.g. EQS, LISREL). Owing to the large sample size I gauged model t through the goodness-of-t index (GFI), comparative t index (CFI), and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) measure, as well as traditional chisquare test results. All SEM analysis was performed using the maximum likelihood procedure.

Results
Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. The correlation between job satisfaction and life satisfaction at Time 2 (r = .30) was very close to average unadjusted correlation (r = .31) reported in the meta analysis by Tait et al. (1989). To conrm the factor structure of the latent variables (job satisfaction in both Time 1 and Time 2, life satisfaction in Time 2, core self-evaluations in Time 1, and autonomy in Time 1 and Time 2), I performed a conrmatory factor analysis with each indicator constrained to load on its respective latent variable and the correlations between the latent variables unconstrained. The overall measurement model provided a good t to the data: 2(39, n = 892) = 159.57 (p < .01), GFI = .97, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .05. All indicators had loadings of .50 or higher. Examination of the correlation residuals and modication indices and did not nd evidence of signicant cross-loadings of indicators, suggesting discriminant validity. Furthermore, the average variance explained across the indicators of each latent variable was higher than the variance shared by any two latent variables, thereby passing a very stringent test of discriminant validity among the latent variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). To test the relationships contained in the proposed model, I developed two separate structural models. In the rst model all variables were measured during Time 1, except life satisfaction, which was measured at Time 2. This model was designed to assess the relative strength of the effects of core

1218 Human Relations 57(9)

Table 2

Means or percentages, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations (n = 892)

Mean/% SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Life satisfaction T2 0.00 0.90 Nonwork satisfaction T1 .00 0.61 Nonwork satisfaction T2 .01 0.62 Job satisfaction T1 4.11 0.80 Job satisfaction T2 4.04 0.79 Self-esteem and mastery T1 3.34 0.59 Neuroticism T1 .32 0.26 Job complexity T1 4.88 2.07 Autonomy T1 3.33 0.64 Autonomy T2 3.34 0.65 Self-employed T1 3% Self-employed T2 3% 9.95 .67 Salary T1a 10.18 .64 Salary T2a Work hours T1 46.43 10.72 Work hours T2 46.19 10.08 Household size T1 2.86 1.37 Household size T2 2.85 1.35 Family income T1 36725 24011 Family income T2 44323 27766 Social integration T1 0.03 0.93 Social integration T2 0.04 0.90 Health conditions T1 0.69 0.95 Health conditions T2 0.77 1.06 Care hours T1 33.28 62.44 Care hours T2 40.30 70.61 Married T1 64% Married T2 66% Age T1 42.67 12.41 Female 42% White 79%

75 42 57 24 30 27 28 03 13 16 07 02 11 09 08 06 02 04 09 11 10 09 09 14 04 00 08 17 04 09 06

58 30 31 29 32 06 16 13 03 07 15 07 09 09 07 04 18 16 07 06 17 17 05 03 24 19 14 13 06

30 37 22 28 04 16 17 04 02 15 09 08 07 00 03 14 14 08 09 13 13 07 06 11 22 15 08 05

78 49 25 18 10 38 22 12 05 11 10 14 09 02 07 07 09 06 07 02 03 00 00 02 03 21 01 10

79 24 20 06 27 37 09 07 05 04 14 14 06 00 07 07 10 08 01 02 07 05 05 04 16 00 01

68 39 16 25 21 04 01 23 20 08 12 04 03 21 19 03 07 12 14 04 01 00 01 06 08 08

69 07 12 13 00 00 12 12 00 06 02 03 13 12 04 00 14 16 04 02 09 10 08 15 03

34 30 15 10 44 37 18 13 10 08 34 39 13 13 10 08 02 02 05 07 00 05 26

64 51 07 03 25 21 18 16 04 04 21 22 13 13 07 00 02 07 06 06 11 06 15

69 15 12 23 19 18 19 03 02 24 24 09 06 06 08 03 01 11 12 07 11 18

40 08 06 10 1 04 01 12 06 00 07 05 07 05 06 08 07 05 09 12

06 03 09 11 00 01 12 05 01 08 01 03 01 02 05 05 01 04 05

86 33 16 04 01 62 67 04 04 15 14 03 01 11 14 04 28 16

24 21 03 03 46 78 06 04 19 11 01 00 10 20 03 25 16

52 00 03 25 21 08 01 00 02 01 01 09 10 03 23 12

03 02 14 19 03 03 05 06 01 08 07 10 07 24 08

73 10 06 00 14 09 09 01 06 48 38 21 06 10

08 10 03 14 12 12 03 05 42 46 33 14 09

73 03 04 07 06 02 04 31 27 11 18 15

05 02 14 09 01 05 27 35 04 18 15

40 04 03 11 14 01 05 04 09 03

07 04 09 11 15 17 09 09 09

67 13 08 01 04 36 14 06

10 13 01 04 41 17 07

27 02 00 03 01 80 05 02 05 11 13 26 01 02 08

01 31 10

02 01 09

Note. Cronbachs alpha appears on the diagonal; decimals not shown for correlations, to save space; all correlation values >.06 are signicant, p < .05; all correlation values >.08 are signicant, p < .01. a Salary variables have been subjected to natural log transformations.

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1219

self-evaluations, job satisfaction, and nonwork satisfaction on life satisfaction over time. In the second model, core self-evaluations measures were taken from Time 1, and all other variables were measured at Time 2. This model was designed to asses the longitudinal relationship of core selfevaluations on job satisfaction, while controlling for environmental conditions at the time of the job satisfaction measure, and also to examine the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction when the effects of core selfevaluations on the two variables were subject to the same time lag. Both models allowed the following paths to be freely estimated: the paths from each of the control variables (i.e. environmental conditions and demographics) to both job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction, the paths from core self-evaluations to job satisfaction, nonwork satisfaction, and life satisfaction, and the paths from both job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction to life satisfaction. I allowed the correlations between the disturbance terms (i.e. the variance not accounted for by the respective exogenous variables) of job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction to be freely estimated, as well as the correlations among the exogenous variables. I did not initially include paths between any of the control variables and life satisfaction in the initial models because theoretically I expected that the effects of these variables on life attitudes would be indirect, mediated by job satisfaction and/or nonwork satisfaction (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell et al., 1976; Rice et al., 1985). The models both displayed a good t with the data; 2(86, n = 892) = 174.59 (p < .01), GFI = .98, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .03 for Model 1, and 2(81, n = 892) = 144.82 (p < .01), GFI = .98, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .03 for Model 2. I examined the modication indices for the presence of potentially signicant paths (i.e. modication indices > 4) between the control variables and life satisfaction to ensure that all potentially signicant effects on life satisfaction had been taken into account. In neither model did the modication indices indicate the presence of additional potentially signicant paths to life satisfaction. For presentation simplicity, I excluded variables whose path coefcients were not signicant at p < .05 (e.g. gender) from Figures 2 and 3. In Model 1, three of the ve working conditions measures, one of the ve nonworking conditions measures, and three demographic variables were signicantly related to one or more dependent variables. In Model 2, three working conditions, three nonworking conditions, and two demographic measures were signicantly related to one or more dependent variables. Contrary to the prediction made in Hypothesis 1, job satisfaction was not signicantly related to life satisfaction in either model. As predicted in Hypothesis 2, the standardized path coefcient between nonwork satisfaction and life satisfaction was signicant in both Model 1 (.32, p < .01)

1220

Human Relations 57(9)

Job Complexity Work Hours Autonomy White Core SelfEvaluations

Time 1 .11* .11* .49 .07* .24 .13 .33 .19

Time 2

Job Satisfaction (.40)

Life Satisfaction (.32)

Age Married Health Conditions

.44 .14 .22 .14 Nonwork Satisfaction (.31)

.32

Figure 2 Results of path analysis of overall life attitudes, Model 1 Note: n = 892; standardized path coefcients are indicated by lines with arrows; correlation between job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction error terms is indicated by curved line; *denotes path coefcients signicant at p < .05, all other path coefcients signicant at p < .01; numbers in parentheses represent variance explained. Circles/ovals represent latent constructs. Rectangles represent indicators.

and Model 2 (.54, p < .01). However, core self-evaluations was also signicantly related to job satisfaction (standardized path coefcients = .24, p < .01, and .32, p < .01, for Models 1 and 2, respectively) and to nonwork satisfaction (standardized path coefcients = .44, p < .01 and .33, p < .01, for Models 1 and 2, respectively), as predicted by Hypotheses 3 and 4, respectively. Finally, core self-evaluations was signicantly related to life satisfaction in both models (standardized path coefcients = .33, p < .01, and .29, p < .01, for Models 1 and 2, respectively), as predicted by Hypothesis 5. Thus, the relationships posited in the hypothesized model were all supported, except that no signicant relationship was observed between job satisfaction and life satisfaction. I also performed two hierarchical multiple regressions in an attempt to validate the unexpected nding that job satisfaction was not signicantly related to life satisfaction, using alternative statistical analysis. The hierarchical multiple regression models followed the same time lag logic as the structural equation models described above. Model 1 included all the control

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1221

Time 1 Hours Worked Autonomy Salary Core SelfEvaluations Age .32 .29 .33

Time 2

.10* .46 .12 .10* .30 .54 Job Satisfaction (.40)

Life Satisfaction (.50)

Married Social Integration Health Conditions

.14 .19 .10 .10 Care Time

Nonwork Satisfaction (.21) .07*

Figure 3 Results of path analysis of overall life attitudes, Model 2 Note: n = 892; standardized path coefcients are indicated by lines with arrows; correlation between job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction error terms is indicated by curved line; *denotes path coefcients signicant at p < .05, all other path coefcients signicant at p < .01; numbers in parentheses represent variance explained. Circles/ovals represent latent constructs. Rectangles represent indicators.

variables and nonwork satisfaction from Time 1 entered at step 1, core selfevaluations from Time 1 entered at step 2, and job satisfaction from Time 1 entered at step 3. Model 2 included all the control variables and nonwork satisfaction from Time 2 entered at step 1, core self-evaluations from Time 1 entered at step 2, and job satisfaction from Time 2 entered at step 3. As shown in Table 2, the results indicated that in both models the incremental variance predicted by job satisfaction entered in step 3 was not signicant. Thus, these results were consistent with those obtained in the SEM analyses. Finally, I compared the relative strengths of the correlations of the same variables over time. If core self-evaluations is dispositional, it should be more stable than satisfaction measures, which are conceputuized not as dispositional, but as inuenced by dispositions as well as other factors, including environmental conditions. Unfortunately, it was not possible to make detailed comparison of the relative strengths of the correlations of all core

1222

Human Relations 57(9)

Table 3

Results of hierachical multiple regression (n = 892) Model 1 Model 2 R2 .20 .04 .02 .02 .05 .00 .01 .02 .03 .03 .02 .04 .01 .07* .08** .04* .03 .03 .04 .04 .07* .02 .02 .02 .34** .04 .13** .12** .00 .05 .03 27.18** 56.04** 1.83 35.19** .13** .10** .00 1.61 .12** .03 .01 .02 .51** .02 29.70** F value 26.14** Beta R2 .36 F value 61.43**

Independent variables Step 1: Control variables Job complexity T1 Autonomy T1 Autonomy T2 Self-employed T1 Self-employed T2 Salary T1a Salary T2a Work hours T1 Work hours T2 Household size T1 Household size T2 Family income T1 Family income T2 Social integration T1 Social integration T2 Health conditions T1 Health conditions T2 Care hours T1 Care hours T2 Married T1 Married T2 Age Female White Nonwork satisfaction T1 Nonwork satisfaction T2 Step 2: Core self-evaluations Self-esteem/mastery Neuroticism Step 3: Job satisfaction Job satisfaction T1 Job satisfaction T2 Overall F

Beta

Note: Standardized regression weights are for the full model. Both models included life satisfaction from Time 2 as the dependent variable. Model 1 included all predictor variables from Time 1. Model 2 included all predictor variables from Time 2 except core self-evaluations, which was from Time 1. aSalary variables have been subjected to natural log transformations. * p < .05; ** p < .01.

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1223

self-evaluations and satisfaction variables over time, because neuroticism was not measured during Time 2, and also because no comparable life satisfaction measure was administered in Time 1. The correlation between the selfesteem/mastery scale measured at Time 1 and Time 2 was r = .59, which was greater than the correlation between job satisfaction at Time 1 and Time 2 (r = .49), and similar to the correlation between nonwork satisfaction at Time 1 and Time 2 (r = .58). Thus, while these results with respect to nonwork satisfaction are unclear, the nding that a core self-evaluations measure was more stable than a satisfaction measure over time lends some support to the conceptual underpinnings of the model.

Discussion
This study examined the longitudinal relationships among a broad personality construct (i.e. core self-evaluations), job satisfaction, and life satisfaction, within a theoretically derived model that also included nonwork satisfaction, working conditions, nonworking conditions and demographic measures. I discuss the major ndings here.

Relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was found to be signicantly related to a personality variable measured 3 years earlier, after controlling for a number of working, nonworking and demographic variables measured concurrently with job satisfaction. This nding lends support to the dispositional theory of job satisfaction popularized by Staw and his colleagues (Staw et al., 1986; Staw & Ross, 1985). Although research on the relationships between dispositional traits and job satisfaction has increased signicantly over the past decade (see Judge & Larsen, 2001 for a review), very few have utilized a longitudinal design. To my knowledge, only Judge et al. (2000) have specically examined the effects of core self-evaluations on job satisfaction over time. My ndings largely replicate those reported by Judge et al. (2000), but with a more comprehensive list of control variables (Judge et al. controlled only for the census occupational code based measure of job complexity), and a nationally representative sample that can be generalized to the US population. Thus, my results indicate that core self-evaluations may be partially responsible for the surprising stability of job satisfaction over time observed in previous studies (e.g. Staw et al., 1986; Staw & Ross, 1985).

1224

Human Relations 57(9)

Relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction

As predicted, nonwork satisfaction was signicantly related to life satisfaction in both models. However, contrary to prediction, job satisfaction was not signicantly related to life satisfaction in either model, after controlling for core self-evaluations and nonwork satisfaction. This result is notable because previous studies have found signicant relationships between job satisfaction and life satisfaction, even after controlling for nonwork satisfaction (Hart, 1999; Near et al., 1983, 1984). In those studies, the zero-order correlations between job satisfaction and life satisfaction were very similar to that found in this sample, suggesting that my nding is not due to any anomaly in the data, but rather to the inclusion of a broad personality variable (core self-evaluations) that was not included in those studies. The results imply that job satisfaction and life satisfaction may not be directly related, but that the variance shared between the two variables is the result of a common predictor variable (core self-evaluations) and the fact that both are correlated with nonwork satisfaction. Why job satisfaction was not signicantly related to life satisfaction, whereas satisfaction with nonwork domains showed relatively strong relationships with life satisfaction is puzzling. It may be that for most people work is not a central life activity as proposed by Dubin (1956). It may be that most Americans work primarily to support their nonwork lives (George & Brief, 1990; Seeman, 1967), and that the effects of job satisfaction on life satisfaction are simply too weak to detect after taking into account life domains that are of greater importance (e.g. family, health, self). It should be noted that in both models the disturbance terms of job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction (i.e. portion of variance not accounted for by core self-evaluations, environmental conditions, and demographics) were signicantly correlated, suggesting that the exogenous variables did not account for all the variance shared between the two variables. This implies that job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction are either inuenced by common variables not included in the model (e.g. additional environmental or personality variables), or that a causal relationship exists between the two variables. The theoretical model utilized in this study suggests the former, although this is certainly an area for future research.

Implications
Although life satisfaction is certainly a desirable outcome by itself, the positive organizational behavior view recently explicated by Luthans (2002) suggests that life satisfaction or subjective well-being (of which life

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1225

satisfaction is a central component; Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 1999) may be related to other important variables as well. For example, empirical evidence suggests that life satisfaction may be directly related to in-role performance (Rode et al., 2003), and also to supervisor ratings of employee performance even when job satisfaction is not related to such ratings (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Also, subjective well-being is associated with the onset of heart disease (Booth-Kewley & Friedman, 1987), which has obvious implications for employee absenteeism and healthcare costs. The results of this study imply that organizations wishing to increase employee life satisfaction may wish to consider at least two possibilities. First, they could implement policies and benets that allow employees to attend to, and further develop, the nonwork domains of their lives (e.g. exible working arrangements, employee assistance programs for personal issues, and other family-friendly work practices), given that nonwork satisfaction was strongly related to life satisfaction. Conversely, interventions designed to increase job satisfaction, although certainly desirable, may have negligible impacts on life satisfaction. Second, the results indicated that core self-evaluations had signicant direct and indirect effects on life satisfaction. Although personality traits, by denition, demonstrate stability across time, an encouraging body of evidence suggests that some dispositions can change as a result of environmental conditions and learning, particularly those related to evaluations regarding personal control (e.g. Brockner, 1988; Markus & Kunda, 1986), which is a central component of core self-evaluations. Thus, designing jobs, organizational structures, and human resource policies to facilitate a sense of control in both work and nonwork domains may lead to higher core selfevaluations which the results of the current study suggest may facilitate higher levels of job satisfaction, nonwork satisfaction, and also life satisfaction. However, very little is known about the existence or the strength of the relationship between workplace variables and core self-evaluations; this appears to be a potentially rich area for research.

Limitations and conclusions

At least four limitations should be noted. First, the data set contained a limited number of measurement items for several key constructs, which may have impacted the reliability, and by extension, the validity of those constructs. Specic measurement issues existed with respect to the job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and core self-evaluations variables. Both the job satisfaction and life satisfaction variables were measured using two items, instead of more robust scales which generally include four or more items to

1226

Human Relations 57(9)

measure these constructs. However, a meta-analysis by Wanous et al. (1997) reported minimum reliability levels to be at least .70 for the included singleitem job satisfaction measures. Also, the correlation between job satisfaction and life satisfaction at Time 2 was nearly identical to the average unadjusted correlation reported in the meta analysis by Tait et al. (1989), which provides some, but certainly not conclusive, support for the validity of the abbreviated measures. Core self-evaluations was measured using 9 items taken from three different scales, in contrast to previous studies which have utilized as many as 45 items from four scales to measure the construct. The limited number of items required that I model the construct as a rst-order latent variable, instead of a higher order factor, as in previous studies. Although the items utilized in the current study t well with the conceptual denition of the construct, and the factor structure of the latent variables were validated by conrmatory factor analysis, it is impossible to determine the extent to which the use of fewer indicators impacted the results. The strength of the results in both of the tested models with respect to core self-evaluations provides some condence in the measure, but they do not provide conclusive proof of validity. A second potential limitation concerns the possible effects of common method variance, as both the independent and dependent variables were subjective measures derived from survey instruments. However, the effects of common method variance may have been limited in this study for at least two reasons. First, the longitudinal data set provided 3-year lags between many of the subjective measures (precisely which measures varied somewhat by model) which removed common method variance resulting from mood and situational cues. Second, in two similar studies involving core selfevaluations and satisfaction measures, Judge et al. (1998, 2000) found only minor differences in their results when measures where taken from a combination of self-reports and other reports versus all self-reports, suggesting that the primary variables of interest to this study may not be signicantly affected by common method variance. Third, the generalizability of the results may be impacted somewhat by the oversampling of African Americans and individuals over the age of 60. While weighting schemes designed to compensate for oversampling are commonly used in large-scale survey research, it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of the weighting strategy employed in this particular sample on variables other than readily available demographics. Finally, some authors have noted high correlations between autonomy and job satisfaction (e.g. Fried, 1991), and have suggested that modeling autonomy as a predictor of job satisfaction may partial out true variance in job satisfaction. In the current study, autonomy was modeled as a predictor

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1227

of job satisfaction, but not of life satisfaction. Thus, any true variance partialled out of the job satisfaction measure would have provided for a more conservative test of the predictors of job satisfaction (i.e. core selfevaluations), but would not have affected the relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Obviously, the nding that job satisfaction and life satisfaction may not be directly related has important implications for both theory and practice, especially given that research indicates that life satisfaction may be related to several outcomes of interest to managers (Booth-Kewley & Friedman, 1987; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000) beyond the desirability of life satisfaction as an end in and of itself. Overall, the results indicated that paying greater attention to employees personal characteristics and nonwork lives may yield important benets, for both managers and organizational behavior researchers alike, that may not be realized by focusing only on employee job satisfaction.

Acknowledgements
This article is based on my dissertation for which I would like to thank my dissertation committee. I would also like to thank Janet Near and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.

References
Allport, F.W. Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson, 1961. Andersen, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 1988, 103, 41123. Andrews, F.A. & Withey, S.B. Social indicators of well-being in America: The development and measurement of perceptual indicators. New York: Plenum Press, 1976. Booth-Kewley, S. & Friedman, H.S. Psychological predictors of heart disease: A quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 1987, 101, 34262. Bower, G.H. Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 12948. Brief, A.P., Butcher, A.H., George, J.M. & Link, K.E. Integrating bottom-up and top-down theories of subjective well-being: The case of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993, 74, 64653. Brockner, J. Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988. Campbell, A., Converse, P.E. & Rodgers, W.L. The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfaction. New York: Sage Foundation, 1976. Cattell, R.B. The scientic analysis of personality. Baltimore: Penguin, 1965. Diener, E. Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 1984, 95(3), 54275. Diener, E., Suh, R.E., Lucas, R.E. & Smith, H.L. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 1999, 25, 276302.

1228

Human Relations 57(9)

Dubin, R. Industrial workers worlds: The Central Life Interests of industrial workers. Journal of Social Issues, 1956, 3, 13142. Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.G. Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1968. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18, 3950. Fried, Y. Meta-analytic comparison of the job diagnostic survey and job characteristics inventory as correlates of work satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, 76(5), 6907. George, J.M. & Brief, A.P. The economic instrumentality of work: An examination of the moderating effects of nancial requirements and sex on the pay-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1990, 37, 35768. Glick, W., Jenkins, G. & Gupta, N. Method versus substance: How strong are the underlying relationships between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes? Academy of Management Journal, 1986, 29, 44164. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. Development of the job diagnostics survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 15970. Hart, P.M. Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent model of personality, work and nonwork experiences, and domain satisfactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1999, 84(4), 56484. Heller, D., Judge, T.A. & Watson, D. The confounding role of personality and trait affectivity in the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2002, 23(7), 81535. House, J.S. Americans changing lives: Waves I and II, 1986 and 1989. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997. Hox, J.J. Amos, EQS, and LISREL for Windows: A comparative review. Structural Equation Modeling, 1995, 2, 7991. Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E. & Locke, E.A. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, 85(2), 23749. Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. & Thoresen, C.J. Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efcacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002, 83, 693710. Judge, T.A. & Hulin, C.L. Job satisfaction as a reection of disposition: A multiple-source causal analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1993, 56, 388421. Judge, T.A. & Larsen, R.J. Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2001, 86(1), 6798. Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A. & Durham, C.C. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1997, 19, 15188. Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C.C. & Kluger, A.N. Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998, 83(1), 1734. Judge, T.A. & Watanabe, S. Another look at the joblife satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1993, 78, 93948. Kline, R.B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press, 1998. Luthans, F. Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 2002, 16(1), 5775. Markus, H. & Kunda, Z. Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51, 85866. Menard, S. Longitudinal research. Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1991.

Rode

Job and life satisfaction

1229

Near, J.P., Smith, C.A., Rice, R.W. & Hunt, R.G. Job satisfaction and nonwork satisfaction as components of life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1983, 13, 12644. Near, J.P., Smith, C.A., Rice, R.W. & Hunt, R.G. A comparison of work and nonwork predictors of life satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 1984, 27, 37794. Pearlin, L., Lieberman, M., Menaghan, E. & Mullan, J. The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1981, 22, 33756. Pearlin, L. & Schooler, C. The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1978, 19, 221. Rain, J.S., Lane, I.M. & Steiner, D.D. A current look at the job satisfaction/life satisfaction relationship: Review and future considerations. Human Relations, 1991, 44, 287307. Rice, R.W., McFarlin, D.B., Hunt, R.G. & Near, J.P. Organizational work and the perceived quality of life: Toward a conceptual model. Academy of Management Review, 1985, 10, 296310. Rode, J.C., Arthaud-Day, M.L., Mooney, C.H., Near, J.P., Baldwin, T.T., Bommer, W.H. & Rubin, R.S. Life satisfaction and performance. Submitted for publication, 2003. Roos, P.A. & Treiman, D.J. Worker functions and worker training for the 1970 U.S. census classication. In P.S. Cain & P.A. Roos (Eds), A critical review of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1980, pp. 33689. Rosenberg, M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965. Rotter, J.B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(1). Schmitt, N. & Bedeian, A.G. A comparison of LISREL and two-stage least squares analysis of a hypothesized lifejob satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1982, 67, 80617. Seeman, M. On the personal consequences of alienation of work. American Sociological Review, 1967, 32, 27385. Spector, P.E. Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997. Staw, B.M., Bell, N.E. & Clausen, J.A. The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986, 31, 5677. Staw, B.M. & Ross, J. Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1985, 70, 46980. Tait, M., Padgett, M.Y. & Baldwin, T.T. Job and life satisfaction: A re-examination of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date of the study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1989, 74, 5027. Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E. & Hudy, M.J. Overall job satisfaction: How good are singleitem measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, 82(2), 24752. Wright, T.A. & Cropanzano, R. Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2000, 5(1), 8494.

1230

Human Relations 57(9)

Joe Rode is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Richard T. Farmer School of Business at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He received his PhD in organizational behavior and human resources from Indiana University, Bloomington in 2002. His research interests include the relationships between work and nonwork domains and the effects of individual differences on human performance. [E-mail: rodejc@muohio.edu]